The Intermediary – January 2026 - Flipbook - Page 67
T E C H N O L O GY
Opinion
Tech gains
need process
improvements
F
or years, the mortgage
industry has been told
that technology will
transform everything:
faster decisions,
automated workflows,
seamless customer journeys, instant
certainty.
Technology is undeniably reshaping
parts of the market – from income
verification to automated valuation
models (AVMs), digital ID, and
open property data – but the oen
unspoken truth is that digital tools
cannot deliver their full potential
when the underlying process remains
fundamentally fragmented.
In the UK, the house purchase
journey is a patchwork of regulated
and non-regulated participants.
Each holds a slice of the workflow,
each carries a degree of liability, and
each is governed by its own rules,
systems and commercial incentives.
We have digitised documents,
automated tasks and improved data
quality, but we have seldom stepped
back to ask the more radical and
perhaps necessary question which is
are we using technology to improve
the process or to digitise its flaws?
Mortgage processing remains slow
not because we lack innovative tools or
technology but because the sequence,
responsibilities and regulatory
interfaces were designed for a world
that has moved on. The current value
chain still relies on asynchronous
hand-offs and multiple points of
duplication. Information rarely flows
freely, and when it does, it oen
arrives too late.
Open property data, for example,
has the potential to transform risk
assessment, improve underwriting
accuracy and shorten time to offer. Yet
even with the richest data available, if
lenders, surveyors and conveyancers
are engaged late in the journey aer
transaction pressures have already
mounted delays will likely persist.
One of the most intriguing lessons
from global housing markets is that
transaction efficiency is rarely the
product of superior technology alone.
Scotland, Northern Europe and
Australia demonstrate that structural
design maers just as much as digital
innovation. While none offer a
panacea, they all shine a light on how
some of what we do may be improved.
Alternative models
Scotland offers a model centred
around early transparency and
front-loaded information. The Home
Report provides a reliable valuation,
condition survey and EPC upfront,
reducing post-offer surprises. The
legally binding nature of the offer also
limits gazumping, fall-throughs and
uncertainty. Technology enhances
these steps, but it is the process design
that creates predictability.
Nordic markets emphasise
trust, simplicity and centralised
information. Buyers and sellers
operate within clear frameworks,
supported by comprehensive
property registers and standardised
documentation.
Australia provides an example
of highly structured transaction
timelines and greater symmetry of
information between parties. Digital
tooling supports the process, but it
does not define it. Instead, certainty
is built into the legal and procedural
architecture of buying a home.
These markets remind us that
digital innovation is most effective
when embedded in a system that
minimises friction, clarifies
responsibility and reduces perceived
liability. The UK’s fragmented
ecosystem, by contrast, amplifies
JERRY MULLE
is UK managing director
at Ohpen
liability concerns at every turn.
The growing availability of
open property data such as energy
performance information, planning
history, digital deeds, price indices,
flood risk metrics and more creates
an extraordinary opportunity. But
data alone cannot fix a system where
stakeholders operate in silos and oen
duplicate each other’s efforts.
One of the most consistent barriers
to innovation is perceived liability.
Even when data and technology
reduce uncertainty, participants still
act as though the risks are unchanged.
Surveyors may be cautious about
AVMs despite overwhelming accuracy
data. Conveyancers may request
additional reports even when core
information is already available.
Lenders may resist early binding
decisions because of concerns about
missing data or property surprises.
A re-engineered process would
redistribute these liabilities more
proportionately, supported by
transparent standards and shared
confidence in the quality of data.
Technology can help, but only
if the system accepts what the
technology provides.
The future of mortgage processing
should not be defined by technology
but enabled by it. The real
transformation will come when the
industry resists the urge to replicate
analogue workflows in digital form.
If we simply digitise a fragmented
process, we will get a faster version of
the same frustrations.
The opportunity is clear: technology
can improve speed; redesigned
processes can transform outcomes.
Both are necessary. Only together will
they deliver the mortgage journey that
the modern market seeks. ●
January 2026 | The Intermediary
65
