View more on these topics

Alan Lakey: Further evidence of lender rigidity

In a previous column, I commented on the mindless rigidity displayed by many lenders when assessing mortgage applications. A process, which ought to be streamlined due to the experience and knowledge of the lenders, has been turned into an obstacle course worthy of the Royal Marines.

While it goes against the grain, I have to accept that lenders call the shots and they can create whatever labyrinthine procedures their process-driven mentalities can conjure. Much of this nonsense stems from the MMR which highlights yet again the consequences of theorists distorting the market with their notions and beliefs.

The latest and most pernicious example comes from Abbey for Intermediaries, a name as distanced from reality as Ivan the Compassionate and Attila the Samaritan.

On this occasion, Abbey issued a mortgage offer which some weeks later, without notifying either myself or the applicants, it summarily “pended”, which is its sugared term for suspended. All this without any comment or apology. Now, in my experience, having a mortgage offer suspended or rescinded is only ever due to fraud or some major misrepresentation by the applicant or introducer.

To its credit, Abbey accepted from the outset that neither I nor the applicants had committed any fraud or error of any sort. It fully accepted that the error was its alone – that it had made underwriting errors and had issued the offer with some information outstanding.

You might imagine that in such an instance it would accept its error, shrug it off and allow the clients to exchange contracts. Not so, apparently rules are rules and these must be obeyed to the letter. When told that the clients would like to sue, I was assured that Abbey would meet all costs of delay, running into thousands of pounds, rather than honour the original offer.

My clients were working to a fine timeline where they had to exchange and move during the holidays so that their children could be at their new school by the start of term. With this in mind, they were letting their existing property and remortgaging it which, with the encashment of their investments, allowed them to borrow from Abbey at 18 per cent LTV, hardly high-risk lending.

Abbey failed to cotton on to the fact that the borrowers were retaining their existing property – even though this was made clear within the application. As a result, it suspended the offer as it needed more information, some of which it had but failed to realise, with an emphasis on proof of deposit.

Various bank statements and investment encashments had already been sent but these did not equal the deposit required, no surprise as the encashments had yet to feed through to the bank account. Being continually told that Abbey is a responsible lender does not cut any ice with me or my clients and I questioned the need for proof of deposit. I suggested it think it through, that if at exchange stage the clients had been sufficiently imbecilic to have insufficient deposit, then the Abbey funds would not be drawn down, therefore, there would be no risk to it whatsoever. As we all know, logic plays no part in today’s mortgage underwriting process and my words were to no avail.

Abbey relented somewhat but continued to insist on proof of deposit and a screen dump was finally accepted. As I write this, the funds have been released and the exchange has taken place. A case of wine has been promised to the clients and I wait to see whether a bottle of brown ale, or maybe sangria, heads my way.

Alan Lakey is partner at Highclere Financial Services


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 3 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Alan

    I totally agree with you that some lenders should be ashamed of themselves on how long they are taking to process a mortgage application.

    In fact I have one at present which is a clean case and the lender in question has not issued a mortgage offer after eight weeks. When is the regulator going to start fining banks and building societies are not having adequate systems in place to deal with workloads.

    Some lenders have such a lack of staff that delays are inevitable and until the regulator starts to enforce rules around adequate systems the problems will continue. You only have to look at the number of jobs that have gone in banks to see that some are having real problems with processing business – come on regulator step up to the plate and start forcing lenders to employee adequate staff numbers and also forced them to train their staff better.

  2. Alan, you’re not the only one suffering at the hands of the Shabby Abbey/Santander. I have recently tried to submit a DIP /AIP through their online system only to have it declined. I had utilised their Affordability calculator and that confirmed that we could borrow over £200,000. We were looking for £144,000.

    I then spoke to the help desk. A very helpful and apologetic lady who confirmed that although the clients income was sufficient for the mortgage because they were borrowing over 75% they did not meet the risk criteria. She suggested i try another lender.

    Did i mention that these people are existing Abbey borrowers, who 3 years ago borrowed a higher % than they now wish to borrow. They wish to move to a bigger house. They have never been in arrears with either the mortgage or any other credit.

    I stopped using the Abbey 2 years ago because of their appaling admin and several official complaint against them.

    It would appear nothing has improved. It’s no wonder the housing market is so slow and depressed when lender will not lend.

    I for one will be steering well clear of the Abbey.

  3. I think that the problems with lenders will get worse. Examples. One lender taking nearly weeks to review the paperwork, ask for some more and will take 3 weeks to review the additional.

    One lender issue an off (not the Abbey) weeks later issues another one(10 mins later litterally withdraws both offers) still going on. Wanted paperwork which they should have asked for before going to offer, Client paid a non refundable deposit based on the first offer. so if it changes
    their mind, this is going to cause chaos apart from the l;ost deposit, stress caused to the cleint and increased cost to me.trying to sort it. This means two lenders will be off my Christmas Card list and I will have to explain to new clients that whilst their interest rates are probably the cheapest in the market their admin is crap, Then ask them what they want,

Leave a comment


Why register with Money Marketing ?

Providing trusted insight for professional advisers.  Since 1985 Money Marketing has helped promote and analyse the financial adviser community in the UK and continues to be the trusted industry brand for independent insight and advice.

News & analysis delivered directly to your inbox
Register today to receive our range of news alerts including daily and weekly briefings

Money Marketing Events
Be the first to hear about our industry leading conferences, awards, roundtables and more.

Research and insight
Take part in and see the results of Money Marketing's flagship investigations into industry trends.

Have your say
Only registered users can post comments. As the voice of the adviser community, our content generates robust debate. Sign up today and make your voice heard.

Register now

Having problems?

Contact us on +44 (0)20 7292 3712

Lines are open Monday to Friday 9:00am -5.00pm