Proposed Mortgage Broker Code of Conduct

payless

UK007bulldog.. good luck with the job ( some might say "sold your soul to the devil" ;-) )

The crux is the site worked well before with advisers posting generally within the perimeters suggested - this just formalises it a bit - fairer for all

The complex cases can still benefit from a comment of areas that might be discussed/ raised with an adviser , for example I would normally suggest a FTB sits down with an adviser face to face ( thats puts most advisers here and L&C out of reach) but thats not to say initial queries can't be answered

kenshaz

MSE_Martin wrote:

Two other quick thoughts

1. Is there any thing we should add to the sig that sort of says "this hasn't been checked" because it enables everyone to add it.



Yes .most definitely the reader of the signature should be made aware of the fact that this is a public forum ,and the statement relating to the fact that they are a mortgage broker is not substantiated and is there purely for guidance and should not be relied upon for authenticity.

kenshaz

UK007BullDog wrote:

I am one of the brokers who at times say to those seeking advice to contact a broker. I do it not to tout as I never give my email address, website or other contact details and if you look at my profile you can see there is nothing. I get the odd PM message asking for help. As I do not wish to be seen to take work from this site I tend to reply with basic info and ask the person to contact a broker in their area for proper best advice.

I cannot see how telling people to go to see a broker is bad. Some of the cases here are so complex that a proper fact find has to be done and advice given here should be taken with a pinch of salt at times as the broker does not get the full history.

People should be happy that brokers are here on this website to give pointers and information. I think most people realise that going to any adviser and speaking to them face to face or on the telephone is better than posting here.

I have cut back a lot as well, not so much as I have not been attacked much myself but because seeing how some of the brokers get abused by a few individuals. I have invested a lot of money in my profession and we have to sit exams every year and be signed off as fit and proper. I dont see why I should let myself be abused by someone who clearly does not understand how we work and why we have disclaimers etc.

I also do not like the idea of having posts edited by someone who thinks they know better than I do. The first edited post would be my last post on here. I have knowledge to share, if someone wants to use it fine. If not then just ignore my post.

If you really want to remove any ambiguety on a broker I would not allow a website link or visible email address in the profile.

Brokers should have a tag to state they are brokers/advisers/underwriters etc. This will help those asking for advice that what they read has some merit.

Maybe the board monitors should ask those claiming to be brokers for their credentials?


************************************************

On a more personal note:

I might not be coming back here for a long while. I have received a job offer from a major high street bank which is too good to walk away and will be accepting as soon as the docs hit my welcome mat. I will be moving into a semi management position and also training as an IFA probably specialising into pension investments or lifetime mortgages or even both. I do not yet know if I might return as a tied lender specialist, have to read the small print on that and have to have a chat with the compliance department next year.

UK007BULLDOG is a respected mortgage who certainly does not tout ,I refer you to her statement in respect to how having weblinks and emails in profiles retains and creates ambiguity in the perception of the broker and if removed would greatly assist ,her words not mine.In fact she goes on to say that ,she would not allow.
Why do you consider that these links in profiles are necessary,can you give me some form of justification,some of our most prominent posters function without links?
MARTIN I agree with each paragraph of UK007BullDog,whilst I realise that you wish to finalise the situation .I believe that it is important to take into account her views,they are relevant and it is important to give a well rounded and fair response.

kenshaz

payless wrote:

UK007bulldog.. good luck with the job ( some might say "sold your soul to the devil" ;-) )

The crux is the site worked well before with advisers posting generally within the perimeters suggested - this just formalises it a bit - fairer for all

The complex cases can still benefit from a comment of areas that might be discussed/ raised with an adviser , for example I would normally suggest a FTB sits down with an adviser face to face ( thats puts most advisers here and L&C out of reach) but thats not to say initial queries can't be answered

But a statement like that reduces choice,the posts will listen ,and believe that is a fact and it is an opinion,they will feel that it is necessary and it is not.It is not essential that FTB,s sit down face to face ,and it unfairly eliminates some very good companies .

kenshaz

I personally would remove signatures ,because I believe that it is a form of advertising,I would also remove any reference to mortgage in user names,I feel that is also a form of advertising.
These are my views ,so before any-one goes off on a tangent ,they are not directed at any individual.

