But how much can this dynamic be jeopardised if intermediaries are cut out of a deal, and how prevalent is this? Some brokers spoke to B&C noting incidents of being bypassed, either deliberately or through a lack of communication.

Shazad Ahmed, director at Elan Property Finance, found himself in the position where a bridging lender made contact with his client via social media and then repeatedly reached out to them during an ongoing application process to “build a relationship”. Despite this, he said he was still “conveniently” left to deal with a small hurdle in the completion process.

“The client was also a personal friend, and we found the whole situation ridiculous,” divulged Shazad.

Lenders had also noticed the practice. Jonathan Samuels, CEO at Octane Capital, said that while the standard for his firm is to always go through the introducing broker for any extension, rewrite, or exit, and to contact and pay the proc fee to the original broker on an enquiry where the borrower has contacted them directly, he had started to see this practice be chipped away elsewhere.

“When I first got into lending, this was the norm, but there does seem to be a trend for more lenders to cut the broker out where possible these days,” shared Jonathan.

He continued that “poaching” clients was indeed becoming more routine. “Years ago, this was not an issue, but I have seen it increase as some lenders try to go direct,’’ he said.

Jonathan wasn’t the only lender who had seen an increase in the practice: “Borrowers and other lenders make us aware that sadly, this is increasingly the norm in our sector,” stated Adam Robson, head of key accounts at Mint Property Finance.

Broker Myles Williams, CEO at Envelop, believed that when a lender appeared to be going behind the back of broker partners, it could often be down to miscommunication, rather than strategy.

“While I’ve occasionally seen instances where communication lines became blurred, I try to assume positive intent and chalk these up to miscommunication or process gaps, rather than deliberate overreach,” he commented.

“That said, it does highlight the importance of clear boundaries and mutual respect in lender-broker relationships.”

Jason Berry, group sales director at Crystal Specialist Finance, had seen instances when lenders had contacted clients directly, but felt this was the exception rather than the rule, and that the vast majority of lenders recognised the large numbers of specialist mortgage originations which came from brokers.

“Most lenders appreciate that without the intermediary community, they would not have access to such a wide array of customer types or volumes,” said Jason.

“Of course, when direct contact does occur, it’s important to judge intent — sometimes it’s purely for operational clarification rather than commercial solicitation. Maintaining open dialogue with lender partners often resolves these situations constructively.”

While the motives for bypassing brokers may be varied, the issue can bring up questions regarding who the main contact with the borrower is and who has ‘ownership’ of the client.

Generally, industry professionals ruled in the broker’s favour, even as they took objection to the term ‘ownership’.

•   The Finance Professional Show 2024: The Video
•   Bridging lenders urged to stay agile amid rising borrowing and inflation
•   Funders reveal what makes a bridging lender investable

“If the lender is introduced to a borrower through a broker and a fee for that introduction is involved, payment for each and every case transacted with that borrower should continue ad infinitum,” said Steve Burns, partner at Word On The Street.

While Jason felt that it was up to the client to decide who they give their trust to, he noted that not only do brokers have a duty of care towards their clients, but they possess market knowledge which cannot be obtained by individual lenders.

“If a broker regularly reviews a client’s needs, compares the market, and adds value through advice, there should be no ambiguity about where client loyalty sits,” explained Jason.

“On the other hand, brokers who fail to deliver that ongoing service risk creating a vacuum that lenders or competitors will naturally fill.”

Myles was more emphatic as to where the weight of the client relationship sits: “From my perspective, brokers maintain the client relationship. We are the ones who invest time in understanding their needs, guiding them through options, and ensuring the right fit.

“Lenders are key partners, of course, but the advisory and trust elements rest with the broker.”

Some lenders have established safeguards to ensure the dynamic doesn’t take a turn which could leave the broker in the dark. One of these is Mint, which uses a KYC to understand a client’s position which is captured in a CRM, meaning client interactions can be traced back to the introducing broker.

Other lenders, such as MSP Capital, have utilised fintech in an effort to manage the dynamic: “We have developed our own in-house IT software for the purposes of loan management,” said Arian Manouchehri, head of sales and originations and senior underwriter at MSP.

“A feature of this system is to log the source of all loans, to ensure all relationships are respected,” highlighted Arian.

Some brokers said the onus was on the intermediary community to ensure that they stay on the scene, rather than relying on regulation.

“No contract is essentially required here, just good manners from the lender and good broking practice,” said Steve.

“[For] the brokers who discover lenders have transacted directly, [it] is usually because they’ve failed to keep in touch with all parties. A broker’s role does not end at legal completion.”

While Shazad believes that even unregulated transactions should have clear agreements and expectations within the terms of business and broker registration to ensure against active client poaching, at the end of the day it is also a borrower’s choice.

“There should be nothing stopping clients going direct to lenders (if they accept direct business) for future deals, the same way they can, if they wish, work with different brokers on future deals,” said Shazad.

“Should lenders pay originating brokers for future deals is another conversation altogether, but ultimately [it] should be clear on an initial terms of business between lender and broker.”

According to Shazad, poaching could lead to word spreading through the industry about less reputable lenders, potentially resulting in brokers bypassing them and looking elsewhere for more trustworthy partners.

Still, some such as Myles said their trust in lender partnerships had remained steady. He said he would continue to work closely with lenders that value the lender-broker dynamic, while ensuring expectations were clear from the outset.

 “Client loyalty and trust are central to the broker’s role. Any uncertainty around ‘ownership’ can undermine that,” stated Myles.

“For me, the focus is always on ensuring the client feels supported — if lenders and brokers both keep that front of mind, the rest usually falls into place.”