The FCA’s CP25/11 consultation was published just weeks ago and closes tomorrow affording advisers, networks, distributors and all stakeholders in the mortgage advice process less than a month in total to respond.
That is a timeline which is unprecedented for a paper of this magnitude, and it poses a serious question about how much genuine consideration the regulator is willing to give to industry feedback. Because this is not a technical update or a minor rule clarification, it’s a fundamental shift that risks stripping away the very protections and outcomes the Consumer Duty is supposed to guarantee.
When the FCA says in the paper that it wants to introduce this ‘flexibility’ quickly, the question has to be asked, at what cost? Is speed really a greater priority than ensuring positive consumer outcomes in what is, for most individuals, the single biggest financial commitment they will ever make?
The consultation’s contents suggest the regulator believes some consumers no longer need, or want, advice – that they can self-serve their way to the most suitable product, with the most suitable lender, with no adviser involved.
That they will somehow navigate the complex mortgage market on their own, discovering, for example, products from lenders that may not have the market presence or marketing budget of their larger counterparts, but who rely on advisers to champion what are often excellent mortgages and, by doing so, grow their reach. There is an anti-competition element to this which is much more in favour of the large lenders, because without the support of a qualified, regulated professional adviser the customer could be led into thinking they have got a good deal, when they have not.
The role of the adviser isn’t just about identifying a mortgage product – it’s about fulfilling cross-cutting Consumer Duty obligations: acting in good faith, avoiding foreseeable harm, and supporting customers in achieving their financial objectives. That can only be done through advice.
And good advice doesn’t stop at the mortgage – it leads to meaningful protection conversations, bridging the gap between homeownership and financial security. At The Right Mortgage, income protection is our second-biggest product growth area, and it simply wouldn’t happen without those deeper discussions triggered by mortgage advice. Remove that and the
protection gap grows even wider. We’ve seen it already in pensions and investments. The advice gap widened, and now many can’t access support when they need it most. Are we going to repeat the same mistake in mortgages?
And this paper forgets one of the fundamental value-adds advisers bring – service. When lenders pull products at short notice, when rates spike, or when customers panic over affordability, it’s advisers who provide the calm. It’s advisers who maintain the bridge between a consumer’s needs and the lender’s offering. In reality, they’re often the only human element and contact borrowers will have throughout the entire process, which is unlikely to be there for them by going direct.
Then there’s competence. If the FCA is now suggesting consumers can choose a mortgage without advice, what does that say about its own regulatory regime? Advisers train, qualify, stay competent, and maintain CPD. They use complex software, maintain in-depth knowledge of lender criteria and policy, and make the difficult simple every single day. So are we now to believe that none of this matters? That anyone can make a decision about their mortgage because ‘it’s just not that difficult’? I can’t decide if this is patronising or downright dangerous.
The paper even admits that similar attempts in the past led to poor outcomes. Decision-tree sales processes failed before. Why repeat a mistake the regulator has already recognised? The FCA says consumers are confident choosing a mortgage but find the process too complex. But what does that even mean? Have those consumers been tested? And what happens when they encounter affordability checks, document requirements, or a tough underwriter? Do they have the tools to manage that alone? Most don’t. Which is why advisers are there.
Let’s also not forget our responsibilities in other areas. Brokers help fight fraud, they are the first line of defence against money laundering and countering financial crime before an application ever reaches a lender. If advisers are removed from the process, are lenders prepared – and resourced – to take on this role in the advice process early enough to be effective? Where are the systems and controls to pick up that work? The consultation says nothing.
At The Right Mortgage, we strongly believe in advice. Not just because it’s our business model, but because it’s the right model. It delivers better outcomes. It uncovers deeper needs. It ensures customers are supported through what is often one of the most emotionally charged financial journeys they’ll ever take.
This consultation has been rushed through at speed. It lacks balance, ignores the unintended consequences, and undermines its own regulatory principles. It should come with a health warning – not just for advisers, but for their clients. It risks degrading the very outcomes we have all worked so hard to improve over the last two decades. It marginalises advice, undermines protection, and ignores the complexity of real lives. And it has been forced upon the industry in record time.
So here is the call to action. Every adviser, every firm, every network, every distributor, every stakeholder who believes in the value of advice must respond to CP25/11 and reject this direction of travel. Because if we don’t, the FCA will take our silence as consent. And the outcome won’t be flexibility – it will be fragmentation. For advisers. For consumers. For trust.
Ben Allen is managing director of The Right Mortgage & Protection Network
