In this finance section we mention a couple of lenders who we like to use and the reasons why, in our opinion, these are good lenders.
We then explore the many things to look for in a good lender and what to look out for with regards to bad and ugly practices. Our aim is to help borrowers choose the right bridging lender.
This page finishes with a list of things that can be checked to help determine the nature of the lender that you are dealing with.
There are some very good bridging lenders in the market. However, not all lenders operate in the same way, and there are some that we choose not to use.
We like to use lenders such as Precise Mortgages and United Trust Bank. At present, these two lenders offer the most competitive interest rates and overall deals for a wide range of bridging loan products, that are available for a wide range of uses, including:
Both are large, established and profitable lenders, who we believe treat their customers fairly.
For example:
This final point is important. With bridging loans, it is not unusual for borrowers to go over the agreed term, particularly when the property market slows down or when a sale, refinance or project takes longer than expected.
In our view, good lenders do not treat this as an opportunity to increase profit. Going over term usually means that something has not gone to plan and that the borrower may already be under pressure. Responsible lenders recognise this and work with borrowers constructively to help resolve the situation.
That is one of the key reasons we value lenders such as Precise and United Trust Bank. They take a fair and practical approach, rather than using delays as an opportunity to add unnecessary costs or take advantage of the borrower’s position.
When people who have had bad experiences of bridging loans tell us about their most shocking experiences, stories about:
One name comes up more than any other, and this lender has a large trophy cabinet!
Industry awards usually involve formal submissions, evidence, deadlines, judging criteria and a lot of work behind the scenes.
However, as a contrast between organisers of these events, one award organiser’s formal submission guide provides details to lenders about how much time and effort is required to prepare and submit entries, while another awarding body’s sells table and sponsorship packages.
None of this of course proves that an award has been bought, and it does not mean that every winner is undeserving. However, it does show that repeated success can come from having a team that knows exactly how to present entries, how to stay visible in the right places, and how to play the awards game to get wins.
“Award-winning” gives borrowers confidence, creating the impression of quality, trust and good value. Yet industry award schemes can be decided through submissions, judging panels, and in some cases broker voting. They are not won through a simple test of who is cheapest, who treats borrowers best, or who leaves customers with the fairest overall deal.
This is what makes the whole thing so troubling, in that a lender can build a formidable awards image so borrowers may read that as proof of excellence, even though the trophy count may say more about corporate presentation, than about whether better-value and better-behaved alternatives exist elsewhere in the market.
It is a real shame because this cheapens awards for the firms that genuinely deserve them. Plenty of companies win recognition through quiet excellence, strong products and fair treatment of customers.
When a business turns award-winning into a branding strategy, the risk is that the trophies stop reflecting merit and start functioning as marketing. Then once this happens, the good companies do not just lose the spotlight, borrowers lose a reliable signal of who is actually one of the best.
Good lenders have clear and simple pricing, making it all simple to understand:
If a quote looks cheap but the overall cost is hard to pin down, then query this or keep looking for another lender.
One of the biggest issues with bridging is how interest is charged, not just what the rate is.
Borrowers should always check whether the lender uses:
If not making monthly interest payments, borrowers are better off with roll-up interest because it is easier on cashflow, and when compared like-for-like, it is fairer than retained interest.
So two lenders can both quote the same monthly rate, but one can still be noticeably more expensive due to the method used for charging interest. For more information on this please see The Different Ways Interest is Calculated on a Bridging Loan.
The best lenders usually have access to a dependable funding source.
A lender may look good on paper, but if their funding is thin or unreliable, loans can stall late in the day while the lender waits for another case to redeem or for more capital to be released. A cheap rate is not much use if the money does not arrive when it is needed.
Good lenders usually have:
When a lender has too few valuers, weak solicitors, or poor communication between credit and legal teams, delay becomes far more likely.
A good lender may need to reprice their original loan terms if the valuation comes in lower than expected, or the facts of the application materially change.
What borrowers should avoid are lenders who quote keenly to win the application, then look for reasons to increase the rate late in the process when valuation and legal fees have already been paid and the borrower feels trapped. This is an ugly practice that happens too often with some lenders.Some lenders are cheaper because they only want straightforward first-charge cases on ordinary property at modest loan to values.
Others are more expensive because they can do things the cheap lenders cannot, such as:
Sometimes the right lender is not always the cheapest lender. It is the lender that can actually complete the deal on fair terms.
This is where bridging lenders can become very different from one another.
Borrowers should be cautious when a bridging lender tries to keep them as a customer for their next stage of finance. This can happen where the lender also offers buy-to-let mortgages, commercial mortgages or other longer-term finance products. In some cases, the lender’s sales team may contact the borrower during the bridging loan term, sometimes as part of a progress call, and then suggest switching to one of their own refinance products when or before the bridge is due to be repaid.
An in-house refinance can sound attractive because it may appear quicker, simpler and more convenient. However, convenient does not always mean cheapest or best. A lender’s direct sales team can only offer the products available from that lender. Their role is to sell their own products, usually on expensive terms that are commercially beneficial to the lender.
