As criteria complexity grows, operational friction is quietly reshaping broker–lender relationships
The broker–lender relationship sits at the heart of the UK mortgage market. Yet as criteria evolves and borrower profiles become more complex, the strain is increasingly operational rather than commercial.
Gareth Richardson, CEO of Finova, believes too much of the ecosystem still functions in silos.
“We cover both lender, broker, end to end and want to continue to be like that,” he said. But in practice, he argued, the two sides are often treated as distinct worlds, even though their success depends on alignment.
Where partnerships break down
For Richardson, the fundamentals of a strong partnership are straightforward. “All partnerships are about mutual beneficial outcome,” he said.
Lenders rely heavily on intermediaries for distribution. Brokers, in turn, rely on lenders for competitive products and responsive underwriting. The relationship works when incentives are aligned and processes function smoothly.
It deteriorates when friction creeps in. “Delays in payment, delays in how that works,” he said, can quickly cause frustration. He also pointed to “complicated answers” and “Byzantine rules that take a long time to work out” as common pressure points.
From the lender’s perspective, wasted effort can be just as corrosive, particularly when teams spend time assessing cases that were unlikely to proceed.
Crucially, Richardson does not frame this as deliberate obstruction. “No broker steps out to waste a lender’s time, and no lender sets out to waste the broker’s time. It just happens,” he said.
The challenge, he argued, is how to “remove friction” and improve productivity across the chain.
When complexity becomes the problem
Research cited by Richardson highlights the scale of the issue. Seventy per cent of brokers surveyed said they had received frustrating or conflicting answers from lenders - discrepancies between policy documents, BDM guidance and underwriting outcomes.
At the same time, between 47% and 50% reported spending more than 20 minutes researching each lender before submitting a case. Across a broad lender panel, that represents a significant time burden.
Richardson believes part of the issue stems from the drive to differentiate through systems and process.
“There’s been a real trend over the last few years to make lender software more complicated or unique,” he said. While intended to create competitive advantage, that uniqueness can slow brokers down unless they regularly place business with the same lender.
A more standardised, uniform approach to accessing criteria, he suggested, may ultimately prove more efficient for both sides.
Systems, nuance and dialogue
Despite the emphasis on technology, Richardson was clear that human relationships remain central. In the same research, 80% of brokers said they were spending time talking to BDMs as part of their case research.
“It’s all about humans, at the end of the day, sat at the other side of it, understanding those nuances and having a conversation to get it done,” he said.
That nuance is becoming more important as borrower circumstances grow more complex. “We’ve all got more complicated data, lives, other things we can bring to the party,” he said, which in turn pushes additional complexity into lending decisions.
Richardson sees technology, including AI, as a way to streamline the more straightforward elements of that process. Tools can look up policy documents and filter basic queries quickly, leaving advisers and lender teams to focus on edge cases and grey areas.
“But people are key to making it work at the moment,” he said.
In a market where criteria tightens and specialist cases become more common, the quality of broker–lender dialogue may prove decisive. Reducing friction in routine processes, Richardson suggested, creates more space for the conversations that genuinely require judgment.
If the intermediary ecosystem can improve that balance, partnerships may not only endure shifting market conditions, they may become more resilient because of them.
