Annoyed at mortgage arrangement fees, is it a rip off?

AndyWallace

Wig wrote:

Your point makes no sense. either that or you failed to understand what I was saying.

Yes I think I must have.

I understood your comment to mean that mortgages were over complicated and that we need legislation to simplify them.

If legislation is simple, then there would be no need for solicitors or barristers because we could all interpret the legislation ourselves.

Please, correct me I can't get my head around an alternative meaning.

Andy.

danjberry

Wig wrote:

I'm not sure what you have taken from my post, but it was in reply to MM, who basically said "mortgages are complicated that's why we have brokers to sort it out."
I replied basically saying that's my point they should not be so complicated, they should be forced to be simple or less complicated, then brokers would not be needed.

Of course if there are still some consumers too lazy to shop around for themselves then some brokers will still be in business.

what i took from your post is basically you saying there should be no need for brokers. what is said is that criteria is different such as CCJs, defaults, credit score, missed payments, ltv, etc. So how would a client know if they fit any lenders criteria unless asking them all.

Also if you read what has been said recently by a number of brokers is that a lot of products are being offered via broker business only due to them being cheaper then having inhouse mortgage advisors and other overheads. if there were no brokers anymore then the products will be higher rates due to companies having to pay more out rather then simply a proc fee.

Wig

@ Andy,

You're obviously just being an idiot.

Wig

danjberry wrote:

what i took from your post is basically you saying there should be no need for brokers. what is said is that criteria is different such as CCJs, defaults, credit score, missed payments, ltv, etc. So how would a client know if they fit any lenders criteria unless asking them all.

Basically the situation would be exactly the same as it is now, some people don't bother to use brokers some do. but the lenders would be forced to making their products easier to compare with each other for those consumers who wish to shop direct. If a lender wants to attract a certain group they would advertise that fact (like they do now). If someone with blackmarks against their name tried to apply for mort's they would quickly learn they have to either go to a broker or look for lenders specifically catering for them (like they do now).

Also if you read what has been said recently by a number of brokers is that a lot of products are being offered via broker business only due to them being cheaper then having inhouse mortgage advisors and other overheads. if there were no brokers anymore then the products will be higher rates due to companies having to pay more out rather then simply a proc fee.

The situation would not change from what we have now so all would be well and good. It would just be better for consumers who wish to shop direct.

AndyWallace

Wig wrote:

@ Andy,

You're obviously just being an idiot.

Or I'm having a blonde moment. Or maybe I'm tired after a long day.

I'll read through again tomorrow and maybe it will make more sense to me.

Thanks.

regularsaver1

Wig wrote:

IMO we shouldn't have the need of brokers, the market should be clear and simple to consumers (through legislation - because they are not managing to do it voluntarily). This would then encourage lenders to be more competitive.

The selling and advice on mortgage is regulated by the FSA - this in mandatory, not voluntary

AndyWallace

But mortgages are clearer now that the FSA are regulating them. The consumer gets a Key Facts Illustration that details all the fees and costs of the mortgage.

The FSA`recommend that the consumer shops around. The consumer can then compare the KFI's and make an informed decision.

Alternatively, the consumer can employ the service of a broker who will use his skill and judgement to show relevant and appropriate products.

Andy.

regularsaver1

Rick62 wrote:

Of the 8 mortgages that I've completed so far this year for clients 7 have been exclusive to brokers that the customer would not have been offered directly from the (highstreet) lender. The 8th one had flexible features that the client wanted but would not have been aware were available without my advice.

So use a broker, get exclusive deals, professional advice and save a load of time. So long as you can find a professional broker who is fees free or a reasonable fixed fee. BTW, brokers are all regulated by legistation, its managed by the FSA and FOS as well as DPA and OFT.

Only 8 Rick?

danjberry

Wig wrote:

Basically the situation would be exactly the same as it is now, some people don't bother to use brokers some do. but the lenders would be forced to making their products easier to compare with each other for those consumers who wish to shop direct. If a lender wants to attract a certain group they would advertise that fact (like they do now). If someone with blackmarks against their name tried to apply for mort's they would quickly learn they have to either go to a broker or look for lenders specifically catering for them (like they do now).

but you said there should be no use for brokers? and if a customer was declined due to credit score how would they know which lender is more relaxed?


[/QUOTE]The situation would not change from what we have now so all would be well and good. It would just be better for consumers who wish to shop direct.[/QUOTE]

it would change because lenders will no longer be saving money by only paying out a proc fee, as all their business will be direct so they will have more overheads. Where do you think they will pick up this money that they are losing? higher rates?

Wig

danjberry wrote:

but you said there should be no use for brokers? and if a customer was declined due to credit score how would they know which lender is more relaxed?

Listen, I'll explain once more,

MM said in response to me asking for laws to simplify directly sold mortgages "but mortgages are complicated that's what brokers are for".

Now I'm not entirely sure if she (and you) totally missed the point I was making which is that mortgages should be simpler for the DIRECTLY SOLD market, but that is what my reply was based on when I said "exactly so, mortgages should not be so complicated (FOR THE DIRECTLY SOLD MARKET) then there would be no need for brokers (FOR THE DIRECTLY SOLD MARKET).

I really hope you understand now.

it would change because lenders will no longer be saving money by only paying out a proc fee, as all their business will be direct so they will have more overheads. Where do you think they will pick up this money that they are losing? higher rates?

I didn't say all their business would be direct, I was talking about the direct market and saying it should be made simpler and then brokers would not be required for that market.