Mortgage Loan Lottery

I was speaking to a loan valuer recently and heCompanies en-mass. The Council of Mortgage
mentioned a bizarre situation that cost a purchaserLenders, the body that regulates loan lending, considers
many hundreds of pounds in fee costs.allowing individual companies the right to have differing
The Valuer (Bob) was sent a property loan valuationlending criteria is satisfactory even if the public are not
instruction on a Victorian house in the south of England.told these vital policies.
On inspection Bob noted that the rear kitchenI am sure each Lender is, in the small print somewhere,
bathroom wing of the building was constructed inunder a duty to publish their leading criteria and so "it is
half-brick form, common for the period in that district.not their fault that customers choose not to read
Technically this part of the home was below habitablelending terms given to them".
standard notwithstanding these walls had beenSo what can be done about this bizarre situation?
weather-proofed externally and set internally with aThis is the easy bit but is something that seems to
dense render. The ratio of sub-standard wall to cavityalways be talked about but never completed. How
full-standard walling was about 20 per cent.about we properly regulate Estate Agents including the
Bob prepared his report in accordance with that Loanintroduction of standard examinations upon a syllabus
Company's Valuers Manual and they accepted it andthat includes construction recognition and general
offered the client purchaser loan finance accordingly.property compliance issues to Lenders Valuer Manual
Unbeknown to Bob as his report was beingcriteria. OR.......
considered the client purchaser decided to changeThe Council of Mortgage Lenders should be granted
lenders for a better interest rate just announced bythe power to issue only one set of lending criteria to all
Company B. Ten days later Bob received, by pureValuers on behalf of all Lenders.
chance, the instruction to value the same home again.Any system, as is currently in place, that throws the
Bob prepared another report. However, this secondemphasis on to a non-trained ordinary member of the
report was very different from his previous report.public to decide matters of technicality of construction,
The second report simply said that the home did notis fundamentally flawed and unfair.
comply with that Loan Company Valuers ManualI believe the Office of Fair Trading are failing in their
criteria and was declined as being acceptable security.duty to provide effective monitoring and regulation in a
In other words no loan could be offered.marketplace that is well known for its protectionist and
The reason behind this change in adequacy of securitymonopolistic tendencies that operate against the best
was stated as being that the wall construction wasinterests of the consumer.
sub-standard and the Loan Company did not lend onI also believe the Royal Institution of Chartered
sub-standard forms of construction.Surveyors has too long buried its head in red-tape to
Bob had been paid 400 pounds sterling in total for hisaccept the real challenges before it: why have they
two inspections. The client had paid over 700 poundsnot recognised this simple fundamental market flaw
sterling in total mortgage application fees. Estatethat places their membership is a rather strange
Agents in the property chain were many thousands ofrelationship with the end client, the home buyer.
pounds out of pocket on lost commission charges. TheBy the way --- if the Home Information Pack scheme
rippled effect caused these individuals, and manyhad had a Sellers Survey (like the system that
others, massive loss of revenue, waste of time andcurrently operates in Scotland) included then none of
effort plus related stress and disappointment.this nonsense would be possible. Oh well, we cannot
Who was to blame for this bizarre situation?expect too much from weak Government and less
It may be unconventional but I believe it is the Loanthan fully impartial market Regulators, can we?