View more on these topics

Lloyds’ Peter Curran sets out proc fee reform options

/e/m/l/Lloyds_Banking_Group.jpg

Decision-in-principle to application ratios will not form part of any changes Lloyds Banking Group makes to its procuration fee structure.

Lloyds director of strategic partnerships Peter Curran says a final decision on whether to pay proc-fees based on quality has yet to be made. But he has ruled out using DIP levels as a metric whilst suggesting that an application to conversion ratio could be used in calculations.

In September, Money Marketing revealed Lloyds was considering linking its proc fees to the quality of business submitted.

Curran says: “The only metric which would be off the table would be DIP to application. We’ve decided that this is not one which we would take into account since it is not a great indicator and would not be appropriate.”

“There are a series of metric and discussing points that we can look at. There is an argument to be made for the application to conversion ratio as it is in everyone’s interest to have a more effective and efficient system.”

Abbey for Intermediaries announced in June that it was going to take quality into consideration when paying proc fees.

London and Country head of communications David Hollingworth says: “Dip to app does not really measure anything. It could put people off using decisions in principle because they would not want them to have a negative impact. Whenever there is talk of linking proc fee to anything, it can potentially lead to unintended consequences.”

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. This idea has been thrown around for a while now, and in no way can I ever see it becoming an ‘equitable’ decision in which both parties – lender & broker, are better off. It seems to me, to be a decision which will wholly be in the lender’s favour, or have I missed something and lenders are now going to be paying more money per case?

    I wonder if this will catch on with other business. Imagine a supermarket saying ‘we’re not going to let you buy any of our products unless you can wheel your trolley round our aisles in an orderly manner, and will refrain from using your phones when going through the checkouts’.

    Or perhaps train companies ‘we won’t let you travel on our trains unless you treat other passengers with respect, keep your noise down, do not play music if you are sat next to anyone, and also learn some basic rules of hygiene’.

    Surely the ‘unintended consequences’ will only be experienced by the broker?

  2. Dermot, what wonderful ideas for supermarkets and trains. I look forward to seeing them adopted.

    If you could add a ‘no children’ rule, shopping and travel experiences would be so much more enjoyable.

Leave a comment