Mortgage

The FCA – Striking the right balance

November 14th, 2012

Martin Wheatley, Managing Director of the Conduct Business Unit at the FSA, addressing delegates at the CML conference yesterday that larger lenders who had previously built a “one-size-fits-all” approach would have to change their ways. He said: “I think this is a good thing… lending should be about building a relationship with your customers, not just performing a transaction.”

Wheatley, Chief Executive-designate of the new Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), said that the drive to promote more effective competition did not necessarily mean having more firms in the market. He added: “In the mortgage market at its peak there was lots of competition, but can we actually say that it was effective and good for the consumer? In fact, it is probably right to say there were too many lenders, too many products and that standards were dragged down.”

Wheatley emphasised that financial services is still in a difficult phase. He said that it is ‘time to be different” at a stage when many believe that mortgage lenders have lost the connection with and focus upon borrowers.

Interest-only products are a hot topic today as some lenders have appropriately sold this product but others have not, the FSA will still allow the sale of this product if the borrower can demonstrate a stringent repayment ability, but a borrower waiting for house prices to rise is NOT a good enough reason to be sold this product.

Wheatley added that they believe that there is a place for interest-only mortgages in the market, “although we see them as more of a niche product in the future”.

The recent publication of the Mortgage Market Review was intended to ‘hard-wire’ common-sense into the mortgage market and affordability is a basic principal of this. Lenders will now have more flexibility on the kinds of evidence they accept to demonstrate a borrowers affordability.

MMR for some will mean significant change – a one-size-fits-all lending approach won’t work anymore. There will be a bigger focus upon lenders fostering working relationships with borrowers as opposed to just a monetary transaction.

There is a balance to strike between customer fairness, customer choice, a customers’ ability to take risks and also the protection of these borrowers. A financial service that works well will carefully accommodate these factors.

The FCA needs to be better at spotting risks for consumers and the biggest difference from the current regulator will be its proactive approach to regulation. Instead of just collecting data from lenders, it will actively be making speculative enquiries so that it can outline regulatory framework before consumers suffer.

The FCA doesn’t intend to remove all risk from financial services as this is an impossible task. It will instead aim to provide a wider scope of regulation by engaging fully with lenders – regulation will be collaborative with continual dialogue. Firms will be assessed regularly to identify themes/potential issues across the market.

Consumers act differently when obtaining a mortgage – it is a one off purchase and not something they repeatedly do. Lenders must therefore ensure consumers are sufficiently educated about the products out there; product information needs to be more transparent.

Recent FSA enforcement cases have demonstrated that product intervention rules are already being implemented to protect consumers before they are sold an unsuitable product. The regulator will restrict the use of certain product (abuse of self-certification products sparked this) and will ban others (for the selling of a UCIS to consumers who don’t have a large, well-diversified portfolio).

Stimulating competition in the market will also be key. However, this doesn’t necessarily mean more lenders but competition with better quality products. Wheatley said: “we need to remove barriers of entry for new lenders with sound and thorough competition analysis”.

The future FCA in April 2013 will constantly develop policy initiatives to better protect consumers and it will also help lenders to prepare for MMR enforcement in 2014.

Bookmark and Share

Network broker accomplice in Abbey & Nationwide fraud

September 27th, 2012

A fraudster and his mortgage broker accomplice have been jailed after scamming £344,000 from two well-known high street lenders, the Halifax Courier reports.

Ejaz Ul Hassan, 33, and mortgage broker Nadeem Ghani, 30, used forged wage slips in order to obtain funds to buy four properties, Bradford Crown Court heard last week.

Mr Ul Hassan, who worked as a commission-only salesman for Safestyle UK Ltd, could not obtain a mortgage as he had failed to fully declare his income to the Inland Revenue.

He approached Mr Ghani, a previous colleague at Safestyle, for assistance in obtaining funds to purchase four houses in Halifax and Huddersfield.

Mr Ghani, a mortgage broker for Citri Ltd, helped Mr Ul Hassan to devise a scheme whereby the pair would submit forged wage slips to lenders to ensure that Mr Ul Hassan would obtain a superior mortgage product.

The fraudulent duo also involved Mr Ul Hassan’s sister, Shaista Afzal, in the scam by submitting two applications for two properties in her name.

