Mortgage & Protection Blog

  • Home /
  • Mortgage & Protection Blog

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.
 

28 November 2024

Suppressing landlord activity won’t automatically improve first-time buyer prospects


25 November 2024

The Co-operative Bank for Intermediaries, streamlining processes and expanding product ranges


21 November 2024

Better off dead? The need for critical illness cover


18 November 2024

What the OBR’s five year forecasts mean for the market


25 October 2024

Advisers should rethink their regulatory status to keep up with sector changes


16 October 2024

Your Business Matters


7 October 2024

What may impact BTL and Resi markets in 2025?


1 October 2024

Why Gen Z could be the perfect match for protection


30 September 2024

Self-employed mortgages can be easy, if you choose the right lender


26 September 2024

Lenders and regulators must be careful not to add to adviser disillusion


19 September 2024

There may be trouble ahead…


2 September 2024

Source Go: The Modern Answer to the GI Question


29 August 2024

Pre- and post-mini Budget remortgagors need guidance in transformed market


23 August 2024

Guardian's 2023 claims report: a milestone worth celebrating


14 August 2024

Rate cuts are a positive story for advisers


1 August 2024

The mortgage market is set for a teeming H2


29 July 2024

Aldermore are backing more of your clients to go for it


22 July 2024

YOU SAID, WE DID!


12 July 2024

A surge of optimism for the market


3 July 2024

Consumer Duty one year on – what might happen next?


24 June 2024

How to increase your protection business


17 June 2024

Consumer Duty will mark new era of continuously changing advice


6 June 2024

Mental Health Matters: Workplace Wellbeing


21 May 2024

Advise or refer? Ensuring the best possible outcomes for your clients


15 May 2024

Darlington Criteria Updates


14 May 2024

And The Wait Goes On


10 May 2024

Cap on broker fees sparks industry debate


1 May 2024

Expect the unexpected


15 April 2024

Ready, set, remortgage!


12 April 2024

How the mortgage market is failing new arrivals to the UK


11 April 2024

A compliance refresh will lighten unavoidable market stress


4 April 2024

What is driving the Specialist Residential and Buy-to-Let markets this year?


4 April 2024

A Government that prioritises owner occupiers at the expense of the PRS


28 March 2024

What is your website for?


19 March 2024

Exploring the value of value added benefits


4 March 2024

Artificial intelligence – friend or foe to advisers?


9 February 2024

Trust your own gut when listening to market predictions


8 January 2024

The Name's Bond...


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


4 August 2023

The blasé attitude towards sudden mortgage withdrawals is not good enough


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


1 June 2023

We're not in mini-Budget territory yet!


24 May 2023

Skipton’s 100 per cent mortgage should be replicated, not feared


30 April 2023

Protection And Mortgage Fair Value Assessments – What Is My Actual Responsibility?


6 April 2023

Lenders will compete on mortgage rates, but don’t expect a price war


27 March 2023

Vulnerable Customers and Economic Abuse


10 March 2023

Tell borrowers to stop waiting for mortgage rates to fall


7 March 2023

Mixed messages from Bank of England boss ahead of MPC meeting


6 March 2023

Take the Consumer Duty seriously when it comes to protection


17 February 2023

Mortgage Market Update


10 February 2023

Let’s not be hasty and write off this year’s property purchase appetite


6 February 2023

Implementing Consumer Duty


9 January 2023

Why it’s so important you tell us about your vulnerable customers


5 January 2023

Why advisers are so vital in the mortgage market


Paradigm

THIS SITE IS FOR PROFESSIONAL INTERMEDIARY USE ONLY AND NOT FOR USE BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

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.