View more on these topics

Pat Bunton: Chancellor has just half of the facts on mortgage prisoner ‘scandal’

Bunton-Pat-AMI-2013-480

Yesterday, Chancellor George Osborne quite rightly questioned the absurdity of an existing borrower who has not missed payments being told by a lender that they cannot afford a new mortgage at a lower rate.

Bravo, Mr Osborne, you are spot on and it is great that you have twigged this absolute scandal that has been working against consumers for the past two years. Credit also to Martin Lewis, of MoneySavingExpert, for gaining your ear on this.

It would appear, however, that Mr Osborne has not been given all of the facts, at least not in an unbiased way. Whilst Martin Lewis explained things fully, it would appear that others may be trying to portray an alternate and fictitious reality to try to downplay the real issues the MMR has created.

Ever since the MMR lenders have tucked up sections of their back books by implementing transitional provisions for existing customers, but not new ones, despite the fact the provisions were specifically designed to cover both types of borrower.

The FCA pointed out correctly that transitional provisions on affordability could not be applied post-Mortgage Credit Directive as it required an affordability assessment on all new cases – and this was also an over simplification that has not helped either.

I remember clearly when this last minute entry into the FCA’s MCD implementation thinking surfaced that many lenders breathed a huge sigh of relief. Deep down they knew that partial use of transitional provisions in such a market-wide fashion laid them open to the charge that they were benefiting at borrowers’ expense.

Here is the crux of my problem: while MCD states that an affordability assessment must take place, it does not stipulate the form of that assessment.

Being a reasonable person I think it is fair to say that a borrower who has maintained all existing mortgage payments; is not borrowing more money; has a clear credit check; can evidence their current income; and has not racked up other borrowing can be fairly assessed as meeting any ‘reasonable’ affordability test, whether they be staying put, or switching lender.

Perversely, many lenders have taken a different view, as many seem to think that if these questions relate to an existing customer, it is fine and they will let them take a product transfer, but God forbid that they relate to a new customer.

Bizarrely, the customers may be exact clones but the new borrower may be told: “We are very sorry but we can’t lend to you as we don’t believe the mortgage you want (and have been paying) is affordable.”

This is an absolute scandal.

So who exactly benefits when borrowers are stripped of their right to vote with their feet – the lender, or the borrower?

I have shouted about this loud and hard to lenders, trade bodies and regulators alike for the past two years.

Despite presenting the facts, I was amazed to read FCA’s Mortgage Market Competition & Responsible Lending Reviews saying that there was no material issue with mortgage prisoners.

This view feeds into Mr Osborne’s letter where the FCA is referenced in the last paragraph alongside an assurance about lenders using transitional provisions.

Yes, Mr Osborne, lenders are using them, but only for existing customers. And in so doing they are stripping many customers of their ability to vote with their feet and search for a better deal.

At the very least lenders should either be forced to apply transitional provisions in a fair and consistent way to both new and existing customers (i.e, not for one, but not the other) or offer their new business products to existing customers.These actions would rebalance matters and make things fairer for hard working borrowers who have met all of their past commitments.

The FCA’s has recently published its Business Plan, which included the treatment of existing customers as one of seven key themes. Now is the time for them to take a leadership position on this and place consumers’ interests first.

Many product transfers executed by lenders for existing customers are conveniently carried out on an execution-only basis without the advice that would, in many instances, have been compulsory if they had been a new borrower. This creates yet more consumer detriment with the lenders interests trumping those of their borrowers.

A major lender has recently estimated that this hidden, unreported part of the market (retention product transfers) may now amount to as much as £80-100 billion. I am sure that for such a significant amount of lending the FCA will be able to provide full data on these breakdowns in both the lender and intermediary channels. In a £220bn market, this is a very significant chunk of business.

I can only think that certain parties have had the wool pulled over their eyes before reaching certain conclusions. The only alternative is that they have knowingly ignored such an important issue – either way it is scary.

Pat Bunton is chairman of the Association of Mortgage Intermediaries and a director of London & Country Mortgages

Recommended

Lynda Blackwell FCA
1

FCA: ‘Lenders increasingly using transitional arrangements’

Lenders are increasingly using the transitional arrangements written into the MMR to stop borrowers becoming trapped, says the FCA. The transitional arrangements have been a hot topic of late and lenders have come under fire for their reluctance to use them. They allow lenders to waive affordability checks for borrowers who may be trapped under […]

Mortgage-Regulation-Book-Gavel-700.jpg

Small mutuals use transitional rules to gain from big lenders

Small building societies are using the MMR’s transitional arrangements to mop up business from bigger lenders. Last week, Ipswich and Melton Mowbray building societies publicly stated they were using the transitional arrangements to target borrowers from other lenders, as the rules allow. The FCA introduced the transitional arrangements within the MMR to help borrowers who […]

Comments
  • Post a comment
  • Pat Buntin 19th May 2016 at 2:43 pm

    Sorry, you are missing the point – this is simply about the fair treatment of customers

  • Carl McGovern 19th May 2016 at 1:56 pm

    Not only are lenders not bothering with an affordability check on existing customers, they quite often encourage a customer to switch their product without advice. On more than one occasion, I have found myself offering advice to someone, who has switched products without advice and realised how dangerous this can be.

    One such client approached me recently, as her lender had told her she couldn’t port her product and therefore had to pay the ERC of over £5,000. On investigation, I found she had switched to a new product around 3 months earlier, despite having her property on the market at the time. She had responded to a letter advising her that the deal she was on, was coming to an end and what her options were. The client took what was offered, with no advise, not realising that her future purchase was classed as semi commercial, so on her sale was understandably unable to port the product over. Had the product switch been carried out on an advised basis of course, the adviser would probably have known this and recommended that she stay on the SVR and therefore not haver the penalty on her subsequent sale. On approaching the lender to complain, she was told, as no advise was offered, no redress was due. this particular lender has a habit of writing to customers early and offering to switch a client, before the current deal ends and waives the penalty if they do so.

  • Steven Balmer 19th May 2016 at 12:35 pm

    Overlooking an essential point, it is a lenders commercial decision if it should make a loan to an individual or not and the FCA quite rightly will not get involved in dictating this. Mortgage Prisoner status relates to existing borrowers who already have debt and will not be looking to increase this debt burden or associated risk therefore you miss the Hippocratic point Mr Bunton.