Missed credit card payment could hinder FSA authorisation
Share
The Association of Mortgage Intermediaries has warned that if the Financial Services Authority adopts a retrospective authorisation process for approved persons it could result in brokers not gaining authorisation because of minor credit blips.
AMI has published its response to the FSA’s consultation paper on the ‘Mortgage Market Review: Arrears and Approved Persons today.
Robert Sinclair, director of AMI, says it has consistently argued for the introduction of an individual register for the mortgage industry. But he says: “We are concerned at the potential impact on intermediaries if FSA was to adopt a full retrospective authorisation process.
“We do not think this should be used as an opportunity to reassess all individuals’ fitness and propriety to continue to operate in the mortgage industry. There is a danger that the assessment could exclude anyone with even a relatively minor blip in their credit history, such as a missed credit card payment.
“As mortgage advisers are not holding client money, we recommend a more measured approach.”
AMI also wants to see any register applied equally across the industry and include all sales staff as well as intermediaries.
Sinclair says: “The register must also make clear exactly what each individual’s role is so consumers know who they are dealing with and what actions they are permitted to perform.”
He adds: “The regulator has identified a general market failure as justification for making these proposed changes. But it has not identified the specific failures that occurred and that would have been prevented had the proposed authorisation process been in place.
’FSA should conduct further analysis to establish whether full authorisation will achieve the desired outcome.”
If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Mortgage Strategy and Follow @mortgagestrat
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Readers' comments (16)
Matthew Gamble | 21 May 2010 4:26 pm
That would be rich, the FSA banning brokers who have had a minor blip on their credit commitments, when it was the brokers who needed help from the FSA in getting paid. What were they doing when there was uproar about Networks failing to meet their commitments, they just put their heads in the sand with Network Data, Mortgage Times, and nearly recently HOC.
They are so out of touch with the real world is beggers belief.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Philip Curnow | 21 May 2010 4:39 pm
Well . . . being fairly heavy handed with regulations could have a positive effect. But it needs to be right accross the board. Therefore, any staff member at all working for the FSA should be fired who has any slight connection with any company who has given bad advice . . . and the banks of course, anbody working in ANY sector of financial services should be sacked for the slightest financial indescretion, however many years ago it was . . . same goes for Solicitors and Accountants of course . . . plus our Politicans (Local and Central Government) . . . AND perhaps any civil servants as well . . . so that should leave about two people in the country working vaguely in "Finance" . . . honestly, how silly can you get - and how far do you take it ?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Maurice Edgington | 21 May 2010 4:42 pm
I would not like to think that what has been suggested is really in the minds of the FSA. I would expect the FSA to want to know about serious issues relating to individuals that could be masked in the current system. I cannot see the FSA taking up credit searches on evey person in the industry...that is a crazy idea. Lets be positive for once. The regulator has made mistakes but it may be right to have the roles of individuals made clear and criminals or dubious people barred or excluded.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 21 May 2010 5:06 pm
We know the FSA apply a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
Very little of what they do is ever proportional to the risk or takes any realistic consideration of the cost.
A full-blown approval process is not needed to keep track of advisers - a simple list would solve the problem! An addendum to the FSA Register could list the adviser's details, qualifications and where he works. If he moves, each firm would be responsible for notifying the FSA (subject to a fine if they don't do it).
The cost in both time and money for firms to go through a full authorisation process as a Controlling Function for MGI sales is overkill.
Why don't they try this method first. If it is not successful, then the full regime could be introduced later (by which time, hopefully, the FSA will have been replaced!)
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mark Hayman | 21 May 2010 5:08 pm
I think this is just another way to diminish the broker market further. Having just been through the worst recession in my lifetime why should mortgage brokers be treated any differently to any other industry with regards to their own finances...Would you stop a Dentist from treating his patients because he didn't brush his teeth twice a day or to bring it back to the case at hand why should brokers be financially better off in these difficult times than any one else, especially if they are self employed? How also are they going to treat those poor network members who have had their commission withheld by failing networks and as a result struggled to meet their own financial commitments through no fault of their own.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Peter Gladdy | 21 May 2010 5:43 pm
Whilst I have the greatest respect for Robert and all at AMI this suggestion is complete overkill. The FSA have always asked questions regarding previous credit history and criminal convictions, including drink driving, as part of their Approved Persons process but each case is treated entirely on its own merit, i.e. what is important is not the fact that someone has a CCJ but the circumstances in which it occurred and how it was then dealt with one the judgement was made. Providing that intermediaries are honest in their applications and provide the FSA with all the facts then they should have nothing what so ever to fear. lets not blow these things out of proportion.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
henry evans | 21 May 2010 8:12 pm
Perhaps before the FSA take any steps to further reduce the number of mortgage brokers, penalising them because of minor indiscretions, possibly created through no fault of the broker they should look at themselves. Are there any staff at the FSA with a poor credit rating who might be involved in directing the rest of us in all we do? Of course. I worked for a clearing bank for 27 years. Are the FSA going to get rid of those thousands of staff members with missed paayments? FSA, you have graeter problems, mostly of your own making, to attend to if you are to survive.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 21 May 2010 8:34 pm
Mr Cameronwill sort it before it happens - lets hope voting blue means the end to the FSA!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Michael B Gillis | 21 May 2010 10:05 pm
Of course. We, as FSA authorised individuals, should demand the right to investigate the credit files of all FSA employed executives/personnel/staff etc to ensure that they have a perfect credit history, otherwise we demand their removal from working for the FSA as they are not fit and proper to do so.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Ancient Wisdom | 22 May 2010 10:19 am
..the FSA will never cease to amaze.
the FSA allow executives at banks to get away with bringing the collapse of banks and walk freely, yet punish hard working advisers.
Networks collapsing, directors walking away with millions and their livelihoods in tact, and advisers losing commissions in the worst recession, after months of hard work - no wonder they fall behind with payments.
Its a stab in the back, with the twists of the knives.
every day, I question my ability to continue in this industry, knowing I have helped people buy their homes, get independent advice without thinking of 'targets' and reading constantly of poorly advised bank customers.
This all stinks.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment