I recently got around to reading Alan Cleary’s response to the Dilemma featured in the January 29 issue of Mortgage Strategy.
The question came from a broker confused about how to use fast-track. He had a client with a salary of 100,000 (40,000 basic, the rest commission), and was looking to buy a 300,000 property with an LTV of 75%. Cleary’s response was that it was “wholly inappropriate” to put the client through as fast-track.
I know edeus is trying to get on in the market but I can’t help feeling sorry for the broker who bore the brunt re-garding fast-track – and wrongly so, to boot.
On Cleary’s first point, most big lenders that consider fast-track will do this at 75% LTV. At the moment, Cheltenham & Gloucester is fast-tracking an application for me at 90% LTV (175,000), Abbey at 85% (585,000), Woolwich at 75% (340,000) and Northern Rock at 85% (299,000). The biggest application that has been fast-tracked for me was for 2m by Halifax.
As for being unacceptable, surely if you have a conversation with an underwriter and credit score a case, they will determine whether or not it is acceptable.
The main concern with this case is that many mainstream lenders would do it full status within their normal criteria as the broker didn’t say the client could prove his income, only that he had high bonuses and commission.
So potentially there is no need to fast-track this case unless the lender stipulates, and self-cert should be considered too.
But I question whether this client would be disadvantaged by a lazy app-roach to broking represented by fast-track. If we listened to Cleary, for the broker in this case to be doing their job properly the only option would be self-cert.