www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk LETTERS
Sponsored by
rise for many small businesses.
As a result of the efforts of
many organisations a compromise
was reached with the introduction
of entrepreneurial relief that
protects small business owners.
This year those who have
invested in furnished holiday home
accommodation are faced with the
chancellor’s decision to end tax
breaks next April for people who
rent out such properties.
The impact will be significant
on rural economies that depend on
a wide range of accommodation to
generate tourist income – not just
flats and houses but also
self-catering units and caravans.
For many the loss of this tax
relief will transform their financial
viability and force people to give up
their properties.
This will have a knock-on effect
on the tourist industry given the
millions of holiday-makers who
rely on rented accommodation and
bring considerable spending power
with them. It is not just UK visitors
but people from overseas who use
rented accommodation.
Like thousands of people who
invested in holiday property this is
part of our retirement planning.
Once again we are faced with
the threat of an 80% tax hike on
selling the business, which I believe
is nothing less than a badly thought
out attack on second home owners,
done for political reasons.
I have never been aware of any
European Union attempt to
equalise the tax treatment of
holiday homes or any lobby group
pressing for such a measure.
Indeed it is difficult to see any
benefit, and the return – a saving of
£20m – seems out of proportion to
the potential damage to the tourist
industry it will cause. We have
always been encouraged to plan for
our retirement and these measures
have a negative effect on such
planning in this economic climate.
JOHN GILBERT
CHIEF EXECUTIVE
JGFR
BY EMAIL
Woolwich’s direct
approach does not
lead to lost business
I must take up Malcolm Dunn’s
assertion in the June 8 issue of
Mortgage Strategy that Woolwich is
trying to muscle out brokers.
I’ve not been the biggest fan of
Woolwich in recent years,
especially because of the problems
encountered with its somewhat
geographically challenging call
centre strategy.
But Dunn’s point just isn’t
right. Yes, funds are tight and I
recently missed out on a PMS
allocation. But being registered
with more than one club helps as
does phoning at 9am or whatever
time the funds line opens.
I’ve placed two cases this month
without an issue. I would also
suggest that Dunn uses his sales
ability instead of moaning that the
Woolwich has nabbed his
protection business. Being
independent, offering cashback or
discounting the premium are all
potential hooks for clients.
I have no problem in securing
the protection business in most
cases where clients go direct.
Indeed, there have been
numerous cases where the
protection commission has
comfortably exceeded any proc fee I
●
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
would have received so clients
going direct can be an advantage in
my book.
RUSS STEIN
DIRECTOR
STEIN FINANCIAL
BY EMAIL
The FSA’s vetting
procedure does not
seem to check out
I was intrigued to read that the
Financial Services Authority has
banned another broker (Mortgage
Strategy Online). Talk about
locking the stable door after the
horse has bolted. Here is one quote
from the FSA on the banning of an
adviser.
Jonathan Phelan, head of retail
enforcement at the FSA, says: “As
part of our crackdown on financial
crime in the mortgage market we
have banned more than 40
mortgage brokers and others in the
last two years and we will continue
to ban people who either commit
mortgage fraud or fail to prevent
their firm from being used to
further financial crime.”
Brokers who have been banned
since the turn of the year detailed
in Mortgage Strategy include:
● February 23: Oxford House
Financial Services – fraudulent
mortgages applied for and failed to
declare two County Court
judgements.
● March 16: Renbe Associates –
fraudulent mortgages applied for.
● April 13: UK Finance House –
fraudulent mortgages applied for.
● April 20: Herald Finance –
fraudulent mortgages applied for.
● May 18: Sofique Ullah –
MORTGAGE STRATEGY June 22 2009 17
Prize may vary from picture
fraudulent mortgages applied for.
● May 18: 1st Point Financial –
fraudulent mortgages applied for
and concealed fraudulent
convictions.
All these brokers were directly
authorised. That means the FSA
should have followed its own rules –
oops sorry, principles – and done a
complete vetting and referencing
process to identify fitness and
propriety.
Most networks would be making
sure they get a full credit check and
a Criminal Records Bureau check
done on every individual who
applies to join.
Why did the FSA not do this on
at least two of the individuals
mentioned in this letter. One had
previous CCJs which would have
been identified on a credit check
and the other had fraud
convictions, which would have
come up on a CRB check.
The FSA comes out with big
statements that it is performing a
massive crackdown on fraudulent
advisers and then mentions in the
statement proof of its
inadequacies. If any of these
advisers had been appointed
representatives, the FSA would
have come down on their networks
like a ton of bricks.
Most of the fraud cases could
have been prevented if the FSA did
its job properly and lenders hadn’t
turned to irresponsible lending just
for higher market share.
For the past year, I have been
studying for my CeMAP 1 exam but
have decided to stop as I no longer
wish to be an authorised individual
in an industry that is regulated by
such an inept organisation.
DAVE DONCASTER
W2L
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.