Your November update from AMI Chief Executive Robert Sinclair

AMI Chief Executive Robert Sinclair gives his November update, including AMI’s Protection Viewpoint, market conditions and future challenges for advisers…

Making the most of AMI Protection Viewpoint findings

AMI’s 2023 Protection Viewpoint report ‘The Perception Gap’ is packed full of findings and insight aimed at mortgage intermediaries…

Consumer Duty – an update

Key Consumer Duty developments and recent communications issued by both AMI and the FCA, with commentary on implications for mortgage intermediary firms…

AR regime – updated AMI Q&A and deadline reminder

Having heard back from the FCA, we have updated AMI’s Q&A documenton the AR regime. We also wanted to remind firms of the upcoming 30 November 2023 deadline…

FCA application window open for firms approving promotions for unauthorised persons

Firms that approve financial promotions for unauthorised persons have until 6th February 2024 to apply for approver permission from the FCA…

FSCS levy and compensation figures update

The FSCS has released an update on its levy and compensation figures for 2023/24, as well as anticipated levy figures for 2024/25…

Edit Content

Log in here for full access to all our great content


Please log in below with your username (which is your email address), using all lower-case letters.


Forgotten your password?
No problem, simply tell us you have forgotten your password to receive instructions instantly via email.

Having problems logging in?
If you are a current member but are unable to login, please first make sure you are using all lower-case letters for your username/email address. If you still have difficulties, please contact us via email at so we can rectify your problem.

Not a member?
Learn more about the benefits of becoming a member or apply online and we will be in touch.

In the last few weeks mortgage firms have been invoiced for the latest interim levy from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. These were for eye watering amounts of money.  The background to the majority of these costs are failed unregulated investments.  Some were to fund Eastern European property builds whilst others were on carbon credits, forestry schemes, film funding and other esoteric investments.  As some were undertaken through a SIPP vehicle brokers are held liable as they are part of the life and pensions intermediation class. The main cost in this bill however comes from compensation to consumers who borrowed money on an interest only basis to fund Eastern European property.  They were dependent on the rental income to service the loan and for the sale proceeds to repay the capital.

As the property has never been built, indeed perhaps was never going to be, the broker advising the loan is being held liable due to the further borrowing, rather than the lender or any investment adviser involved.  As the broker firm which gave the original advice no longer exists, the remaining good firms must pay up.  Most of these transactions took place in 2007 and 2008, so it is surprising they have taken this long to surface.  It is perhaps also a shock to brokers that all of the cost falls on them as the lender had a responsible lending rule to comply with and some responsibility to assess affordability.  Particularly at that time brokers were paid for the introduction of the case, not generally for the suitability of any advice.

Given the complex nature of the history of these transactions and that we would expect the customer would have to prove financial dependence as part of both the original advice and now, we are asking the Compensation Scheme to take us through their policy and processes in some detail.

Part of our concern is that firms are paying compensation as the customer cannot afford to repay their interest only loans, but the funds go direct to the consumer not the lender.  This seems unfair.  If the customer cannot afford the loan then the compensation should go to eradicate the debt.  Of course part of the problem might be that the vast majority of these cases are being brought via lawyers or CMC’s who want compensating for their involvement.

These are complicated areas and the judgements being made to compensate or not has fine margins.  We already know that many claims are refused, but we want to ensure that such significant sums of money being charged to firms who operate responsibly with narrow margins of profitability are being given a proper duty of care.

Finally we are interested in those who ran these firms and where they are now.  How much knowledge did they have of the schemes and if their firms failed leaving such large legacy liabilities behind, are they still being allowed to operate within the regulatory landscape.  Indeed are any of them as guilty of fraud as some of those being vigorously pursued through the courts by the FCA for insider dealing.  AMI will keep asking questions of both the FCA and FSCS until we get full answers to our questions.

Robert Sinclair
February 2017


Forgot Password?

Join Us