Both claimed that Ms Afzal worked at a local jewellery shop, though it has since been discovered that she never appeared on the company’s payroll.

The men obtained advances worth £344,000 from Abbey and Nationwide which were then spent on the four properties, worth a total of £425,000 when purchased in 2007, the title reported.

The report further stated that Ul Hassan contributed £81,000 of his own cash.

The plan also meant that Mr Ghani would obtain a more substantial commission for each successful application, earning an estimated £1,200 once all four had been completed.

All three pleaded not guilty, though Mr Ghani later changed his plea on the day of trial and eventually stood as a witness for the prosecution.

Speaking for Mr Ghani’s defence, Adbul Iqbal drew attention to the fact that the offences had taken place five years ago, when his client was a young man, and since this transgression his client had an unblemished record.

Peter Higginson, speaking on behalf of the defence of Mr Ul Hassan, said that his client had never missed a mortgage repayment, and had sufficient income to cover all four debts in the future.

Ms Afzal’s counsel Soheil Khan, on the other hand, defended her client’s character, telling the court last week that the mother-of-three had a “strong work ethic and would never trouble the court again”.

Judge Robert Bartfield QC, addressing Ms Afzal, said: “I am satisfied that you were used, but you knew what you were getting into. There will have to be a prison sentence but, for many reasons, not least that you are a committed mother, it will be suspended.”

Whilst Mr Ghani was sentenced to nine months and Mr Ul Hassan was sentenced to two years in prison, Ms Afzal’s nine month sentence will be suspended for a year.

Detective Constable Ash Nuttal, of the Calderdale PCOA Team, said: “It was a set-up which appeared to be working, until financial irregularities were discovered by West Yorkshire Police. This has been a thorough investigation which has uncovered the fraudulent activities of these three, and today’s sentences should serve as a warning to those who think they can get away with committing fraud.”

 

Bookmark and Share

Bridging not an alternative to SRB schemes

September 4th, 2012

Mortgage brokers have been warned that bridging finance is not an alternative to sale and rent back (SRB) schemes after the FSA became “…aware of firms that have been marketing/promoting bridging finance as an alternative to SRB”.

After taking a thematic review of the SRB market, the FSA concluded that the majority of SRB sales were inappropriate or unaffordable, often leading to a detrimental outcome for “vulnerable consumers”.

Consequently, the FSA has temporarily closed the regulated SRB market; however, it has warned that “…some firms are looking at other ways to generate SRB opportunities”.

SRB is usually aimed at those who are in financial difficulty with the regulator’s findings suggesting that vulnerable customers are being encouraged to “…refinance their way out of difficulty” with a bridging facility and as a result, there is a “…very high risk consumers could end up in an even worse financial position”.

B&C heard from Jonathan Newman, Principal Partner at Brightstone Law and Chairman of the Association of Bridging Professionals (AOBP), who “does not believe this practice is widespread”.

He explained: “There were companies operating in this way some years ago. The focus then was to use bridging for credit repair, before taking borrowers into cheaper longer term finance. That was expensive for the borrower and was not always successful.”

The tightening of underwriting practices in the High Street, increased regulation and publicity has, in Jonathan’s opinion, had the welcome effect of putting an end to such practices.

Jonathan added: “The single most important underwriting responsibility of the lender is to identify and verify a viable exit route at the end of term. The exit may ultimately be a sale of the property or its refinance, but there has to be a clear understanding on the borrowers part, that an appreciable benefit is achieved by borrowing short term to bridge until the exit happens, factoring into that understanding, the cost that comes with the bridging facility .”

Jonathan clarifies that bridging finance is not a natural alternative to SRB schemes and should not be promoted as such, although, on occasions, “…it may provide a borrower with much needed additional time to develop a property to maximise its value before sale or provide extended time to market a property to its best potential”.

When asked whether bridging should ever be used as a method to get one’s finances back on track, he added: “Bridging can be expensive on rate and fees and there are few circumstances where a borrower already struggling with finance will improve his position by incurring further cost, but there may be certain scenarios where bridging can resolve a short term problem to a borrowers advantage, so every case needs to be assessed on merits.”

