The Specialist Lending File Standard
What a defensible second charge, bridging or debt consolidation file must contain, so a firm can prove why each case was right, years after completion.
Free to read, use and build into software. Written for brokers, master brokers, packagers and the introducers who refer to them.
Free introducer note →Why it exists
This standard sets out what a defensible specialist lending file must contain, so that a firm can prove why each recommendation or referral was right for the client, years after completion.
Complaints about secured lending often arrive five or more years after completion, through a subject access request or a claims firm. By then the adviser may have left and memory has gone. If the reason is not on file, the firm cannot defend the case.
Could a stranger, reading only this file in six years' time, see why this was right for this client?
Six sections
Every section applies the seven core principles →
- A · ConsolidationDebt consolidation rationaleA consolidation file must show that securing the debt leaves the client better off overall, or that a clearly stated non-financial reason justifies the extra cost.9 required items · 5 red flags
- B · Second chargeProduct route choiceThe file must show why a second charge (or bridge) was chosen over the other ways of raising the same money.5 routes compared
- C · BridgingBridging exit evidenceA bridging file must show a credible exit, evidenced at the time of advice, and what happens to the client if that exit fails.7 required items · 3 red flags
- D · Consumer DutyVulnerabilityThe file must show that the adviser looked for signs of vulnerability, and what they changed if they found any.5 required items
- E · Consumer DutyFees and fair valueThe file must show every party's fee and commission, and that the total was fair for the work and the loan size.6 required items
- F · For introducersIntroducer referral rationaleThe introducer's own file must show why they referred the client, even though the full advice sits with the broker.6 required itemsFree introducer note →
Four grades
- Meets standardEvery required item present, no unexplained red flags
- Meets with notesAll items present, minor gaps in wording or detail
- Gaps to fixA required item is missing, or a red flag has no written reason
- Does not meetThe evidence points against the recommendation (for example, consolidation costs the client more with no valid reason)
Build it into your system
The rule pack turns each required item into a rule your software can check: an id, when it applies, the fields it reads and the grade a file gets if the item is missing. It sits at one stable URL, as JSON.
Any software provider may implement the standard. There is no fee to say a product is "built to the standard". Section A's rules are complete in v0.1; the rules for sections B to F will be added in a later version.
Implementers
- Archway— Sections A–F, pre-check at submission
- Your software here: tell us you've implemented it
{
"id": "A3",
"section": "A",
"applies_when": "case.consolidation == true",
"requirement": "Break-even term calculated and recorded",
"check_type": "calculated",
"fields": [
"consolidation.break_even_term"
],
"severity": "gaps_to_fix",
"red_flag": "case.term > consolidation.break_even_term && !consolidation.term_reason"
}Have your say
This is a consultation draft. Tell us what to change, section by section. Comments close 31 January 2027.
Changelog
| Version | Date | What changed |
|---|---|---|
| 0.1 | 29 October 2026 | First consultation draft: core principles, sections A–F and grading. |
| 1.0 | Planned | Final release after consultation, with the Section E fee threshold agreed. |
Who is behind it
Publisher
Lending Intelligence Ltd publishes and maintains the standard, free of charge.
Review cycle
At least once a year, and after any relevant FCA publication.
The Brief
New versions of the standard and consultation updates arrive in The Brief, every Thursday, free.