Whereas a good finance broker has a different role. They work for the borrower, compare the wider market and, where possible, negotiate with lenders to find the most suitable and cost-effective option.
Just because a bridging lender was the right choice for the original short-term loan does not mean the same lender will offer the best follow-on finance. For example, a borrower may buy a property at auction using a bridging loan because they need to complete quickly. They may then carry out some improvement works over a few months, increase the value of the property and become ready to refinance onto a buy-to-let mortgage. At that point, the bridging lender may offer its own buy-to-let product, focusing on how easy it would be to move from the bridge onto their longer-term loan.
The problem is that this “easy” option may be significantly more expensive than alternatives available elsewhere. For example, the borrower could end up paying a higher annual interest rate and a much larger product fee than they would through the wider market. A £200,000 buy-to-let mortgage, paying an extra 2% per year in interest would cost £4,000 more every year. If the lender also charges a 6% product fee, that would be £12,000 upfront, compared with perhaps a fixed £1,000 fee available from another lender. In this situation, choosing the convenient in-house option could cost the borrower more than £10,000 extra in set-up costs, as well as thousands of pounds more each year in interest.
This is why borrowers should be wary of direct refinance sales tactics. An in-house refinance should never be accepted simply because it is convenient. Before moving from a bridging loan onto a longer-term product, borrowers should compare the wider market, look carefully at the interest rate, product fee and overall cost, and make sure the refinance option genuinely represents the best deal available.
Before the loan completes, the borrower still has leverage.
After it completes, the lender has control.
That is why all important points should be agreed before the binding offer is signed and the loan is drawdown:
Once the loan is live, many lenders become far less flexible.
Some lenders structure loans so that interest is deducted upfront. That can leave the borrower receiving less cash than expected and, in the worst cases, less than they actually need for the transaction.
Therefore please ensure that you check the figures carefully to check that you are receiving exactly what you are expecting, and that all the deductions are reasonable and make sense.
Borrowers should also check whether any unused retained interest is refunded if the loan is redeemed early. If that point is not clear, ask for it in writing. Most unregulated loan agreements do refund unused interest when calculating their redemption figures.
Borrowers should always ask:
Minimum loan terms tend to start from one month.
Some lenders insist on three months or longer. This can be expensive if the loan is repaid quickly.
Valuation fees and legal fees should normally reflect the actual cost of the surveyor and the solicitor.
Some lenders, and some brokers, load those costs and keep the difference for themselves.
Borrowers should always ask whether the quoted amount is the real third-party fee or a marked-up charge.
Some lenders charge an additional fee, for example an ‘express fee’, to applicants who required their loan quickly.
We have never liked the idea of a lender charging extra for doing what bridging is meant to do in the first place.
As speed is one of the main points to bridging, the lender should offer their best possible service from the start, and not charge even more for it!
This point catches borrowers out more often than it should.
Some lenders quote their maximum loan to value against open market value. Others work from the 90 day or 180 day valuation figure, which is usually a lower figure than the open market value. So in effect some lenders advertise a higher LTV than they are actually offering when compared to other lenders quoting the same LTV figures who use Open Market Value.
In addition to being a trick to attract business, it also leads to problems because it means a lender that looked like it would advance enough money may suddenly fall short once the maximum loan available, following valuation, falls short due to the LTV being applied to a lower value than expected.
Even when equity is not tight, this can also result in a borrower be pushed onto a more expensive plan, simply due to the lender using a lower valuation figure for its LTV calculations. A borrower, for example, instead of qualifying and receiving the 50% LTV interest rate, may wind up on a more expensive, over 50% LTV interest rate.
Always ask if the LTV is based on open market value or on a 90-day or 180-day value.
This is a point that borrowers often underestimate. If a lender has included high default charges, or default interest rates, then going into default can be very expensive.
In bridging, default can be something technical. It can be triggered by:
That is why default clauses and concessionary rate clauses need to be read carefully.
Some lenders advertise a low rate, but that rate may only apply while the loan remains fully compliant. Once the loan defaults, the real contractual rate appears.
In many other finance sectors concessionary rates have actually been banned.
Important: For unregulated bridging loans, lenders can move very quickly to take control over any assets secured by the loan.
Some lenders charge interest to the exact day of redemption.
Others charge for the whole month once a new month has started.
This makes obtaining settlement figures in time very important. If a lender is slow issuing them, this will delay redemption and the loan could enter a new month, even if it is the lender’s fault! This will mean another month of interest being added to the redemption figure, when it arrives.
These delays could also cause a loan to go over term, when many more fees could then be added, just because the lender is slow, or deliberately slow, in providing their redemption statement.
There is a small part of the market made up of lenders that are effectively last-resort options.
These lenders may have:
Very occasionally, one of these lenders may genuinely be the only option available to raise the required funds. If this happens, the aim should really be to use the facility for the shortest time possible and get it repaid quickly. Going over term can be very costly with these lenders!
Below are some of the uglier practices that we have seen from bridging lenders. Hopefully by being aware of them more borrowers will avoid them.