Alan Cleary, Managing Director at Precise Mortgages, similarly suggested that bridging for credit repair is not appropriate. He said: “There is no way that anyone in the bridging market should be offering SRB schemes to customers – it is these firms that are attracting the FSA to the bridging market. Bridging should not be used to for repairing credit; however, I don’t see this issue as one that is widespread.”

The FSA has stated that it will take action against any firms found to be active in this area. It has now published finalised guidance on its review and findings.

 

Bookmark and Share

Property king loses £9.4m confiscation challenge

August 28th, 2012

A jailed fraudster who applied for 31 mortgages using forged documents has failed in an attempt to challenge an order to hand over more than £9.4 million.

Jean-Pierre Bestel built up a portfolio of 95 properties. He applied for 31 mortgages during 2007 using forged documents and falsely claimed he was earning a six-figure salary.

Bestel, 49, a former business consultant, was sentenced for three years for mortgage fraud back in March last year, reported Kent Online.

He was found to have benefited by £9,427,123 and given six months to pay it or face a further ten years in prison. It was the largest ever confiscation by Kent Police.

Last week, Bestel appeared at Maidstone Crown Court to ask Judge Charles Macdonald QC to re-try the issue of benefit.

The confiscation proceedings were taken against Jean-Pierre Bestel in his absence in July.

Bestel, who said he was staying with a friend, told the judge he suffered from bipolar disorder, which caused “extraordinary behaviour”, and that he was seeing a psychiatrist and his GP every month.

“I am still on medication every day,” he said. “One of the side effects is it destroys your memory. It is something I have to deal with every day.”

Asked if he deliberately failed to attend court in July, he replied: “As God is my witness, I didn’t deliberately miss the hearing.”

Judge Macdonald said Bestel had sent in a letter containing an enormous list of assets.

“However, his asset position remains wholly unclear,” said the judge. “He appears today by privately funded lawyers. He is well dressed. He has several classic cars.”

Gerard Hillman, defending, said friends and family of Bestel had provided the funding for the hearing. He asked for Bestel’s legal aid certificate to remain.

Judge Macdonald said he rejected Bestel’s claim that he was unaware of the confiscation hearing date and found he was “voluntarily absent”.

Macdonald added: “There is absolutely no reason to think if I allowed the matter to be reopened he would provide the necessary cooperation. Practically nothing has still been done.”

Bookmark and Share

‘It isn’t a crime to make a profit’, says mortgage expert

July 26th, 2012

Some measures to prevent fraud and an underlying aversion to profiting from property transactions may be prohibiting lenders from getting deals done, according to mortgage expert and Director of HCM (Northern) Limited Grahame Harwood.

Grahame explains exactly why…

I have no doubt that a good few people within the property finance industry are familiar with the six month rule. For those who haven’t come across this, the Council of Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook requires that conveyancing solicitors report any transactions where the property being purchased has been owned for less than six months by the current owner (vendor).

This rule is in the CML Handbook so that lenders may double check all of the facts and figures. In a situation where a property has been owned for a short period prior to being sold there is potential for fraud. Prior to the credit crunch in 2008/09 many lenders chose to ignore the six month rule. As a result there are numerous cases where property valuations have been inflated to the ultimate detriment of lenders.

It is now the case that the vast majority of lenders are now rigidly adhering to the six month rule contained within the CML Handbook. And irrespective of whether the property valuations stack up, lenders will not entertain a mortgage application until a property has been owned for at least six months.

However, there is at least one exception. This occurs when a lender states that there shall be no increase in the property price. The vendor would therefore be required to sell the property at the exact same price they paid for it. This approach certainly deals with eradicating potential fraud via inflated property valuations. The ‘about turn’ by lenders over the last few years has certainly been to the advantage of bridging loan providers.

It seems that there may still be a way to make an honest living from buying a property at a genuine discount and selling it on. For instance, it isn’t a crime to make a profit. Therefore, even if a lender states that a property owned for less than six months must be sold without any increase in value, there is still the potential to charge a finder’s fee. This is true for the lender that is the exception, who does not specifically state that a finder’s fee must be reported. In contrast, all of the residential and buy-to-let lenders within the Lloyds TSB Group would specifically require the reporting of finder’s fees, and if a finder’s fee is being paid none of these lenders will provide a mortgage.

