Cap on broker fees sparks industry debate

Bob Hunt

Bob Hunt

10 May 2024
Halifax’s decision to make such a public announcement on its decision to cap broker fees, suggesting it is part of its fair value assessment as a result of Consumer Duty, has understandably drawn plenty of attention.

Some have been quick to push back publicly, and while I understand this, I’m also of the opinion that having an argument in such a public forum on such an issue rarely delivers the outcome we might all be seeking.

At the same time, I’m also firmly of the view that lenders shouldn’t really be making it their business to tell brokers what they can, or can’t, charge, although I suspect some brokers in various regions of the country will be relieved the fee outlined is of the ‘higher of’ variety rather than ‘lower of’.

It does however seem an odd decision on the part of Halifax to go out so publicly with such a message about maximum broker fee caps, not least because – as we already know in the industry – large numbers of lenders have such policies, they just exist in the background, and are only triggered at the extreme margins.

The other point I would make, which makes me somewhat quizzical, is wrapped in the fact Halifax is generally a very reasonable lender when it comes to its interaction and focus on relationships with brokers.

I’m thinking specifically of its parity proc fee payments for PT business but also on this very issue. To bring this issue to ‘life’ by way of an example where a large mainstream lender queried one of our member brokers charging a certain fee on a debt consolidation case.

The lender asked why this amount had been charged when it had only asked for limited documentation, an AVM was applied, and the case was offered in 48 hours. We asked the lender if they had asked the broker why this fee had been charged and they said no.

So we spoke to the broker ourselves and it turns out they had spent the best part of six months in discussions with the client helping them to get the case ready for the high street, advising where they could make changes to their finances, helping them on credit areas, etc.

In that sense, when you considered all the work the broker had done, the fee charged was more than justified. In fact, you could have argued they should have charged more. When presented with these facts, the lender proceeded with the case. So, not unreasonable behaviour on their part and all done without any need for a public to-ing and fro-ing.

It shows that these cases can be looked at on a case-by-case basis, and once again, I’m left wondering why a public proclamation of this policy was thought necessary, when they could simply continue to work as that lender mentioned above did with us when presented with cases that might seem, what we could call, ‘fee excessive’.

Indeed, you might also justifiably argue, that announcing a policy so publicly might have the unintended consequence that it rings in consumer’s – or their representative’s - ears and they might believe, if they have been charged a fee, that they have somehow been ‘ripped off’, when these might be highly complex cases requiring a lot of work and resource on the broker’s behalf.

Again, this is unhelpful in the extreme and seems to open doors for criticism of brokers for charging a fee for the work they carry out. Hardly seems fair, does it?

The other point I would make is around the justification of this policy being made in terms of ’fair value’ to consumers. If this is a genuine attempt to clamp down on the advisers who are charging hugely-excessive fees, then all well and good, but a) is this really their role?, and b) if this is an issue of fair value, then what of fair value in other parts of the market?

For example, how is it fair value to pay a different procuration fee to a broker purely based on whether they are an AR or a DA, when the quality of the work is exactly the same? Is that fair?

Similarly, what about exclusive products? How is it fair that a consumer who takes advice services from one broker won’t be able to access a number of products – that may be more suitable/or fairer value for them - because that broker can’t access the exclusive products? Is that a fair situation for the consumer?

So, if lenders are going to talk about over-seeing fair value in terms of what they deem a fair broker fee to be, then, given the market has definitely moved on from where there was justifiable reason for differentiation, they are also going to need to look at fair value in other parts of our market, such as proc fee payments to differently authorised brokers and exclusive product access as well. And that’s just two.

Fairness should be delivered in all parts of the market, not just in terms of a determination of whether a broker fee is fair or not.

Reading this blog counts towards your CPD!

Click here to add this session to your Paradigm CPD log.

21 December 2023

PTs remain a big part of the marketplace

21 December 2023

Not all wine and roses but outlook is better

15 December 2023

Artificial Intelligence: A vision for the future

12 December 2023

Reflecting on 2023

11 December 2023

Mental Health Matters: Menopause

8 December 2023

Looking ahead: Reasons to be cheerful about the market in 2023

17 November 2023

Why TikTok could be a winning tactic for brokers

30 October 2023

How advisers can improve the quality metrics with insurers

27 October 2023

The Aggregator Market - Friend or Foe?

25 October 2023

Don’t let Charter support remove advice from the mortgage process

3 October 2023

How to strengthen your defences against cyber threats

29 September 2023

White Dragon Communications

8 September 2023

Advisers deserve recognition for keeping borrowers on lender books

8 September 2023

Claims history of an insurance should form core part of assessing true value of insurance and advic

23 August 2023

The good, the bad & the ugly of using Artificial Intelligence (AI)

14 August 2023

Accessibility in your marketing

14 August 2023

Choosing the right social media platform for you

7 August 2023

Staying safe online

7 August 2023

Search engine optimisation: the process of making your site better for search engines. 

4 August 2023

The blasé attitude towards sudden mortgage withdrawals is not good enough

1 August 2023

Is your content compliant?

10 July 2023

The argument for higher proc fees for better quality business is undeniable

22 June 2023

Product withdrawal timescales and how brokers can adapt



APCC MemberConsumer Duty Alliance

Paradigm Consulting is a Member of the Association of Professional Compliance Consultants and also the Consumer Duty Alliance.

Paradigm Consulting is a trading name of Paradigm Partners Ltd
Office address: Paradigm Partners Ltd, Paradigm House, Brooke Court, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 3ND
Paradigm Partners Ltd is registered in England and Wales. No.09902499. Registered Office: As above

Paradigm Mortgage Services LLP
Office address: 1310 Solihull Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, Birmingham B37 7YB
Registered in England and Wales. Company No: OC323403. Registered Office: Paradigm House, Brooke Court, Lower Meadow Road, Wilmslow, SK9 3ND
Paradigm Mortgage Services LLP is a Limited Liability Partnership.

Paradigm Protect is a trading name of Paradigm Mortgage Services LLP
Office address: 1310 Solihull Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, Birmingham B37 7YB
Paradigm Mortgage Services LLP is registered in England and Wales. Company No: OC323403. Registered Office: Paradigm House, Brooke Court, Lower Meadow Road, Wilmslow, SK9 3ND
Paradigm Mortgage Services LLP is a Limited Liability Partnership.