This week has been rich for top contributions.
The first one is from Andrew Wilkinson for his response to the article: ‘Leftfield’ life insurance idea could provide answer for ‘badly served’ later life borrowers.
Wilkinson said that what surprises him is that there is an assumption across all the comments made that later life borrowers’ life insurance needs are not already being discussed with clients when they are entering into mortgage arrangements.
He added: “Why should this be described as a ‘leftfield’ idea? If as Dave Jones says mortgage applications are actually being turned down because of the risk of one of the borrowers dying and the lender’s concern that the remaining borrower might then be unable to afford the mortgage repayments the obvious next step would seem to be to investigate whether life insurance terms are possible and at what potential cost.
“Maybe later life mortgage specialists should be linking up with specialist life insurance advisers who would be able to perform this function for the mortgage advisers on behalf of them and their clients.
“In particular such advisers should have real specialisation in dealing with customers with health conditions given that many of the potential borrowers will have picked up pre-existing health conditions which are likely to affect life insurance applications sand premium rates.
“Such life insurance advisers specialising in customers with pre-existing health conditions do exist. I know because I happen to be one myself and our firm, Moneysworth have been helping such customers for years and we do not conduct business in any other area of financial services except life, critical illness and income protection.
“We are not the only such firm and we have been working with advisers on introduced cases for a few years now. So please feel free to come and talk to us or a firm like us. Maybe look up these hashtags #singpostingtospecialists #accesstoinsurance.”
Another contribution comes from Andy Wilson for his response to the article: Potential fee ban: ‘Devastated mortgage brokers’ in Oz offered mental health support.
Wilson said that if UK brokers received mental health counselling every time significant changes occurred, the health and wellbeing specialists would have had 15 years of boom time.
He added: “FSA regulation in 2004, financial crisis 2007/08, the credit crunch, collapse of lenders who relied on securitisation, huge FCA costs, life insurance gender equalisation 2012, Home Information Packs, buy to let tax changes, European ESIS documents – the list goes on.
“But being British, we simply soldier on and take it in our stride. And for those that have seen off all of the above challenges and more, now is a boom time for us, not the mental health specialists. Tally Ho chaps, and throw us another shrimp on the barbie.”
Our last contribution comes from Christopher Hall to the same article.
He said that if the UK scrapped proc fees I do not see how this would benefit anyone except the larger mortgage lenders.
He added: “Clients would have to pay more to use the services of a Mortgage Broker and there is no guarantee that this would be reflected in the interest rate offered by the mortgage lender.
“When all said and done a Mortgage Lender either has to pay a broker to do the mortgage or one of their own staff. The thought of Mental Health support is most amusing.”