Building society lending criteria are some of the most carefully written documents in the sector. They have to be. They set out who a society will lend to, on what terms, and with what evidence.
And yet brokers and staff still pick up the phone to ask what the criteria mean. That isn't a sign of bad drafting. It's what happens when a document has to be precise about real-world complexity and is then read in a hurry, often as a long PDF.
Here are five patterns that make criteria hard to use at speed. The examples are illustrative and not taken from any society's criteria.
1. Conditional rules
Illustrative example
“Income from a second job is acceptable where it has been held for at least 12 months, unless it is in the same industry as the applicant's main employment.”
One sentence, two conditions. The reader has to know how long the job has been held and what industry it is in before the rule gives an answer. When a broker isn't sure the case meets the condition, they phone.
2. Cross-references
Illustrative example
“Self-employed applicants: see section 4.2.” Section 4.2 then says income will be assessed in line with section 6.1 where the applicant owns more than a quarter of the business.
The answer is spread across three places. In a long PDF, that means scrolling, searching and holding several sections in your head at once.
3. Thresholds that shift
Illustrative example
The table below shows how one question can have several answers.
| Loan-to-value | Maximum income multiple |
|---|---|
| Up to 75% | 4.75 times income |
| Over 75% to 90% | 4.5 times income |
A question like “What's your maximum income multiple?” doesn't have one answer. The right answer for one band is wrong for the next, and the same can apply by product, applicant type or property type.
4. “May be requested”
Illustrative example
“Bank statements may be requested at the underwriter's discretion.”
This is honest wording. A society can't know in advance what every case will need. But it leaves the broker unsure whether to gather the evidence now or risk a delay later.
5. Discretion
Illustrative example
“Applications outside these criteria may be considered on an individual basis.”
It's right that some cases go to a person. The hard part is knowing which ones, and that isn't always clear from the page.
What this means in practice
None of these patterns is a mistake. Each exists for a good reason. But together they mean that questions which look simple often aren't, and a quick check can become a ten-minute call for the broker and the society alike.
Clearer structure and plain-English summaries help. So do tools that find the right rule quickly, as long as they stay within the society's own criteria.
This is the problem AdAstr's lending-criteria assistant is built around. It answers questions only from a society's own published criteria, and if the answer isn't there, it says so rather than guessing.
If this sounds familiar, I'd be glad to hear how it plays out in your team. A short conversation is all I'm after: hello@adastr.co.uk