For decades, the relationship between lenders and brokers has been complex. Some lenders welcome broker input, recognising the value of independent structuring. Others see brokers as an unnecessary layer between them and the borrower. But in 2025, with exit risk at the forefront of every credit committee discussion, a new question arises: should lenders go further and actively recommend brokers to borrowers at the very start of a deal?
It may sound unconventional, but the logic is simple. Many defaults occur not because the borrower lacked intent, but because they lacked expertise. Their exit assumptions were too optimistic, their refinancing plan unrealistic, or their documentation incomplete. As we saw in The Cost of a Failed Exit, these mistakes can sink a loan — even when the underlying asset is strong. A broker could have prevented them.
This article explores the case for lenders recommending brokers at inception, the potential risks of doing so, and why this proactive step may become the norm for responsible lenders in 2025.
Traditionally, lenders have kept distance from brokers for fear of perceived conflict. Recommending a particular firm could raise questions of bias, kickbacks, or preferential treatment. Lenders have therefore adopted a neutral stance: if borrowers arrive with a broker, fine; if they arrive direct, the lender assesses the case themselves.
This neutrality has benefits. It keeps the lender free of accusations of steering and avoids regulatory scrutiny. But it also leaves borrowers — especially inexperienced or overseas ones — without guidance. They may underestimate the complexity of refinancing or assume their income will be acceptable to mainstream banks, only to find out too late that their plan fails lender tests.
In other words, neutrality may protect lenders from criticism, but it also exposes them to higher default risk.
The argument for recommending brokers rests on outcomes. When brokers are involved early, exits are more credible, facilities are better structured, and repayment risk is lower.
In How Lenders Can Reduce Default Risk Through Broker Partnerships, we outlined how brokers stress-test assumptions and design contingencies. Lenders benefit directly from this: fewer defaults, stronger loan book performance, and improved credibility with investors.
By recommending brokers at inception, lenders can ensure that even direct borrowers — those without advisory support — gain access to this expertise. It transforms the quality of deals presented, reduces late-stage failures, and protects capital.
In 2023, a regional lender advanced a £3 million facility directly to a borrower who declined broker support. The borrower’s plan was to refinance onto a buy-to-let mortgage once construction completed. The lender accepted this exit without scrutiny.
When maturity arrived, the refinance application was declined. Rental yields failed stress tests, and the borrower had no contingency. The facility went into default, costing the lender months of enforcement and reputational damage.
Had a broker been engaged at inception, the weakness would have been identified. The plan could have been restructured into part-sales and partial refinance, as Willow has done in similar cases. Instead, the lack of broker input created a failure that could have been prevented.
The biggest barrier to lenders recommending brokers is perception. Borrowers may question whether the recommendation is truly in their best interest or designed to benefit the broker. Regulators may also scrutinise whether lenders are unduly steering clients.
The solution lies in transparency. Lenders do not need to recommend a single broker. Instead, they can maintain panels of approved brokers who meet standards of professionalism, independence, and FCA regulation. Borrowers can be offered a choice of brokers, with clear disclosure that the lender receives no financial incentive for the recommendation.
Handled this way, broker recommendations become not a conflict of interest but a mark of responsible lending — akin to solicitors being recommended from approved panels in property transactions.
In 2025, exit planning failures are under sharper scrutiny than ever. Regulators, particularly the FCA, are paying closer attention to lender responsibility around affordability, repayment, and consumer outcomes. Defaults are not just commercial problems; they are compliance risks.
As we highlighted in Why Proactive Exit Planning Improves Loan Book Performance, lenders who demand robust exits strengthen both financial performance and regulatory credibility. Recommending brokers at inception is a natural extension of this principle. It demonstrates that the lender has taken steps to ensure the borrower has expert guidance from the start.
For international borrowers and those with complex income, the case is even stronger. As explored in Exits for Borrowers with Complex Income or Overseas Status, these clients face unique hurdles. Without broker support, their chances of refinancing successfully are slim. For lenders, recommending a broker is not just good practice — it may be the only way to ensure repayment.
A private bank working with high-net-worth clients adopted a new policy in 2024: all borrowers without an existing advisory relationship were required to engage a broker. The bank provided a panel of three FCA-regulated firms, leaving borrowers free to choose.
The result was transformative. Exit failures dropped sharply, facilities were better structured, and the bank’s loan book performance improved significantly. Investors responded positively, recognising the institution’s commitment to risk management. Far from undermining borrower confidence, the policy enhanced the bank’s reputation for professionalism.
This case suggests that what is innovative today may be commonplace tomorrow.
Recommending brokers is not just about risk mitigation. It is also about brand. In an increasingly competitive market, lenders need to differentiate themselves. A lender that insists on broker involvement signals to the market that it prioritises sustainable, responsible lending.
Borrowers may resist initially, but in practice, most appreciate the value of professional advice when navigating complex exits. Investors, meanwhile, view broker partnerships as evidence of robust underwriting discipline. The reputational benefits flow directly into new capital raising and market share.
At Willow Private Finance, we often act as the broker recommended by lenders to borrowers who arrive without structured advice. Our role is not just to introduce products but to design exits that lenders can rely on.
In one recent case, a lender was prepared to advance funds to a borrower with little understanding of how refinancing would work. By recommending Willow at inception, the lender ensured that the borrower’s plan was tested, refined, and made credible. The result was repayment on time and preservation of profit for all parties.
This is the benefit of lender-broker partnerships: not just individual deal success, but systemic reduction in default risk.
Book a free strategy call with one of our mortgage specialists.
We’ll help you find the smartest way forward—whatever rates do next.

Experience. Integrity. Trust.
About the Author — Wesley Ranger
Wesley Ranger is the Founder and Director of Willow Private Finance. Having worked with both lenders and borrowers for over 20 years, he has seen first-hand how broker involvement can transform outcomes. Wesley specialises in structuring exits that lenders can rely on and advocates for stronger broker-lender partnerships as a safeguard against default in 2025.

Important Notice
This article is for information purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Property finance carries risk, including the risk of default or repossession if loans are not repaid. Exit strategies should be assessed carefully and tailored to individual circumstances. Always seek professional advice before entering into any finance agreement. Willow Private Finance is directly authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FRN: 588422).
