It has been brought to our attention that a scam loans company called Loan4Help has been committing fraud by claiming to offer or advance “loans” to borrowers whilst pretending to be a trading company of Finance and Credit Corporation Limited. It is not. Loan4Help has absolutely no connection to Finance and Credit Corporation Limited.

It has also come to our attention that a third party has been contacting borrowers on a fraudulent basis by purporting to be Finance and Credit Corporation Limited and claiming to offer or advance “loans” to borrowers. This third party has been contacting borrowers on an unsolicited basis via the following email address: . Please note that our company Finance and Credit Corporation Limited is in no way connected with the third party and does not use or operate that email address.

These operations have been cold calling and emailing members of the public, fraudulently pretending to be or to be connected with Finance and Credit Corporation Limited, asking for upfront fees from borrowers and advancing monies in relation to purported “loans”. They have also sent documents to borrowers which fraudulently claim to contain the signature of the Managing Director of our company.

These operations have also been using the following telephone numbers to contact consumers: 0203 129 2514 and 0238 106 0723. They may also have been operating from other telephone numbers and email addresses.

Please note that Finance and Credit Corporation Limited does not cold call, send unsolicited signed “loan agreements” or ask for upfront fees. We strongly suggest that you call our Managing Director Elio Astone on 020 7722 7547 in advance of proceeding with any “loan” or if you have any further questions.

If you are contacted by Loan4Help, or any of the companies which appear to be involved in these frauds, you should also report them to Action Fraud on 0300 123 2040.

Bridging LoansClear & Simple

Fincorp is one of the UK's most established and respected bridging loan companies. For more than 25 years the company has been providing 1st and 2nd charge bridging finance on residential properties in London and Southern England. Our bridging loans vary typically between £100,000 and £10 million, and we lend up to 70% value of the property secured on the property. And because you deal only with decision-makers, your bridging loan requirements are always dealt with quickly and with the minimum of fuss.

Why Fincorp for Bridging Loans?

We're a Principal Lender. Customers are able to get a decision quickly on their bridging loan without having to wait for authorisation from anyone else. And there's no back-tracking at a later date. So that means when we say yes to a loan, we mean it.

Our approach to business is summed up in two words, Clear and Simple. We believe that bridging lending is a straightforward business, all too often complicated by lenders with their lack of transparency and reliance on the small print. We work hard to make your dealings with us as clear and simple as possible.

Our Criteria

  • Principal Lender
  • 1st and 2nd Charges
  • London and South East
  • Residential properties
  • Bridging Loans from £100,000 - £10 million
  • Up to 70% LTV

Enquiry/Application for Individual Applicants


10 Top Tips for finding the right bridging lender

Latest News

Fincorp thinks: Regulation is coming to the world of bridging

By Nigel Alexander, Director, Fincorp.

I’m just going to say it. Short and sharp. Because I don’t think it’ll be popular.

I think bridging is going to be regulated.

To be fair I don’t think this is going to happen overnight but I do think it’s now on the horizon for real.

There are plenty of people in bridging who have been talking about the short-term funding market going this way for some time. Many of our lending peers have applied for and been given permissions by the Financial Conduct Authority. Others are still waiting to hear whether their applications will be successful.

We’ve also seen various players come into the market over the past five years who are already regulated and they have, to their credit, done well.

They have also shown it’s possible to do short term lending under the auspices of the regulator and still offer competitive rates.

My own feeling is that the Association of Short Term Lenders has done a stellar job liaising with the regulator about how bridging fits into the Mortgage Market Review. But with second charges and all Consumer Credit Act lending activities being supervised by the FCA after April 2014, it simply looks as though it might make more sense if the whole thing was regulated under one regime.

I am in no doubt that these comments will probably ruffle the feathers of some in the bridging market. But I’d reiterate what I’ve been saying for a long time. There is a core of lenders in the bridging market who do a very good job, operate transparently and fairly and do the best thing by their clients – whoever they might be. For these lenders, becoming regulated should just be a case of getting their applications right and being open when talking to the regulator.

It is not the behaviour of these lenders that needs to change, it’s those at the edges of the market who are flying, frankly, too close to the wind.

The obvious way to crack down on these lenders and ensure that the whole bridging market adheres to a quality standard is to make it impossible for them to operate. And that’s why it seems to me that regulation for those of us in the sensible end of the market makes sense.

How would this work in practice? Well I’d put money on it that the people who look after our sector at the FCA are debating this at the moment. Given that so much of the short-term sector is really commercial lending, by which I mean lending to businesses, property developers and professionals, it doesn’t make any sense to regulate the lending we do in the same way as residential mortgages. Affordability stress testing and monthly expenditures aren’t really relevant for short-term loans. We underwrite deals that make commercial sense and selling the property to repay the loan as a last resort is generally a lot less painful for a developer than it is for a family having their home repossessed.

But it might make sense to regulate the lenders themselves. The FCA said some time ago that it expected regulated lenders to conduct their unregulated business with the same quality assurances and standards as they did regulated business. Under a regulatory regime that enforces lender behaviour the smaller less professional lenders in the bridging market will have either to up their game or quit.

Ultimately it will mean a better bridging market for lenders, brokers and most importantly – the client.

The danger of regulation is that it heaps a lot more cost onto lenders who then inevitably have to pay for it somehow. I predicted recently that 2014 would see some lenders fall by the wayside. I would say now that a slow but nevertheless inexorable move towards regulation will probably exacerbate that.

Let us hope that if this is indeed the intention of the regulator – that it can balance the need to ensure good standards in bridging with the need for a competitive market place with products that work for the customer and don’t price them out of the market. A healthy market has lots of players offering different things to customers with widely differing needs.

Better standards are a good thing and we should welcome any move towards that. But we would urge the regulator to keep lines of communication with our industry open. The ASTL and its members are keen to make this market the best it can be.

I for one hope we can help the regulator achieve that.