This is one of the ugliest parts of some bridging agreements.
Some lenders charge very high renewal fees if the loan runs over term. Borrowers should check:
Even lenders that look cheap at the start can become extremely expensive if the loan is not repaid on time.
A borrower is told an extension is likely, so they do not bother looking to refinance elsewhere. A couple of days before their loan expires, the lender then changes their position, and will now not extend.
With not enough time to put an alternative finance facility in place, the loan runs over term, default charges are triggered, the rate rises and the borrower faces a much larger redemption figure. Some may also instruct their LPA Receivers immediately, which will incur even more charges.
A borrower only needs a modest additional amount near the end of a project. Instead of simply increasing the facility or issuing a small extra loan, the lender forces a full redemption and brand-new facility, triggering fresh fees charged on the whole loan amount, not just the extra. The new facility will also have a new minimum term.
A recent example involved a property developer who needed £100,000 to finish off a small development. They had a facility for approximately £1 million, but rather than releasing the £100,000 to their valued customer, they rewrote the whole loan. So the developer wound up paying a new facility fees on £1,100,000 plus the retained interest for a year. Meaning that borrowing the extra £100,000 cost the property developer an extra £30,000 in costs. This ultimately comes off the development profits, then increases the lender’s profits.
A borrower has exchanged contracts, and just before completion the lender suddenly increases the interest rate and/or fees on the loan facility.
The lender knows the borrower has to complete and doesn’t have time to look for alternative funding, so will need to still draw their loan.
That is why lender behaviour matters just as much as lender criteria.
Although some years ago now, this is one of those cases where we learnt a lot about the unpleasant side of unregulated lending.
A relatively new, up and coming development company needed to move quickly to acquire an old waterfront commercial property located on the south coast. Their plans were to redevelop the property into apartments.
To secure the purchase, the development company needed a fairly quick bridging loan of more than £2 million. We searched the market for the best deal, and on price one lender came out ahead.
The loan was progressing toward completion. Then, late afternoon the day before the loan was due to be drawn, everything changed with a phone call.
Our contact at the lender was now abroad on holiday, so the call came from the founder and majority shareholder of this lender. He told us that the interest rate on the loan would need to be increased, and it was a significant increase. Other lenders had quoted much cheaper, but this was right at the last minute, no time to change.
We pushed back immediately and made it clear that the client would not accept such a major change in rate.
Last-minute changes to bridging terms do happen. Sometimes a valuation comes in low, the loan-to-value shifts, or an issue arises during legal work. There are also times when some lenders look for reasons to justify increased pricing. This unfortunately leaves borrowers feeling that the original terms were never truly meant to be honoured, and that the increase was always going to come at the very end, when they had the least amount of room to manoeuvre.
What made this case especially striking was the bluntness of the explanation. There was no attempt to dress it up as a valuation issue or a legal problem. The message, as it was put to us, was simple:
“the borrower had exchanged contracts so had no choice!”
That is what made this experience so revealing. This was not a decision buried somewhere lower down the chain. It came from the very top, and for an applicant already committed to a major transaction, it showed a disregard for the customer that is hard to forget.
Nobody should want to be with a lender who is always looking for an opportunity to make some extra money from their customers who have fallen into their traps.
When comparing lenders a comparison checklist for lenders should include the following.
There are some very good bridging lenders in the market who provide a valuable service and are really excellent to deal with. They make a profit, but are fair and do not exploit their customers.
Then there are those driven by high profit figures. These lenders, whose agreements, fee structures and post-completion behaviour can often make a difficult situation much worse.
Please remember that you are not just choosing a rate, you are choosing a lender who will have a set of behaviours that will matter most if anything does not go to plan.
Last updated: 05 May 2026 | © KIS Bridging Loans 2024 | Privacy Notice | Complaints Policy
We would like to hear from anyone who has had a bad experience, having taken out a bridging loan or an unregulated first charge loan.
For long term loans, this includes interest rate reductions not being passed on.
The more information that we have will help us better understand what borrowers are experiencing. Read More
All information shared with us will be treated as private and confidential and will not be shared with anyone outside of KIS Finance Limited.
Depending on the circumstances, we may also be able to offer guidance, comment on what has happened, or simply share our thoughts. If we believe we can help or advise you, we will let you know.
Any help that we do provide will be completely free of charge. Even if we help you achieve a better outcome or improved settlement, there will be no charge.
Please contact us if:
We are interested in knowing more about:
Borrowers with longer term loans – if you still have, or had, and old unregulated secured loan agreement taken out before the credit crunch in 2008, where the 13 year record low interest rates from 2009 to 2022 were not passed on. In other words if you had a loan that was not on a fixed rate taken out in 2008 or before, where the repayments or interest charges did not reduce despite the reduction in interest rates. Bank of England base rate was 5.25% in February 2008, 12 months later it was 1.0%, then dropped further, remaining under 1.0% for 13 years.
Contact us
Please use the form below or email ugly@kisfinance.co.uk in confidence, and tell us what happened and include as much detail as you can. Alternatively send your contact details and ask us to call you.