The MCCB also claims that a similar number of firms were persuaded to shut up shop because they could not comply with the Mortgage Code rules during its time as the industry’s regulator.
In an interview with Mortgage Introducer Luke March, chief executive of the soon to be dissolved mortgage industry watchdog the Mortgage Code Compliance Board (MCCB), admitted that over a thousand currently-registered firms had fallen foul of it in one way or another and all information would be passed on to to the new regulator.
“There are certain criteria which lead to a firm falling out of good standing with the MCCB; these included allowing their professional indemnity (PI) cover to lapse or if they had been involved in the disciplinary process or had a certain volume of complaints against them,” March explained.
He went on to say that all the firms would be aware of their standing with the MCCB and that their standing would not necessarily bar them from FSA regulation.
Mark Mountney, managing director of Premier Mortgage Management, commented: “Given the state of the PI market last year I am surprised that more firms are not on the list. However its is only right that the FSA know about firms who have transgressed the rules so they know who to keep an eye on.”
Matthew Bright, managing director of Optoma, said: “Its all very well now the MCCB telling us that a thousand firms are not in good standing, it should have been a tougher and more vocal regulator while it was actually in charge. This is like shutting the stable door after the horse has already bolted.”
And John O’Brien, operations director of PMPA, said: “My question would be, will the FSA be using this information straight away to target theses companies?”
FSA spokesperson, Robin Gordon-Walker, refused to say how MCCB information would be used post-regulation. “We may use this information to make extra enquiries into firms who were not in good standing when they were applying to be regulated,” he said.
