www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk LETTERS
Sponsored by
Abbey should look
to itself before
blaming brokers
I write in response to the comments
by Clive Kornitzer, chief operating
officer of Abbey for Intermediaries,
in last week’s issue.
I can’t believe he says that 65%
of cases are shoddily packaged.
Abbey needs to look to itself before
apportioning blame to brokers. In
the last three months I have had
five Abbey cases approved on a
fast-track basis and later have had
additional documentation asked for.
Then, having supplied the
documents required on one
particular case, which comprised
seven pages of an eight-page
document, after five days I was told
to provide page eight.
After speaking to the client and
confirming that page eight of the
document was, as I suspected,
simply a blank sheet of paper at the
end, I conveyed this to Abbey.
“Doesn’t matter,” I was told.
“We need all eight pages, even if
some are blank.”
Rewind 12 months. If you
submitted a case to Abbey you were
virtually certain it was going to be
approved on a fast-track basis,
given that Abbey had something of
a reputation as a volume lender
rather than being particularly
selective.
Not only was it fast-tracked, it
wasn’t uncommon to receive a
mortgage offer within 48 hours of
submission.
Desktop valuation, fast-track
processing, offer all done and on
my desk before I have even sent the
client’s declaration to Abbey. I
couldn’t help but wonder how
enforceable a mortgage contract
could be when it could be offered
without the signature of the client
to agree to the terms and
conditions of the application, but
that’s another story.
Abbey goes from one extreme to
the other, requiring nothing, then
requiring details of borrowers’
inside leg measurements for
identical cases.
Its requests for documents are
slow, its systems are not accurate
and its decisions inconsistent.
If Abbey wants consistently
good information from brokers try
giving consistently good
information to us in the first place.
ROB ROBERTS
SENIOR ADVISER
CHESTERTON GRANT MORTGAGES
BY EMAIL
LTV changes will
just worsen Abbey’s
processing times
I was intrigued by the news last
week that Abbey was increasing
LTVs for fixed rates to 70%
(Mortgage Strategy Online).
While I welcome this news it
would be helpful if Abbey could
process the new business it
currently has in a timely fashion
before putting a further strain on
its administration.
I submitted a case to the lender
online on May 8, its receipt was
acknowledged on May 13 and it was
passed to an underwriter who will
apparently look at it on May 18 – 10
days after submission.
And despite being accepted on a
fast-track basis, if it has any
further requirements it will not
●
YOUR NEXT LETTER TO
MORTGAGE STRATEGY COULD
WIN YOU THIS FANTASTIC BOWMORE
12 YEAR OLD SCOTCH WHISKY
COURTESY OF HODGE LIFETIME.
PLEASE SUPPLY FULL CONTACT DETAILS
instruct the valuation. My clients
are required to exchange contracts
on May 28 and when I asked Abbey
if a case could be prioritised as it
was a purchase not a remortgage, I
was told that no cases were being
prioritised.
KAREN HAYES
DIRECTOR
COLIN HOOKEY MORTGAGE SERVICES
BY EMAIL
FSA is culpable but
question of who
regulates it remains
I am a bit confused. If the Financial
Services Authority regulates and
authorises the individuals who
work in financial services, where is
its intervention with regard to
networks stealing their customers’
monies?
TCF stands for treating
customers fairly. The definition of
the word customer, according to the
Cambridge Dictionary, is a person
who buys goods or a service.
Someone please correct me if I
am wrong with the following –
advisers pay regulatory fees to the
FSA so surely that makes advisers
customers. Does that not mean that
under TCF the FSA should be
protecting advisers from networks
stealing their money?
If we look at the FSA’s
principles on TCF, I wonder how
many of these can refer to network
chief executives and directors.
● Leadership – managers cannot
explain and do not communicate
what the fair treatment of
customers means for them and
their staff and cannot demonstrate
that their staff understand what
MORTGAGE STRATEGY May 25, 2009 17
Prize may vary from picture
fair treatment of customers means.
● Strategy – the firm’s vision is
unclear or contradicts the fair
treatment of customers. It does not
consider the fair treatment of
customers when making key
decisions about future direction.
● Decision making – minimal
evidence that decisions reflect any
consideration of the impact on
customers. The firm is slow or
unwilling to react to customer or
staff feedback. Conflicts between
the interests of shareholders and
customers are consistently and
inappropriately resolved in favour
of shareholders.
● Controls – the firm cannot
evidence customer protection
through its controls, has minimal
management information and does
not use this information to improve
its treatment of customers.
Does this not show that the FSA
has thrown away all regard for the
safety and fair treatment of its
customers, i.e. advisers?
If a client of a firm had their
monies stolen or withheld, they
would make a complaint to the
Financial Ombudsman Service.
Would this not apply to advisers
making a complaint to the FOS
about a network withholding their
monies?
Not only did the FSA miss the
liquidity issues of financial
institutions, it is now also missing
the liquidity problems and
financial standing of networks.
Not only has the public lost out
but advisers have also financially
lost out, and a vast number will be
going out of business due to the
inadequacies of the FSA. Who
regulates the regulator?
DAVE DONCASTER
WORK 2 LIVE
BY EMAIL
To view a Ceros magazine you need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser and have the flash player 8 or higher installed. To install the latest flash player, click the icon above, install the flash plugin and then click here to refresh this page.