More than a third of UK borrowers are making mortgage decisions based on advice from unregulated sources. Social media, AI chatbots, friends and family. That’s the finding from new research by Zable, which surveyed over 2,000 UK consumers and found that 36% of those seeking mortgage guidance turned somewhere other than a regulated professional.
For a £400,000 purchase in Norfolk, that’s a concerning number.
The Zable study put the scale of the problem in sharp relief. Across all financial products, 83% of consumers had sought guidance from non-regulated sources at some point. Mortgages featured prominently among the categories where people bypassed professional advice. The financial consequences were real: almost a third of credit card holders said they had lost money through bad advice, with losses most commonly falling between £500 and £1,000.
Younger buyers are the most exposed. The research found that 93% of 25 to 34-year-olds and 92% of 35 to 44-year-olds had used unregulated sources for financial guidance. That demographic overlaps significantly with first-time buyers and those making their first significant property move. In Norfolk and Suffolk, where that step up often means committing to something in the £350,000 to £600,000 range, the stakes are considerable.
Around one in ten consumers told Zable they already use AI tools for financial advice. To test how reliable that guidance actually is, Zable ran four major AI platforms through nine common personal finance questions. All four failed at least some tests. The results were telling: three of the four defaulted to US-focused recommendations rather than UK-specific guidance, and some provided outdated information entirely.
Zahid Bilgrami, CEO of Mortgage Brain, put it well: “There’s an important distinction between information and regulated advice. A broker is required to understand the customer’s circumstances, explain why a recommendation is suitable, keep an audit trail of the decision-making process and is accountable if things go wrong. An AI chatbot can’t provide that level of accountability.”
That’s not a criticism of AI as a general tool. It’s a precise observation about what regulated advice actually is, and what it isn’t.
There’s a temptation to assume this problem sits primarily at the first-time buyer end of the market. I don’t think that’s right. I’ve spoken with buyers at the £900,000 and above level who have done extensive online research, watched YouTube explainers, and arrived at conversations with deeply held but sometimes incorrect assumptions about financing structures, stamp duty thresholds, or how complex income streams are treated by lenders.
At higher price points, the consequences of acting on imprecise information are proportionally larger. A misunderstanding about how a lender treats self-employed income, or which mortgage product is most appropriate for someone planning significant works to a listed property, isn’t corrected by a quick Google search. It requires a conversation with someone who is authorised, qualified, and accountable.
Arielle Rogers-Jenkins of Zable flagged something worth dwelling on: a significant proportion of online mortgage content is tied to sponsorships, commissions, or product promotions. The influencer-style mortgage content that performs well on platforms like TikTok and Instagram often originates with someone who has a financial interest in the product they’re describing. The 68% of consumers who said they didn’t check risks before acting on financial advice are, in many cases, not just missing context. They’re potentially receiving advice designed to sell something.
This isn’t abstract. In a county like Norfolk, where the property market has seen sustained demand from buyers relocating from London and further afield, the people most likely to rely on digital shortcuts are often those least familiar with local lending dynamics, local lenders, and local professional networks.
Regulated mortgage advice means a broker assesses your individual circumstances, explains in writing why they’re recommending a particular product, and is professionally accountable if that recommendation proves unsuitable. There’s a formal complaints process, compensation scheme coverage, and an obligation to update the recommendation if your circumstances change before completion.
None of that exists when you ask a chatbot or take guidance from an Instagram reel.
The market for distinctive homes in Norfolk and Suffolk moves fast when the right property appears. Buyers who arrive at that moment with their financing genuinely understood, properly structured, and confirmed by a qualified professional are in a fundamentally different position to those who’ve assembled a picture from unverified sources. In competitive situations, that distinction is often the one that matters.
The Zable research is a useful prompt to revisit the basics. Not because most buyers are reckless, but because the volume and accessibility of online financial content has genuinely outpaced the public’s ability to calibrate its quality. That’s not a criticism of consumers. It’s a reflection of how the information environment has changed.
For buyers active in the Norfolk and Suffolk market, my consistent advice remains the same: work with a whole-of-market broker who knows the product range, knows the local market, and has your interests as their professional obligation. The fee, where one applies, is rarely the most significant number in a transaction of this scale.
For more context on local market conditions across our coverage area, our property market reports cover 324 locations including Norwich, Holt, Burnham Market, and Southwold.
