Special Official Note For Mortgage Brokers

kenshaz

AndrewSmith wrote:

Thats why I think the suggestion of non mortgage based usernames and signatures (current statistics etc can be attached to a changed username if appropriate) is a good idea as it removes any abiguity or possibly insinuation of advertising, promotion, breach of FSA MCOB rules etc.

After all, as none of us are here to tout business why would it be an issue?

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/policy/ps186_vol2.pdf

The link does work,checked at 2131 hrs

MortgageMamma

kenshaz wrote:

http://wwwfsa.gov.uk/pubs/policy/ps186vol2.pdf

your link doesnt work.

kenshaz

HelpWhereIcan wrote:

Sorry Lisa, but I think the MCOB rules are very clear on this.

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/policy/ps186_vol2.pdf

pg 46 MCOB 3.2.2 (2)

Qualifying credit promotions may be communicated for
example, by means of:
...
(g) presentations to groups of customers; and
(h) other publications, which may contain nonpersonal recommendations as to obtaining qualifying credit.

The only exemptions are on pg 47.

(1) an illustration produced in accordance with the requirements of MCOB 5 MCOB 6, MCOB 7 or MCOB 9;
(2) a qualifying credit promotion which contains only one or more of the following:
(a) the name of the firm (or its appointed representative);
(b) a logo; My logo's strap line says 'Solving your Mortgage Puzzle' and is deemed a qualifying promotion!!! Could this not be similar to having a username with the word mortgage in it. I was told "use 'solving your puzzle' and you may be ok", stick the word mortgage in it and it's a qualifying promotion.
(c) a contact point (address (including an e-mail address), telephone or facsimile number);
(d) a brief, factual statement of the firm’s (or its appointed representative’s) main occupation; Hence saying you are a mortgage adviser not being one. Inviting people to inspect your status or level of services may be considered to be one.
(3) a qualifying credit promotion which can lawfully be communicated by an unauthorised person without approval;
(4) a qualifying credit promotion communicated from outside the United Kingdom which would be exempt under articles 30, 31, 32 or 33 of the Financial Promotion Order (Overseas communicators) if the office from which the qualifying credit promotion is communicated were a separate unauthorised person (but see GEN 4.4.1R (Business for

I am not one of those who is paranoid - I have yet to write to Mortgage Strategy calling for the good old days to return, but I have worked in a regulated environment for approx 12 years (and will be here for a few more) and have learned that the easy way to get into bother is to assume that the FSA will be ok with something when their guidelines suggest otherwise.

I hope the above quote assists in the correction of some previous posts,and helps in the formation of a signature

MortgageMamma

kenshaz wrote:

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/policy/ps186_vol2.pdf

The link does work,checked at 2131 hrs

You checked it after I had tried to use the previous incorrect link. spot the typo in the original link I quoted when I told you it wasn't working. Whats your problem, can you not bear to be seen making a mistake?

kenshaz

HelpWhereIcan wrote:

And I wonder if the FSA would say the MCOB rules interpret it the same way.

My letterheaded paper has to have the risk warning, fee statement etc on it cos a strap line in my logo mentions the word mortgage. (will not go into the debates I have had about this with my network)

Dare to say that the FSA would consider such a statement as a promotion - especially seeing as a member of the public (kenshaz) has interpreted it that way.

I am examining the situation from the perspective of a member of the public,I am a retired professional but not in this field ,but government based,I have no bias or commercial interests,so my view must carry credence,if only on my impartiality.

kenshaz

AndrewSmith wrote:

Thats why I think the suggestion of non mortgage based usernames and signatures (current statistics etc can be attached to a changed username if appropriate) is a good idea as it removes any abiguity or possibly insinuation of advertising, promotion, breach of FSA MCOB rules etc.

After all, as none of us are here to tout business why would it be an issue?

The above relates directly to the signature issue,and I draw your attention to the legislation,because I believe that when making reference it is necessary to refer directly the text ,it is not possible to retain every word

or have you changed your stance.

MortgageMamma

kenshaz wrote:

or have you changed your stance.

Heres a quote that might help you kENSHAZ. Its from the universal declaration of human rights.

ARTICLE 18... Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

ARTICLE 19... Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Now can you either say somethign constructive or go away, as we'd quite like to remain on topic

kenshaz

AndrewSmith wrote:

MortgageMamma,

This thread is not about you in particular so stop being so defensive. There are a number of brokers who post on this site who's usernames could possibly be construed as an indication to their profession. Why do you construe everything as an attack on you?

What difference does it make if your username is changed to a non-mortgage one and the signature removed? The moderators I beleive have the ability to transfer all appropriate stats linked to that username to a new one. That way you lose nothing.

This is a thread for everyone to put their suggestions forward which do seem to be going down the road on anonymous usernames and no signatures. Whatever the majority agree to is what I assume Martin will want to go with.

Everyone is simply just having their say so chill out will you?

Instead of jumping to the defensive immediately why not put forward a valid argument for keeping the usernames/signatures as they are as this seems to be what you would prefer? You never know you may win the agreement of everyone?

I cannot respond to your post as it does not refer to signatures ,but i refer to previous post,as it refers to signatures and their format,please post your observations .Perhaps you could expand on your observation regarding anonymous usernames and no signatures

kenshaz

AndrewSmith wrote:

Thats why I think the suggestion of non mortgage based usernames and signatures (current statistics etc can be attached to a changed username if appropriate) is a good idea as it removes any abiguity or possibly insinuation of advertising, promotion, breach of FSA MCOB rules etc.

After all, as none of us are here to tout business why would it be an issue?

I agree with the above statement and I believe that it should form the basis of a signature,and any possible breach of legislation.Have you any further thoughts on the above?

Joe_Bloggs

Now now ladies ! An individual signature is an example of freedom of expression. The one signature fits all will probablty not work. I welcome the civilised debate and have learned a lot from the participants.
J_B.