MortgageMamma

I'm happy to do whatever Martin decides is best. It is his site after all.

Kenshaz Martin has already said, if a broker helps you through this site, there's no reason not to use them. So any broker who wants to accept business when PM'd by a forum user is free to do so (not that most of us can, due to our existing businesses keeping us busy).

So signatures and links or no signatures and links - if approached by a forum user, a broker is entitled to offer their details if they so choose. It is quite obvious, even when sigs removed who is a broker. I've sussed a few without signatures.

Just wanted to add, UKBULLDOG007 - good luck with the new job, I'm sure you will be very sucessful, and, if you choose not to return to the site, thankyou for all your input so far. You have been a good resource for the forum users.

MM

kenshaz

I also find it difficult to understand how in a fair and just system ,which this site is, how it can be possible to include a section which shows bias towards a broker ,by stating it will ''err on the side of the broker.''Therefore if I post as a broker with no credential check ,I will automatically be given ,favour..
Rules must be across the board ,you cannot show favoritism to one group,and ''err on their side'' no democratic system of law would allow that,but I also realise that this system is autocratic,but you are a fair minded person.
Therefore you will have to instruct your team to show bias,from the onset of this saga ,you have attempted to give the minority a voice ,do not fall at the last hurdle in an attempt to appease(with respect).

All users are equal ,irrespective of profession,religion ,creed or colour ,where do we draw the line,once we open the box the monster is out.

An analogy would be.If plumbers are called cow-boys on a board and links are used to direct users to reputable plumbers,do we ''err on the side of the plumber'' but it must be within reason or reasonable will be your reply ,the moderators will be subjective with bias,what if they get it wrong and the cow-boy wins. I realise that the above is hypothetical and would probably not happen ,but I believe that it makes a point.

EdInvestor

It is quite obvious, even when sigs removed who is a broker.

It probably is to you, but not necessarily to everyone.You would be surprised how many people think I am an IFA

I quite often get PMs from people wanting proper "advice".

regularsaver1

Kenshaz - Martin did point out this is not a broker-only site, so you should have no worry of posting, and nor do I

HelpWhereIcan

I agree with the code as it is. Got to say that I thought that was the 'gentlemens' agreement' we all had anyway, but heigh ho.

Ken, do not panic. Martin actually says:

If posters are trying to stop the flow of information and disrupt it (which includes simply linking to site articles without reason/reasoning) as opposed to simply disagreeing on info or advice the site abuse team will err on the side of brokers.

If you have a valid point/objection, there will be no question of the abuse team erring on the side of anyone.

Think we should just state our knowledge areas. eg. Mortgage Adviser, Mortgage & Protection Adviser, IFA. I think they are terms that most people will understand. Whole of Market, Fees free, self employed, AR etc are irrelevant when looking at the posts someone makes.

If someone's generic knowledge is good, it makes no difference if they are whole of market, whether they charge a fee or if they work for themselves or a large bank. Their knowledge is what they are sharing, not their access to lenders or ability to source a particular deal.

There have been some very good contributions made by employees of the banks as their generic knowledge has been enough to answer the OP's question.

The only way to do checks would be fairly time consuming for MSE staff. Afterall, if MSE check my FSA registration, what's to say that they shouldn't want to see my FPC/MAQ certificates. Will they want to see my AIFA membership, my CII membership? Where does it stop? Will that make my posts carry any more weight? Don't think so.

I feel we should identify only our areas of knowledge as above adding warnings as I have. Think a bogus adviser would soon be sniffed out. Having said that, hasn't happened to me yet!!:p