Will any lenders, commercial or residential, be prepared to stand up and lend against a genuine open market value where a property has been owned for a short period – less than six months – and there is genuine reason as to why the sale price is greater than the acquisition price?

There are many budding ‘buy-to-let’ investors interested in property as an investment vehicle. Yields on property in respect of rental income combined with the prospect of future ‘real’ capital growth makes property a very attractive investment at present (real capital growth: growth in line with or greater than inflation).

Bookmark and Share

Fraudster pockets £9m from mortgage lenders

July 24th, 2012

In the largest ever confiscation by Kent Police to date, a convicted mortgage fraudster has been ordered to repay over £9 million, according to a report byKent Online.

After pleading guilty to mortgage fraud in September 2010, Jean-Paul Bestel, 49, who owns a portfolio of around 70 properties, was sentenced to three years imprisonment in March 2011.Kent Police, under The Proceeds of Crime Act, have now ordered Bestel, now released from his sentence, to pay £9,427,123 at Maidstone Crown Court after it was found that he benefitted from his criminality by this amount.

Bestel has six months to pay the full sum or he will serve a further ten years in jail, Kent Police confirmed.

Commenting on the case, Detective Inspector Mark Fairhurst, said: “This demonstrates the committed approach of the Kent and Essex Serious Crime Directorate in ensuring criminals do not benefit from the proceeds of their criminality.

“Offenders will be pursued even when released from prison to ensure their assets are taken from them.”

Bookmark and Share

Bank of England announce cheaper funding for SMEs

July 23rd, 2012

Small businesses and first time buyers are to receive access to cheaper funds after the Bank of England and HM Treasury’s launch of a brand new scheme aimed to kickstart the property market.

The Funding for Lending Scheme (FLS), announced on 13 July, is designed to incentivise banks to lend to both businesses and individuals by allowing banks and building societies to borrow from the Bank of England for up to four years.

The scheme will increase the availability of business loans and mortgages and lower interest rates, ultimately boosting lending.

Banks and building societies will provide assets, such as businesses or mortgage loans, as security for the funds borrowed from the Bank of England. The funds will need to be loaned during the 18 months from 1 August 2012 until 31 January 2014.

The scheme provides additional incentives to the banks which utilise the most funding as the more they lend, they more they are able to borrow from the Bank of England.

The amount the banks pay for the funding is similarly adjusted accordingly; those who increase their lending will pay a lower fee whilst those that reduce their lending will pay more.

For more information on the scheme, including working examples, visit the Bank of England website.

 

Bookmark and Share

Mortgage broker walks free after landmark FSA ban & fine

July 19th, 2012

The first ever mortgage broker to be banned and fined by the FSA for mortgage fraud has walked free from court, the release resulting from her depression.

Sadia Nasir attempted to steal more than £100,000 by submitting false loan applications to Halifax bank. Nasir entered her own bank account details on the forms relating to two properties in London and Manchester and also used a fake name for the homeowner supposedly applying for the mortgage, reported London24.

The court heard that further investigation revealed that Nasir, the Director of Sucasa London Ltd, stood to gain £44,000 on one address at 79 Pittman Gardens, Ilford, East London, and £58,907 on the second at 132A Tempus Building, Manchester.

Despite the jury finding Nasir, 30, had committed the scam, following a two-day hearing at the Old Bailey, it was prevented from finding her criminally responsible after she was earlier ruled unfit to plead.

In July 2008, the FSA banned Nasir and fined her £129,000 after finding she had been involved in the numerous fraudulent mortgage applications highlighted above. This was the first time the FSA had both banned and fined a mortgage broker for mortgage fraud.

Nasir was FSA approved and director of a firm called London Mortgage and Financial Services Limited, which traded as House of Finance. It was then named Sucassa.

The FSA had found that Nasir:

* Submitted seven mortgage applications containing false information about her own employment and earnings supported by falsified documents;
* In four instances entered her own bank details on mortgage applications for clients;
* Deliberately withheld sections of an application form from FSA investigators, failed to disclose to the FSA information relating to a County Court Judgment made against her in September 2005 and failed to disclose the true extent of her assets in an authorisation application to the FSA.

