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

[John tomo 1972]

Hi all pls let me know if this has happened to any of you.
I completed an EICR for a customer who was applying for equity release from their property and the above certification needed to be presented along with the application , the client calls me a few weeks later and tells me the mortgage company will only accept certification from nic approved electricians, I am registered with NAPIT I as the customer to get them to call me direct but they told him they don't deal with 3rd party's and advise him to have the certification redone by an electrician who is nic registered .....WTF

 

[Leesparkykent]

Hi all pls let me know if this has happened to any of you.
I completed an EICR for a customer who was applying for equity release from their property and the above certification needed to be presented along with the application , the client calls me a few weeks later and tells me the mortgage company will only accept certification from nic approved electricians, I am registered with NAPIT I as the customer to get them to call me direct but they told him they don't deal with 3rd party's and advise him to have the certification redone by an electrician who is nic registered .....WTF

Get the name of the mortgage company and give it to NAPIT they will get in touch with said mortgage company and kick up a fuss, threatening legal action etc. AFAIA the mortgage company can’t stipulate this.

 

[sean_ork]

The mortgage company can stipulate whoever they want.

 

[John tomo 1972]

Was thinking that then I was thinking Christ this client must think the certification given to them ain't worth the paper there printed on

 

[John tomo 1972]

That may be so but there is no difference between the two organisations with regards to certification process and the process for sparks wanting to pay to join there organisation

 

[Leesparkykent]

That may be so but there is no difference between the two organisations with regards to certification process and the process for sparks wanting to pay to join there organisation

Still get NAPIT on to them. Zurich used to stipulate NICEIC only but I know someone who got NAPIT onto them and they soon changed their tune.

 

[John tomo 1972]

Will let them know but still fuming cheeky c##ts

 

[sean_ork]

Did you get paid promptly ?

 

[rolyberkin]

The mortgage company can stipulate whoever they want.

No they can't it breaches anti competition laws.

 

[Kamikaze]

I would remind the mortgage company of the 1998 Competition Act and the 2002 Enterprise Act. Let them focus their mind on Chapters I and II of the act and ignore them at their peril.

 

[Toneyz]

This is where the NICEIC publicity machine and brand awareness has an advantage. There should be no difference in the competence of the sparky to do the EICR.

 

[rolyberkin]

Leesparkykent is 100% correct if anyone comes across any organisation who is stipulating one scheme over another it should be reported to the disadvantaged members scheme who should be fully aware of how to deal with the matter.
Avoid and report anti-competitive activity - https://www.gov.uk/cartels-price-fixing

 

[Toneyz]

Did you get paid promptly ?

What's that got to do with it?

 

[Leesparkykent]

The mortgage company can stipulate whoever they want.

Are you sure?

 

[John tomo 1972]

I did get payed promptly but this is from a client I have done regular work for but it still makes you feel like ---- when the customer effectively hasn't got what they payed you for, if you know what I mean

 

[sean_ork]

What's that got to do with it?

Because that's all that really matters, but if the OP wants a crusade ....

 

[Leesparkykent]

A mortgage company being a lender will have to be a FCA member. They would have to comply with equality, discrimination, competition acts etc

 

[sean_ork]

Are you sure?

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.

 

[sean_ork]

A mortgage company being a lender will have to be a FCA member. They would have to comply with equality, discrimination, competition acts etc

Good luck with that ....

 

[Leesparkykent]

Because that's all that really matters, but if the OP wants a crusade ....

I don’t think “that’s all that really matters” and by the looks of things, the OP doesn’t think being paid is all that matters.

 

[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!