The FSA today proposes to ban non-advised mortgage sales, although all but the 'vulnerable' or those accessing higher-risk products will be able to opt-out of advice or reject it and proceed on an execution-only basis.
The regulator's latest consultation paper as part of its Mortgage Market Review (MMR) suggests all intermediaries must assess product suitability and offer advice whenever there is spoken or other 'interactive' dialogue with buyers.
However, with the exception of sale and rent back (SRB) consumers, the regulator proposed those who reject the advice they have been given may still go ahead and purchase the product they want on an execution-only basis.
Additionally, high-net-worth individuals and mortgage professionals will be allowed to opt out of advice.
'Interactive' dialogue includes face-to-face, telephone, social media or online propositions with the facility for live chats.
The FSA said it hoped to reduce consumer confusion over when they have and have not received advice. It said its previous proposals of applying the same sales standards across all sales, whether advised or not, would merely blur matters further.
Direct online sales and postal sales where there is no other interaction between consumers and lenders will also not fall under the advice requirements.
"Vulnerable" customers accessing higher-risk products, including equity release, SRB, right to buy and those consolidating debt, will not be allowed to opt out of advice. This also bars them from non-interactive sales processes, such as online or by post.
Nevertheless, the FSA said it believed consumers should retain the right to make their own choices. The FSA has decided not to make advice for first-time buyers or credit-impaired customers compulsory.
In addition, to prevent any abuse of the exemption of non-interactive sales processes from advice, the FSA has proposed a new rule expressly forbidding brokers from encouraging clients towards this route in order to circumvent advised sales standards.
Therefore, all consumers, with the exception of sale and rent back customers, will be allowed to reject the advice they have been given and proceed on an execution-only basis.
But the FSA noted that any mortgage adviser who believes a product is inappropriate, but still sells it upon the customer's insistence, will be deemed in breach of their regulatory obligations.
AMI director Robert Sinclair welcomed the proposals, saying it would provide "significant benefits" to consumers.
"Buying a house is a substantial financial undertaking and we have long argued that providing consumers with expert advice is a process that cannot be left to chance.
"The MMR's proposals will ensure many more consumers are given the support and guidance they need to make better and more informed decisions. The need to evidence income and assess committed and essential expenditure will deliver sustainable loans, together with new protections for those who are credit impaired," he said.
Sinclair added: "We are also pleased that the regulator has recognised the importance of providing a level playing field for lenders and intermediaries on the issue of qualifications and determining product suitability.
"It is important that consumers are confident that at all stages they are receiving advice from qualified staff acting in their best interests."
Hugh Wade-Jones, director of Enness Private Clients, said the removal of non-advised sales was an "important step": "The requirement that advice is mandatory in certain areas shows that the FSA recognises the position and importance of the professional mortgage intermediary.
"For our business, the non-application of the rules for high-net-worth clients is very important - the proposals are intended to limit risky lending and provide safeguards for the borrower, but not to limit the opportunities for those who understand and are equipped to take an informed risk."
The industry has until 30 March 2012 to respond to the consultation paper.
For a detailed analysis of the Mortgage Market Review, visit our sister website Mortgage Solutions
| Share | |
| Comment | FSA to ban non-advised mortgage sales |
More mortgages news
Email alerts
Recommended reading
Categories
Topics
Comments
For this to work...
... the FSA will need to monitor opt-out rates and conduct an ongoing and vigorous program of mystery shopping. If they don't all we'll see is a very large proportion of bank customers 'deciding' to go down the ex-only route.
Posted by: Neil F Liversidge
Opt In, Opt Out - What's it all about
Another FSA gem When's a ban not a ban? It can only come from Hector & Co
Posted by: Swanny
Failed FSA proposes another Failure
Simply a massive nannying exercise on free people. This whole initiative infantalises the Great British Public. And, who can justifiably claim that the FSA has the monopoly on wisdom? Being party to (precipitator of?) the Biggest Bust in History rather disqualifies them, one would think.
Posted by: Steven Farrall
Confusion reigns
Interesting that there is no mention of Buy to Lets? When will the FSA leave this Industry alone to allow us to attain a degree of equilibrium, it seems there is something else to worry about on a daily basis as if exams & RDR are not enough in themselves.
Posted by: Steve Baker
About time too.
It really is hard to credit. Our regulator now seems to be rushing through numerous stable door exercises - presumably before it receives the last rights. Not only do we have this, but I understand that sell cert will at last be outlawed. Believe it or not it gives me absolutely no satisfaction to say ‘I told you so’ as did many others at least 7 or 8 years ago – and subsequently. Self cert was always a fraudster’s charter. With accountants letters, bank accounts and various other documents you could always show affordability. To maintain that you would (might!) do well in the future was always skating on thin ice. I even recall Lloyds (many years ago) advertising for people to re-mortgage in order to book a holiday! For too long our economy has been reliant of consumer consumption. Both Government and Regulator were complicit. Now when it is far too late and with hindsight they decide to bring back criteria to where they were in the 1960’s. Will they face sanctions for being stupid? Of course not. But it is perfectly OK for them to sanction others with hindsight – as they are now doing with Keydata. What of the next disasters waiting in the wings? Those potentially toxic products of which they have already been warned but for which they (as before) are studiously turning a blind eye? Pension income drawdown. Sure suitable in some cases, but far fewer than current sales and marketing efforts indicate. The same will be true of Home Income Plans and investment linked annuities. In a few years’ time when we have a retrospective review it will – as usual – be the advisers who shoulder all of the blame and the Regulator none.
Posted by: Harry Katz
Related articles
Most Read
This year we have 14 awards designed to mark out the very best products in a highly competitive and innovative market. This includes three new awards for 2011 to reflect the developments in this rapidly growing market: Best Dual/Multi-Index Product, Best Structured (Oeic) Fund and Best Structured Product Provider.
Events
Poll
|
|
Job search
Ifaonlinejobs will open the right investment career path for you. Search hundreds of vacancies on www.ifaonlinejobs.co.uk now
In Focus
What is absolute return investing?
Viewpoints
2012 marks a watershed for the Life companies, fund managers, banks and advisers who service...
When is a ban not a ban...
When you can opt out of it! Laughable!
Posted by: You must be joking