What happened when I went to RBC for mortgage advice
2026-06-04 | 11:42:57
I had a few mortgage questions and I thought to contact RBC for answers.
Before going into the branch, I called to get some basic preliminary numbers and clarity on mortgage options. During those calls, I spoke with two different representatives, and neither of them was able to provide even a simple mortgage calculation. I repeatedly asked for straightforward figures and basic breakdowns, but instead of clear answers, I was given vague responses and a consistent runaround. Rather than resolving anything over the phone, I was ultimately pushed into booking an in-person appointment.
At that point, I expected that meeting in person would finally provide clarity and a higher level of expertise.
Unfortunately, what I experienced was even more concerning.
From the outset of the in-person meeting, I was given advice that immediately raised red flags. I was told repeatedly by the representative that a mortgage and line of credit could not exceed 65% of a home’s value and that no major bank would allow combined lending up to 80% loan-to-value. This was presented as fact, not as uncertainty or a misunderstanding. However, these statements are simply incorrect and do not align with basic, widely established residential lending guidelines.
What was particularly troubling was the confidence with which this incorrect information was delivered. These are foundational lending concepts that anyone working in mortgage financing should understand before advising clients on decisions involving hundreds of thousands of dollars and, in many cases, their primary residence.
As the conversation continued, it became increasingly clear that this was not a one-off misunderstanding. Instead of clarification or correction, the same incorrect position was repeatedly reinforced. At no point was there any meaningful attempt to verify the information or reconsider what was being said.
Once the branch manager was involved, I expected a higher level of competence or at least some correction of the information being provided. Instead, the same incorrect guidance was effectively supported rather than challenged. That moment was especially concerning. When both frontline staff and management are aligned in providing inaccurate information on such basic lending principles, it raises serious questions about the competence and reliability of the advice being given by the branch.
These are not complex or niche financial structures. Mortgage lending limits, loan-to-value ratios, and combined borrowing structures are foundational concepts in mortgage lending. Clients should not be placed in a position where they are receiving incorrect guidance on such basic matters, nor should they be expected to independently verify every statement made by individuals who are presented as trained professionals.
People trust financial institutions with some of the most significant financial decisions of their lives. A home is often their largest financial asset, and mortgage structuring can have long-term consequences on financial stability. That trust depends on a minimum standard of competence and accuracy.
What makes this experience more troubling is not just the misinformation itself, but the confidence with which it was delivered and the apparent unwillingness to reconsider it when challenged. There was no indication of uncertainty, no suggestion to verify, and no acknowledgment that the information being provided could be wrong.
Instead, incorrect information was presented as fact, which only increases the risk to clients who may rely on it without question.
I expected professionalism and expertise. What I encountered instead was a surprising and concerning lack of understanding of basic mortgage lending principles, compounded by an absence of critical review or accountability in the advice being given.
Based on this experience, I would strongly caution anyone seeking mortgage advice, refinancing guidance, or debt structuring recommendations from RBC to independently verify all information provided. I personally would not feel comfortable relying on the guidance offered here for any significant financial decision.
I left the branch deeply concerned, not just about this specific interaction, but about the broader implications of clients potentially receiving inaccurate financial advice in a setting where they reasonably expect accuracy and professionalism.
It was, without question, one of the most disappointing and unacceptable financial service experiences I have ever had.
