Robert Sinclair, director of AMI
Since the demise of the Mortgage Code Compliance Board, AMI has campaigned vigorously for the return of a register of mortgage advisers and sellers.
Whilst the FSA proposals to introduce a register from early 2011 were not perfect, in our view, it was a significant step forward. The Mortgage Market Review sets out a number of failings and it was very clear that a core remedy was the introduction of individual registration.
The need to formally assess fitness and propriety was a big step forward, welcomed by responsible intermediary firms.
They see this as an excellent way of tracking those arranging mortgages throughout the industry. Such registration will also allow consumers to access a central point to look at who is authorised and deliver confidence that they are dealing with someone authorised to act on what is the biggest financial transaction they usually undertake.
It will also assist in driving out those brokers who do not have the best interests of customers at heart.
In stepping back, I am concerned about the mixed messages from the FSA.
The MMR is seen as a key initiative and important. We have seen enforcement action against a large number of individuals and we consider that a register will help track and review market participants.
This proposed delay of two years defers what we felt was a good starting point in the MMR to provide closer controls in the mortgage market, particularly as it applied equally to intermediaries and those who work directly for lenders.
It needs to apply to all participants and AMI would welcome its arrival sooner rather than later. Deferring this element must also defer the implementation of the other parts of the proposals.
Also answering in this week’s Market Watch are:
Alex Ellerton, principal at financial services regulatory consultant Bovill
Richard Adams, managing director at Stonebridge Group
