WTF...................................................

[Leesparkykent]

Good luck with that ....

Good luck with what Sean?

 

[sean_ork]

Good luck with what Sean?

Trying to convince a mortgage lender that they could or should use members of other schemes, based on their need to satisfy the terms of their membership of the FCA.

 

[Leesparkykent]

Trying to convince a mortgage lender that they could or should use members of other schemes, based on their need to satisfy the terms of their membership of the FCA.

Oh...what makes you say that then? I personally know someone who has done it. Without a FCA license they can’t lend, give advice or broker money.

 

[Baddegg]

It's their money, and their right to stipulate whoever they deem to be suitable qualified. It is perhaps rather short sighted of them to be so restrictive.

Suitably qualified is nothing to do with the scheme you are a member off.........

 

[sean_ork]

Suitably qualified is nothing to do with the scheme you are a member off.........

Indeed, they aren't fussy who they allow in.

 

[Baddegg]

Indeed, they aren't fussy who they allow in.

That another subject, thought we were discussing mortgage companies and competition laws?

 

[sean_ork]

That another subject, thought we were discussing mortgage companies and competition laws?

I guess we are, putting it another way .... perhaps the lender in question needs to be reminded and convinced that members of others schemes may well also be suitably qualified to carry out the testing they require.

Thats a task for other schemes marketing departments, in the interests of their own members.

 

[johnduffell]

I agree it's utter rubbish, and completely unfair, but I struggle to think of any law that would be broken, as it's before the remortgage. It's certainly not price fixing, as they are not fixing prices as they would have to prove collaboration to gain a collective monopoly on pricing to artificially inflate them. And it's not discrimination as it's not a protected characteristic to be in another scheme.
If it were after the mortgage was signed, and the OP's customer ticked a box to say the electrics were safe, and the mortgage company were trying to apply a penalty or retention to the account because they weren't checked, in a court of law the report from any competent electrician would be acceptable.
But because it is before hand, they can insist you send them a pack of custard creams from sainsburys if they like and refuse to give you the mortgage otherwise (even if you provided waitrose ones which were better quality).

 

[Kamikaze]

If my memory serves me right then cartel behaviour is the most serious breach of the anti-competitive rules. The fines are mind-boggling. If the mortgage company really stipulated an NIC contractor before they requested the EICR as part of the application, then they could also bring the NIC into disrepute. To prove racketeering will be difficult but there should be a paper trail of how the NIC was chosen as a preferred scheme.

 

[johnduffell]

To prove racketeering will be difficult but there should be a paper trail

which is the more likely explanation

1. idiots making up the rules and hurting their own company in the process (to the benefit of the neceic who is not involved other than being well known)
2. complex agreements with the majority of other mortgage providers and the neceic with mutual kick backs abusing the dominant position in the market for their own benefit creating a criminal offence all for a tiny amount of money anyway

Never ascribe to malice what you can explain with incompetence

 

[Baddegg]

All the know is when I joined stroma I was specifically told that if any company told me I had to be niceic to do the works that I should let them know as it was illegal......I’d have to go option 1 JD

 

[Kamikaze]

I’m also leaning towards option 1 because I’ve seen Emma on that part pee commons select committee meeting and she couldn’t even do simple maths, so I don’t think she is bright enough to organise a conspiracy.

 

[MFS Electrical]

The mortgage company can stipulate whoever they want.

Pretty sure the fair competition rules would say otherwise though especially if they are a public limited company which being a mortgage company they most likely are...

 

[rolyberkin]

which is the more likely explanation

1. idiots making up the rules and hurting their own company in the process (to the benefit of the neceic who is not involved other than being well known)
2. complex agreements with the majority of other mortgage providers and the neceic with mutual kick backs abusing the dominant position in the market for their own benefit creating a criminal offence all for a tiny amount of money anyway

Never ascribe to malice what you can explain with incompetence

Incompetence is never an excuse for poor or potentially unlawful business practice. Nobody is saying that there has been a collusion between a mortgage company and the NICEIC and that this should be prosecuted. What is being said is that the OP should contact his scheme who will contact the mortgage lender in question to ascertain their procurement process relating to the exclusive use of the NICEIC over other equally viable scheme providers. In large organisations (where I have spent most of my career) this is business as usual and usually has the desired effect in educating the organisations. I would be 99% certain due to the stringent controls which are placed on mortgage lenders that this will be an 'oversight' or decision which has not been thought through and it will be quickly rectified by inclusion of other scheme providers. If we all sat back and let these uneducated (and yes potentially unlawful and unfair practices continue) then nothing will change. I know for a fact Stroma are extremely proactive in pursuing this kind of matter so it should definitely be reported to the OP's scheme provider for investigation and follow up.

 

[Midwest]

It’s all a bit academic really, all this talk of cartels, competition laws and mortgage providers doing what they want.

I think if the OP is so incensed, I would make contact with my Scheme and see if they can do anything about this particular scenario, if they are bothered. It’s what you pay you fees for, or should be, for them to act on your behalf.

If you do, get the name of someone and email them directly, otherwise it will just get lost in the etha!

 

[coolsparx]

That is why I signed up to the NICEIC. They all essentially offer the same service, however NICEIC is a well known brand. As previously suggested, definitely contact NAPIT & get them to intervine.

People still call a vacuum cleaner a Hoover or a utility knife a Stanley knife.

 

[rhitey]

Hi this is why we've stuck with the NICEIC
A large amount of enquiries we get through specify that an NICEIC contract must be used.

 

[pirate]

Mortgage lenders can do as they please. They shouldn't be able to do so, but they can...I know...I worked "with" them for decades, and they have become more and more restrictive.
I will not bore you with examples similar to the one of this thread, suffice to say there are many. The simple fact is that they can choose to whom they lend, as a shopkeeper can choose not to serve someone (any sinsister/religious/racist questions or motives apart). Requiring an EICR for an equity release is questionable anyway (and not required in Scotland) but the lender has stipulated it as a component part of the loan application, and once all the required items/reports etc are gathered together, someone will then make a decision "in principle" to lend the money, subject to them being able to change their mind up until the funds have actually been released.
Banks?
B******s!