"It’s clear that brokers realise and appreciate the complex nature of non-mainstream buy-to-let cases and how lenders approach them"
Buy-to-let complex applications include commercial buy-to-let, portfolio landlords and limited company applications.
Complex buy-to-let lenders were rated 96% for their flexibility by brokers. Mainstream buy-to-let lenders were rated 87% for flexibility. Overall, lenders across all categories scored a rating of 79% for flexibility.
When asked what they liked about the lender they had placed a complex buy-to-let application with, one broker commented: “Flexibility and the underwriters look for a way to write the deal and work with you to get the best solutions for the clients.”
Comparing the two types of buy-to-let lending, brokers also rated the underwriting from complex buy-to-let lenders as higher than mainstream buy-to-let lenders, with a rating of 50% compared to 32%. The overall average across all lenders was 51%.
Smart Money People also found there is a marked difference between broker satisfaction with speed for the two types of buy-to-let lender. Complex buy-to-let lenders were rated just 29% for their speed and mainstream buy-to-let lenders were rated 55% for speed. In turn this shows a difference in how easy a broker thinks these lenders are to place an application with. Complex buy-to-let lenders were rated 67% compared to 80% for mainstream buy-to-let lender applications for ease by brokers.
When leaving feedback for a complex buy-to-let application with a lender, one broker said: “Their service delivery has a lot of scope to improvement. Too much time in processing leaves clients on the edge.”
Jacqueline Dewey, CEO of Smart Money People, commented: “It’s clear that brokers realise and appreciate the complex nature of non-mainstream buy-to-let cases and how lenders approach them, especially when it comes to how flexible a lender is willing to be for these cases. However a rating of 29% for speed compared to the overall lender average of 58% shows that complex buy-to-let lenders still have room for improvement in their backend processes.”
