View more on these topics

CML fights for non-advised sales in MMR response

The Council of Mortgage Lenders has submitted its response to the mortgage market review, in which it calls for lenders’ call centre staff to be exempt from offering advice.

The trade body says the requirement for lenders to offer advice where there is spoken or interactive dialogue is likely to have a disproportionate impact on lenders’ direct sales channels, particularly telephone and online sales.

It says the proposals will reduce efficiency and increase costs and may result in lenders reducing the amount they can lend.

In its response the CML says: “If the FSA persists with this approach, we suggest that by imposing a process that is developed for face-to-face sales onto remote channels, it will hinder those channels which allow for a relatively easy point of access for new entrants into the mortgage market.

“We are concerned that advice proposals will make it even more challenging for new players to enter the market and thus the end effect will be to restrict competition.

“Those lenders that have chosen not to distribute via intermediaries will be impacted most severely and we think that new entrants looking at offering sales directly to borrowers may find the entry costs significantly increased, particularly if their application was started under the current MCOB regime.”

It adds: “We believe that the basic definition of advice is drawn too widely and needs amendment, if consumers are not to be unnecessarily irritated by a requirement to go through an advice process in circumstances where it may not be necessary to do so.”

It estimates that the average advised sale may take up to 1.7 hours longer than a non-advised equivalent and to maintain their current number of sales some lenders would need a commensurate increase in staff or to readdress their business model by starting to sell mortgages via intermediaries.

The CML says: “This is likely to have a disproportionate impact on lenders that do not distribute via intermediaries and all non-house purchase transactions and variations.”

It also argues that given the breadth and scale of the changes that are being proposed it will be impossible for the majority of lenders to impose the changes in 12 months.

Recommended

Another senior departure at Aviva Investors

Aviva Investors global head of products Jeremy Soutter is the latest big name to leave the firm following a restructure of its global workforce. Soutter joined Aviva in 1999, he was previously technical director at Henderson from 1990 to 1997. His departure follows that of Aviva Investors chief executive of the UK funds business John […]

Santander tightens interest-only noose

Santander has further tightened its interest-only criteria and will no longer accept pensions, the sale of a second property, bonuses or cash savings as repayment vehicles. The move, which was revealed by Moneymarketing.co.uk, takes effect from March 28 and comes less than two months after it slashed its maximum loan-tovalue ratio for interest-only lending from […]

john howard
5

How the FCA plans to get retail banks to toe the line

The recently published retail conduct risk outlook from the FSA is the first major publication from the regulator with Martin Wheatley’s signature on it. Wheatley will head the new regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority, in about a year’s time. As the outlook is the FSA’s view of potential dangers up to 18 months ahead, does […]

Bond sectors dominate sales, IMA stats

Over half a billion pounds was invested across the leading bond sectors in February, according to figures from the Investment Management Association. The IMA corporate bond sector was the biggest seller for the second successive month, with £254m of net retail sales. The figure is down on the £303m taken in January, but well above […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 2 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Ha ha ha ha!! Our fair weather friends ! Watch them squirm for a change!

  2. Well there you are now. I have come across clients who have first gone directly to the lender and have end up coming to me “BECAUSE THE BANK WOULDN’T LISTEN TO THEM”. The staff had an agenda tha they were “pushing” and didn’t want to do what the client wanted – to the detriment of the client. The CML want to maintain this no responsibility for their own ends and not for the client’s benefit! (PPI anyone?)

Leave a comment