Will 'targeted support' miss its target? – Osman

Products are improving, innovation is accelerating and more lenders are entering the market. But despite this progress, there remains a fundamental issue we cannot ignore in that older customers are still under-served, and in some cases, misunderstood.

Having worked in this sector for a number of years, my journey into later life lending wasn’t driven by products but by people. I’ve seen first-hand how complex, emotional and high-stakes financial decisions can become in later life. These aren’t transactional conversations; they are deeply personal ones, often involving family, legacy and long-term care.

That’s why I believe ethical advice and not simply product availability is the true benchmark of progress in our sector.

Recent discussions around targeted support and simplified advice frameworks are well-intentioned from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). The aim is clear: to make financial guidance more accessible, but in practice, I worry that older borrowers risk being left behind.

Later life lending rarely fits neatly into simplified advice models. Clients in their 60s, 70s and beyond often present with layered needs, which can include multiple income streams, complex family dynamics, health considerations and properties that don’t meet standard lending criteria.

Sponsored

Conversations you need to have with landlords before the Renters’ Rights Act

Sponsored by BM Solutions

If we attempt to ‘streamline’ advice for this demographic, we risk oversimplifying decisions that demand nuance.

The lending challenges of retirement housing

One area where this becomes particularly evident is retirement housing. On paper, these properties are designed to support later life living. In reality, they can present significant challenges from a lending perspective. Many mainstream lenders view retirement flats and complexes as higher-risk security, understandably so.

Restrictions on occupancy, such as minimum age requirements, significantly reduce the resale market. Add to that high ground rents, service charges, exit fees and leasehold complexities and it quickly becomes clear why lenders are cautious. The fear is these properties may not hold their value in the same way as standard residential homes.

For clients, this creates a disconnect. They are often encouraged to downsize into accommodation that better suits their lifestyle, but then face barriers when trying to finance that move.

This is where brokers play a critical role. It’s not enough to source a product. We must understand the asset, the long-term implications and whether the decision genuinely serves the client’s best interests.

Later life lending solutions

There are, of course, solutions available: retirement interest-only (RIO) mortgages, lifetime mortgages and shared ownership schemes designed for older borrowers. Specialist lenders are also stepping in with more flexible criteria.

But access to products does not equal access to good outcomes. Too often, I see later life lending framed as a product conversation: “Is equity release suitable?” or “Can this client get a RIO mortgage?” The better question is: “What does this client actually need? And what are the long-term consequences of each option?”

For example, a lifetime mortgage may provide immediate financial relief, but what does it mean for inheritance planning? A RIO mortgage may appear affordable, but is the income truly sustainable over the long term? These are not decisions that should be rushed or reduced to eligibility checklists.

Brokers have a responsibility

As brokers, we sit at the intersection of opportunity and responsibility. The opportunity is clear, we have an ageing population, increasing housing wealth and growing demand for later life lending solutions. The responsibility is less often discussed but, I would argue, far more important.

We must challenge assumptions. We must slow down conversations when needed and we must be willing to say ‘no’ when a product is technically available but ethically questionable.

In our own practice, that often means involving family members in discussions (with the client’s consent), stress testing affordability beyond standard metrics and having honest conversations about risks, not just benefits.

It also means collaborating with other professionals, such as solicitors and financial planners, to ensure clients receive truly holistic advice.

If we want to improve outcomes for older borrowers, we need to move beyond awareness and focus on standards. That includes better education for brokers entering the later life space, clearer communication from lenders around criteria for complex properties and a continued emphasis on suitability over sales.

Later life lending should not be seen as a niche or an afterthought. It should be recognised as a specialist area that demands a higher level of care, expertise, and ethical consideration.

Regulation is evolving, consumer expectations are changing and the demand for later life lending is only going to increase. The question is not whether the market will grow because it clearly will. The question is whether it will grow responsibly.

For me, being part of this sector has never been about being at the forefront of product innovation. It’s about ensuring that every client I advise is treated with fairness, transparency and respect, particularly at a stage of life where financial decisions carry greater weight than ever before.

The real measure of success in later life lending isn’t what we sell, but the outcomes we deliver.