Go through any given week and, by the end of those seven days, if you collate all the small annoyances and grievances you’ve had then I suspect you’d be looking at double-figures at least. That’s for anyone in a ‘normal’ job.
I wonder what that number would be for mortgage advisers? Many more I suspect and judging by some of the #BrokerGripes aired on Twitter over the last couple of weeks under this hashtag, then not only could we be beyond double figures but we’d also be looking at a huge variety of things that get under the average advisory skin.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, mortgage procuration fee payment is one of the most talked about gripes and this frustration is completely understandable. As one adviser put it, how can lenders say they’re only able to pay brokers a month after completion, when they can transfer the completion funds on the same day? How indeed. Even talk of a 14-day commitment seems easily achievable but, from what I gather, no lender is in that ball park.
This certainly surprised me, especially when in our conveyancing business we’re able to pay the broker’s fee on exchange, let alone completion. I don’t think advisers would expect lender’s to commit to this type of early payment but you would think, given the systems and the banking facilities now available, that some sort of happy medium could be achieved where advisers are not waiting months for payment.
Talking of conveyancing, again it was not a surprise to see a number of #BrokerGripes focused on this part of the process, in particular the ‘free legals’ service offered by lenders for remortgage clients which, judging by the tweets, can do more harm than good to getting a case completed. One adviser put his gripe as, ‘The atrocious free legal service offered by lenders on remortgage. Give us the option for cashback instead’, and another was clearly annoyed by, ‘Holding for a free legals solicitor’.
This whole issue of ‘free legals’ has been one raised by us for many years, because of the huge disparity in service the client is likely to get, but also because after all the solicitor here is representing the lender not the client. As our adviser friend points out above, far better for the client to take the cashback on offer and put this towards their own solicitor. That’s depending of course on that cashback being available, but if it is then we would urge advisers to recommend such a course of action to their clients – it may mean far greater peace of mind for all concerned.
Finally, and again this gripe focused on conveyancing, one adviser said he was less than happy with, ‘Those conveyancers who don’t seem to grasp the concept of communication’. Now, to give conveyancing firms their dues, I think the sector has come on leaps and bounds in terms of keeping all parties informed – indeed, trade bodies like the Conveyancing Association have strict protocols on how member firms should do this, how many times people should be updated and the best methods. But, I fully sympathise with an adviser who might feel out of the loop at some points.
That said, a major positive is that the adviser is still in the loop in the first place and I would hope this meant he or she had recommended the conveyancing firm in order to keep that level (or otherwise) of control. This is a major step forward and is one I would certainly recommend they pursue – however, communication breakdown in some cases is almost (I hate to say this) inevitable. The important point is to make that recommendation, to have the ways and means to follow that case properly, to keep in constant contact with the client and to make sure the conveyancing firm is aware of its responsibilities to keep you all up to speed. It can be frustrating but I tend to think that such #BrokerGripes can be kept to a minimum by following such a process.
Harpal Singh is managing director of BrokerConveyancing.co.uk
