AfI gets tough on income proof for fast-track
Share
Abbey for Intermediaries will now require brokers to keep proof of income for all fast-track applications for two years, or they could face being banned from using the facility.
AfI currently carries out random monthly sampling checks on brokers that have submitted fast-track transactions.
If a broker fails to prove the client’s income there has up until now been no consequences.
But from March 1, if a broker fails to supply evidence of their client’s income, fast-track will be removed for the individual broker and they will not be paid a proc fee.
Where a broker has been removed for three months they can then reapply for fast-track by signing a document outlining that they understand and agree to the terms of the fast-track requirements.
“We are in the process of campaigning to ensure that fast-track is seen as a valuable service which the intermediary industry as a whole can benefit from.”
A spokesman from AfI
If there was to be a second failure, the broker would be banned from using AfI’s fast-track proposition again.
AfI says that from its past experience brokers have not always kept the client’s proof of income.
A spokesman for AfI, says: “We are in the process of campaigning to ensure that fast-track is seen as a valuable service which the intermediary industry as a whole can benefit from.
“We’ve proven that, when properly managed, fast-track is not a driver of arrears or repossessions and we are pleased with how fast- track has performed within our business.
“Our recent communications on fast-track are to ensure that as a community we are all working towards the same goal. If you are using the fast-track system as it was designed, i.e., ensuring that you collect and retain satisfactory evidence of income from your customer at point of sale, these changes will not affect you.
“Only people not adhering to our requirements for fast-track applications will be affected by changes we are making”.
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 (19)
Anonymous | 19 Feb 2010 4:12 pm
Does this also apply to Abbey/Santander branch advisers?
I do not think so!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Derek Frost | 19 Feb 2010 4:13 pm
Why wait, let's have the declaration for signing now. The sooner responsibility is formalised the better in my opinion!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 19 Feb 2010 4:14 pm
Abbey should quit trying to put the onus on brokers. If they want proof of income, then they should ask for it for EVERY application and forget fast-track alltogether. What is the use otherwise?
Just another example of Abbey's apalling behaviour to brokers who have been their lifeblood for years. Cros selling, dual pricing, contacting clients 6m before their current deal ends and atrocious service are all to blame.
Its not worth the apalling proc fees and service.
Santander management should take note of this.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Simon | 19 Feb 2010 4:21 pm
I thought it was a FSA requirement to have evidence of a clients income and expenditure so as to show that the mortgage is affordable for the client.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
John Wilson | 19 Feb 2010 4:23 pm
Does this also apply to Abbey/Santander branch advisers?
I do not think so!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
David Tyler | 19 Feb 2010 4:24 pm
This is a surprising statement to most brokers I imagine. Who have AFI been dealing with? It is worrying that they think a "campaign" is necessary. I, and any other professional broker, will always keep proof of income on file. I am sure the FSA expect that!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Nick Hopkins Mortgage Broker | 19 Feb 2010 4:30 pm
If you ever needed a reason (there has been many in the past) not to use Abbey, you now you have a great one.
Iam fed up of lazy lenders not underwriting properly and trying to pass the buck back to us, the broker. Either underwrite properly or I suggest you pull fastrack completely.
Iam also insulted at the tone of the statement issued from abbey.
Why dont you pull fasttrack completely? I know why because you need it to streamline your underwriting. I think you need it more than brokers do!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Neil Williams | 19 Feb 2010 4:30 pm
I cant believe so many brokers are leaving themselves wideopen to scutiny by not taking evidence of income and retaining it for every client-Fools springs to mind!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Michael | 19 Feb 2010 5:17 pm
Oh dear.Typical lender reaction 'the FSA wants to discuss fast tracking ' so lets go gung ho and just do away with it anyhow,since they have jsut said they want to talk about it.A gutless, gormless reaction to an out of control regulator.
They sure as hell wont do this on their direct offering (non advised by the way,which is the real enemy).So one rule for them another for us.
Don't know about the rest of you but I'm tired of lenders pushing us around.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Stuart | 19 Feb 2010 5:25 pm
What is clear now is that Fast track is only of benefit to Abbey themselves in that it enables them to keep their costs down & means they can compete unfairly with their competitors. Puts their campaign to save fast track into perspective doesn't it!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment