Take extra care when using brokers at moment

Dan_Collins_2

payless wrote: »

Its your business and your livelihood , so you should do whatever you want.

FSA are however also saying you ensure you agree service ( and fee if applicable) with client ... silly thing is their definition of WoM is not that of a reasonable layperson.

I think they need to re-think the whole WOM issue out. Needs to be simple and easier to understand.

MortgageMamma

Anyone read this yet?


http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=894939

I cannot understand why its not in the mortgage and endowment section, or at least repeated there

minimike2

I think to blog this is simply childish games.....

Whilst the content may be a little unconstructive of the email to him, to actually make a blog about that is really, really, really pathetic.

I think with a site like this it can only be EXPECTED to recieve criticism. I dont agree with the email thats been sent to him, but the public response.....utter nonsense.

Im sure many of us have gripes with Martin. I do...many...! I dont like the way he encourages people to basically come to us for a mortgage, without paying a fee and go elsewhere for insruance (I would be out of business if this was how things worked), and that may not even be the best way of doing business anyway. A fee free "WoM" broker doesnt neccesarily deal with every mortgage lender - WoM doesnt mean EVERY lender that deals with brokers, as long as the panel they use represents the market, they can be called WoM. I dont like the way he actively recommends people dont take out CI insurance, a laughable recommendation in iteself. I dont like the way he actively promotes L&C when they have proved to be "hitty missy" on service..........and its meant to be an independent site, so the idea of recommending one brokerage is dubious anyway.

But I havent sent an email in making a personal attack. Ive previously mentioned about journalists writing methods and got a personalised respone from Martin about my comment, and I was quick to add in my reply that overall I believe that he and the site do good work and is a valuable resource, but not without its flaws, the abovementioned being those flaws IMO.

So overall, whilst I agree with the principles behind the email, there was no need for the way its been worded and whilst I agree with Martin that there was no need for it, there is no need for the public reply on it.

Both sides should feel pretty stupid about the whole thing.

Im also confused by the title "...dont know who thier friends are"......hmmm, actively advising people to use brokers then apply via cash back sites. Actively advising people to not take any other products through a broker, activly advising people not to take out CI insurance........If I get a case where its just a mortgage and nothing else and no fee, its not worth my time doing it.....my average mortgage size up here in the north east is £70000, so a proc fee on that for all the work and costs makes me next to nothing.....if not a loss!

homer_j_3

I dont like the way he actively promotes L&C when they have proved to be "hitty missy" on service..........and its meant to be an independent site, so the idea of recommending one brokerage is dubious anyway.

I am sure that Martin suggests more than one brokerage. Charcoals, L&C, Savills and Chase de Vere if I am not mistaken.

actively advising people to use brokers then apply via cash back sites

I believe also that Martin does say that for those people who feel financially savvy enough to transact on cash back sites then this is a good way of actually getting paid yourself to do their own mortgage. It also stresses that the few hundred quid you will get back is not worth the benefits of a broker if you are not sure what you are doing.

If you want to challenge the way Martin does something then you need to ensure that you read what he does say before commenting to make your argument stronger. http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/mortgages/best-mortgages-cashback

With regards to Martin not taking a liking to CI policies, I agree that it is laughable in the sense that he states that these should not be touched.

CI policies pay a lump sum where as PHI policies pay a regular monthly benefit so whilst I see the logic in Martins thinking that because PHI will cover a wider range of illnesses, it will not give you, for example, that lump sum money to maybe make alterations to the home or to get that operation privately and avoid waiting lists which will help you recover more speedily.

There are many things that I would like Martin to change about some of his articles but it wont mean that it will happen. Martin has changed articles and openly listned to brokers and I am sure that if you talk to the brokers that have been on here longer than I have, you will find them stating that these frustrations are not new but Martin has listened and changed things where he felt that he was wrong or it was misleading.

Clearly in a time where all of us are feeling the pain of no real support from our networks, representatives etc, it is easy to lash out at someone in the spotlight - afterall, we do not have the the ability to send these quick emails to the CEO's of the lenders that are pushing us out in the cold.

Dan_Collins_2

I dont think what Martin Lewis says should mean the end of the world for mortgage brokers, I take what ever he says witht a pinch of salt. He is a champion for the people etc etc, but how long has he been a mortgage consultant???

HelpWhereIcan

homer_j wrote: »

With regards to Martin not taking a liking to CI policies, I agree that it is laughable in the sense that he states that these should not be touched.

CI policies pay a lump sum where as PHI policies pay a regular monthly benefit so whilst I see the logic in Martins thinking that because PHI will cover a wider range of illnesses, it will not give you, for example, that lump sum money to maybe make alterations to the home or to get that operation privately and avoid waiting lists which will help you recover more speedily. .

Not to mention that a PHI policy will only pay out when you have been medically certified as being able to work (sometimes your current occupation, sometimes unable to work at all) and more often than not after you have been unable to work for between 3 & 6 months.

Hardly likely to pay off someone's mortgage because they have had a heart attack. I had a customer who was 'medically' ok to return to work 6 weeks after having a heart attack (so no PHI pay out) but a CI policy would have paid his mortgage off in full - reducing the financial pressure on him to return to work.

Agreed that most of what Martin says is correct. Just wish that he would research the actual policies a little more - he would then be able to give the full picture and possibly look at the more important issues with CI such as non disclosure and policy 'options' such as mortgage repayment guarantees, multi policy plans, buy back and even helpline provision etc.

I always thought it would be useful for Martin to spend a day or two working alongside a broker & IFA on the frontline - not from a 'woe is me nasty TV journalist doing me out of money' point of view, but so that he can get a perspective of what it is we actually look at when comparing Life& CI policies, investments etc other than cost.

MortgageMamma

very few people can afford CI to the extent that it will pay off their entire mortgage - CI rates are ridiculously high.

homer_j_3

no but a lump sum of even £20-30k would mean that at least they could get help with

- adjustments to the home
- payment to get treatment faster
- funding of additional costs of hospital visits
- help with a partner reducing hours at work to help out
- Help with childcare
- Some policies will cover children also

None of which PHI would cover as you are limited to a % of your income so you will have less money at at time where you need more money.

minimike2

MortgageMamma wrote: »

very few people can afford CI to the extent that it will pay off their entire mortgage - CI rates are ridiculously high.

I have a 95% penetration rate for life insurance, of wich 55% include CI...its not expensive if the mortgage is within the clients means. If they cant afford to insure the mortgage, the chances are they cant afford the mortgage at all.

MortgageMamma

minimike2 wrote: »

I have a 95% penetration rate for life insurance, of wich 55% include CI...its not expensive if the mortgage is within the clients means. If they cant afford to insure the mortgage, the chances are they cant afford the mortgage at all.

In the real world with house price inflation and peoples earnings not keeping up with actual inflation let alone house price inflation tell me what you would prioritise? keeping a roof over your head and feeding the kids or keeping a roof over your head and insuring yourself to the hilt "just in case"? That is a VERY narrow minded attitude MiniMike and it might have once worked when people only needed to borrow 2.5 x joint or 3 + 1 single, but like I say in the real world not everybody can afford critical illness, income protection or even MPPI. Of course I appreciate there is a big difference between the "can't affords" and the "won't pay fors" in the world and I appreciate fully the need for the product and its place in the market, but I just don't see what your penetration rates have to do with all this?