This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Find out more here.
X
Categories:Other

Lending practices must be more flexible

  • Print
  • Comments (4)

Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools, so stated Solon, lawmaker of Athens. I cannot imagine he had mortgage lending practices in mind but his statement resonates with the idiocy that frames the current lending policies.

Lending practices are substantially different to those endured just three small years ago and not for the better. It is not so much a change as a mutation - one from a flawed but sentient being into some robotic simulacrum of a thinking creature.

Never has this been more evident to me than travails suffered this week at the hands of lenders that choose to sacrifice common sense and logic at the shrine of process and inflexibility.

In seeking an appropriate buy-to-let mortgage for my first-time buyer client, I settled on Leeds Building Society. Unlike most lenders, its terms state that first-time buyers will get individual consideration. I phoned for such consideration and was advised that the case appeared to be an excellent one - 48 per cent loan to value for an army lieutenant earning £30,000 and holding an investment portfolio valued at £640,000.

The decision in principle was successful and a full application followed. The following week, I received a voicemail advising that as a first-time buyer, he was ineligible. I telephoned and, at this point, the phrase “talking to a small cat” sprang to mind. The department manager, who was far too busy and important to speak with me, advised through his junior that as the applicant had no credit history, they were unable to proceed. Why would somebody with £640,000 of investments require credit, I asked.

In short, despite being told that the case was excellent and despite every aspect fitting their criteria, this low-risk case was turned away by a failure to exercise common sense.

Similarly, I looked towards Precise Mortgages for finance for a client with a chequered credit history. Again, a discussion with the sales team elicited a “yes” and I began the Dip process. The client wanted £120,000 on £315,000 - 34 per cent LTV - and income fitted. Oh dear, horror of horrors, he was looking to buy a new property from plan and Precise Mortgages will not allow an application for any property that is less than five years old.

So, while an 80 per cent application for a six-year-old property would be successful, a much lower 34 per cent risk is declined for reasons that are not apparent to any free-thinking person. I realise that new builds are often over-valued and for this reason LTVs are frequently limited to 80 per cent or so but this was a 34 per cent application.

Maybe things were too easy five years back. Maybe easy credit made for lax lending practices, loans on a self-cert basis, loans to recently discharged bankrupts, etc. But now we have this unyielding obedience to rules that are designed to constrain lending. A systemic reluctance to challenge the rigidity of rules that have been designed to remove consideration and calculation from the process.

It makes for a quicker, smoother underwriting process but at a cost of rejecting good applications, irritating potential borrowers and alienating advisers.

Alan Lakey is partner at Highclere Financial Services

  • Print
  • Comments (4)

Daily Email Updates
If you enjoyed this article, sign up to receive the latest news and analysis from Money Marketing.

The Money Marketing CPD Centre
Build your annual CPD - you can log and plan your CPD hours for free with The Money Marketing CPD Centre.

Taxbriefs Advantage
Advantage is a digital reference source giving unbiased, independent, answers to your technical queries. Subscribe to Taxbriefs Advantage.

Readers' comments (4)

  • Perhaps this is the unintended consequence of a TCF policy? If there is one set of rules for all clients to follow then no lender can be seen to be preferring one client aganist another. This would infer a fair system ensuring that no client would have a successful claim about being discriminated against. But the lender' s have to lend to make a buck so how are they going to do it? I estimate that 60% of my residential mortgages since 1.1.2011 have not proceeded to offer due to lenders/ underwriters declining pre-DIP's cases. Good job I have some Buy to Let clients otherwise the FSA wouldn't be getting any fee's from me as I wouldn't be trading!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Due to the stupidity of many managers and local lenders in the past, the head offices are taking it out of the hands of local branches and making everything computer driven. When did you last speak to a computer!

    I hope that Alan Lakey has a long memory and never considers the Leeds again for a mortgage if he has the ability to go elsewhere. Wait until the markets turns and they are throwing money out of the door once again (if that ever happens).

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I totally agree with Alan's comments. It makes the decision in principle a pointless exercise if lenders aren't going to honour it - they haven't actually made a decision to accept have they?

    It also shows the almost total absence of understanding of risk. The genuine, knowledgeable underwriters were all disposed of long ago because allegedly credit scoring could do it all. Now that credit scoring has been seen to fail lenders need to recruit, or train, underwriters. And the Leeds and Precise do not seem to be the only ones who have failed to undertsand this.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I'm in full agreement too. We just had the same thing happen to us with Leeds BS.

    After being granted a DIP and being told to go off and find a home. We sold our current one, had an offer accepted on a new one and when we went back to finalise were told that the application had been declined due to a late payment to a catalogue company seven months prior.
    We tried in vain to explain that this was due to the arrival of our son and it had slipped our minds but was indeed paid. This made no difference to the computer...so we have now had to disappoint our buyer and the of home we intended to buy.
    We have been customers at Leeds for 10years!! It will come as no surprise to learn that we are transporting our mortgage elsewhere after this ridiculous farce.
    We have a joint annual income of £105,000 and have never made a late mortgage payment. We were applying for 237,00 which is just over 2x our annual salaries.
    The market is NEVER going to get moving whilst such staid criteria and attitudes exist

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your sayEdit my profile/screen name

You must sign in to make a comment

Fund Data

Editor's Pick



Poll

Do you think other insurers will follow Legal & General and quit the ABI?

Job of the week

Latest jobs

View all jobs

Most recent comments

View more comments