Margaret Cole, former Director of Enforcement and Financial Crime at the time and last Managing Director at the FSA, said: “Ms Nasir’s actions were particularly serious and blatant, and she poses an immediate risk to lenders.”

Nasir also was the subject of another record when in July 2009, the FSA secured a bankruptcy order in the High Court against her for non-payment of the £129,000 financial penalty levied on her by the FSA a year previously for mortgage fraud. This was the first time the FSA had taken bankruptcy proceedings for an unpaid financial penalty levied on an Approved Person.

This month, Judge John Bevan QC told jurors detaining Nasir in hospital was “not appropriate because she is being cared for in the community for a long-term, deep depression.”

He added: “The only sentence I can sensibly pass is one of an absolute discharge.

“It is certainly an unusual trial, but it is not a waste of time because there are cases in which there is a genuine issue in which a person who didn’t do it could find themselves in a mental hospital when they haven’t done anything wrong.”

Catherine Farrelly, prosecuting, said she denied playing any part in either of the applications and had no idea where these false documents had come from.

Nasir explained that even if it was a member of her staff, all of the transactions had to be carried out in her name as she was the director of the company and money goes into her personal bank account.

Farrelly stated: “She said at the time in 2007 she had been heavily pregnant and was not in a position to know what was going on.”

Nasir refused to name any of her staff but did accept that two of the addresses used in support of one mortgage application were her home and her mother’s home.

“In essence the prosecution say it was Sadia Nasir who was behind these two frauds,” said Farrelly.

She added: “She was the person who stood to gain and it was very much in her interest for these frauds to be effected.

“It is quite clear it was this defendant who was behind both of these fraudulent applications.”

Nasir, of Gardiner Road, Plaistow, was charged with two counts of fraud by false representation between March 1 and March 7, 2007.

The jury had ruled that she “did the act” on each count.

Bookmark and Share

Website slip-up exposes £1m mortgage fraud

July 10th, 2012

A man has been jailed for two-and-a-half years after his role in a mortgage scam worth almost £1 million came to light because of a mistake on a website.

Businessman Carl Hughes reportedly asked his secretary Gaynor Grundy, who has since been given a community order, to download fake documents from the internet. He then used these for two remortgage applications worth £500,000.

Hughes applied for the first remortgage in his own name, and the second under his ex-wife’s name; she was not involved in the fraud.

However the scam was exposed because the fake documents downloaded from the internet mistakenly claimed that Barclays has a branch in Staffordshire village Brocton. Inquiries were then made, which discovered that both remortgage applications misrepresented the financial situations of the clients.

Hughes admitted two offences of fraud by false representation by using false documents in support of mortgage applications in September 2009, the Express and Star reports.

45-year old Hughes is now beginning his two-and-a- half year jail term, whilst 64-year Grundy, who admitted two charges of supplying false documents for fraud, was given 250 hours’ community work.

According to the Express and Star, Hughes’ solicitor revealed that his wife had left him and he was being treated for depression.

 

Bookmark and Share

Mortgage adviser’s 69 lies about FSA permissions

July 5th, 2012

A mortgage adviser’s FSA permissions have been removed after the regulator found that he continued to advise clients even though he was not permitted to do so. He also reportedly lied to clients about having professional indemnity (PI) insurance.

According to financial publication Citywire, a total of 69 mortgage transactions were completed by mortgage adviser Christopher Riches, who worked for Fairway Mortgages based in Essex, after he had his permissions amended in January 2012 to exclude his ability to carry out regulated transactions.

In addition to this, the FSA reportedly found that Mr Riches had submitted false documents and misleading information which stated he had PI insurance – including three Regulated Mediation Activities Returns – when he did not.

The FSA supervisory notice said: “Mr Riches has conducted regulated activities despite not having the permission to do so over a prolonged period of time, and therefore has failed to conduct his business with honesty and integrity, or in compliance with proper standards and he therefore no longer satisfies the FSA that he is a fit and proper person to conduct regulated activities.”

It continued: “Mr Riches has repeatedly provided false and misleading information to the FSA, and as such Mr Riches presents a significant risk to consumers.”

Bookmark and Share