Consumer Duty for mortgage brokers is no longer an implementation project. In 2026, the practical question is whether the firm can demonstrate that customers receive good outcomes across the mortgage journey and whether management acts when the evidence shows otherwise.
The FCA's Mortgage Regulatory Priorities make the Duty integral to its approach to the sector. Advice firms are expected to recommend products suitable for customer needs, test outcomes across the customer journey and review current FCA findings on record keeping and quality assurance. The regulator's July 2026 outcomes-monitoring work also makes clear that collecting data or listing metrics is not enough if firms cannot explain what the information says about customer outcomes.
For a mortgage broker, Consumer Duty should therefore sit inside the existing advice and compliance framework. Suitability under MCOB, broker fees, customer understanding, vulnerability, support and Appointed Representative oversight can each produce evidence about whether the Duty is working in practice.
Products and services starts with the service the broker actually provides
The products and services outcome requires firms within scope to consider whether relevant products and services meet the needs, characteristics and objectives of the target market. For a mortgage intermediary, that includes the service provided by the broker as well as the mortgage products distributed through the firm.
The broker should understand which customers it intends to serve, what product range it can access and any limits in its service. A specialist broker serving complex credit or later-life customers will have different target-market considerations from a mainstream first-time buyer intermediary.
This should connect with advice suitability rather than duplicate it. The target-market assessment operates at a broader product or service level, while MCOB suitability requires the firm to determine whether a recommendation is appropriate for the individual customer's needs and circumstances.
Outcome monitoring should then test whether the service continues to work for the customers using it. Complaints, failed journeys, file reviews, customer feedback and patterns in recommendations can reveal whether the intended service model is producing unexpected problems.
The FCA's 2026 mortgage reforms may give firms more flexibility to serve different borrower groups, but that makes ownership of outcomes more important. A permissive rule change allows a firm to operate differently. It does not transfer responsibility for the consequences of that choice to the regulator.
Price and value should examine the broker's actual service and fees
Mortgage intermediaries provide a service with its own price and value considerations. Some firms are remunerated through procuration fees, some charge customers directly and others use a combination. The relevant question under Consumer Duty is whether the price paid by the retail customer is reasonable relative to the benefits of the service.
A fair value assessment should therefore describe what the broker actually provides. The analysis may consider advice complexity, access to products, support through underwriting, specialist knowledge, case management and other benefits that are relevant to the customer proposition.
The FCA's 2026 second charge work makes this especially important for firms charging material customer fees. It found that intermediary fees in that market could be substantial and that some fair value assessments did not contain enough information to explain how firms had determined the fee level.
This does not mean that a high fee is automatically poor value. A complex case can involve significantly more work and specialist expertise than a straightforward transaction. The firm should nevertheless be able to demonstrate why its fee structure is reasonable and whether particular customer groups or distribution channels receive materially different value.
Benchmarking can provide useful context, but the FCA's current price and value work is clear that benchmarking alone is not enough. The firm needs evidence about its own service, customer benefits and outcomes.
Consumer understanding should operate throughout the mortgage journey
Mortgage customers make decisions involving large sums, long terms and material trade-offs. Consumer understanding therefore needs to be considered at several points, including the nature of the broker's service, fees, product features, debt consolidation implications, interest rate risk and any limitations in the product range.
MCOB disclosures remain important, but technical compliance with disclosure requirements does not answer the whole Consumer Duty question. The firm should consider whether information is presented at the right time and in a way that enables the customer to make an informed decision.
Debt consolidation provides a clear example. A customer can understand that monthly payments will fall without appreciating that the debt may be repaid over a much longer period or that previously unsecured borrowing is being secured against the home. The advice process needs to explain the relevant trade-offs, not simply provide the numerical result.
Digital journeys require similar attention. Information about fees or service limitations should not appear so late that the customer has effectively committed to the process before understanding them. The FCA's broader Consumer Duty work on digital design and consumer understanding is relevant here.
Testing should use evidence. Complaints, call reviews, abandoned applications, recurring questions and customer surveys can show whether important communications are working. The firm should be able to demonstrate what it learned and what changed as a result.
Consumer support should reflect the customer's circumstances
Mortgage broking is often concentrated around the transaction, but Consumer Duty support does not end once an application is submitted. Customers may need help understanding lender requests, dealing with delays, changing circumstances or deciding what to do if the original route is no longer appropriate.
The firm's support model should be clear about what it does and does not provide. A broker is not responsible for every aspect of the lender's service, but customers should not be passed between firms without a clear explanation of who can resolve the issue.
Vulnerability can change during the journey. Illness, bereavement, relationship breakdown, employment changes or financial pressure can affect a customer's ability to understand information or make decisions. The broker should have a process for identifying relevant needs and making reasonable adjustments where appropriate.
Support outcomes should also be monitored. Complaint volumes alone are not enough. Firms can consider response times, repeated contact, abandonment, customer feedback and whether particular groups encounter greater difficulty accessing the service.
Where a broker operates through Appointed Representatives, the principal should be capable of understanding whether support outcomes differ materially between ARs. A network-wide average can conceal a local weakness.
Advice quality is one of the strongest Consumer Duty evidence sources
For a mortgage advice firm, MCOB suitability and Consumer Duty are closely connected. The FCA's 2026 mortgage priorities focus explicitly on advisers recommending products suitable for customer needs and on firms testing outcomes across the journey.
File review should therefore be a central part of the Duty framework, but the methodology needs to test more than administrative compliance. The reviewer should consider whether the customer's needs were properly understood, whether the recommendation was appropriate, whether material alternatives were considered and whether the customer received the information needed to understand the decision.
The FCA's second charge work found weaknesses where advisers focused on eligibility rather than suitability and where records were insufficient to demonstrate the reasoning. Those findings are directly relevant to Consumer Duty because poor advice quality can create foreseeable harm even where a lender is willing to approve the mortgage.
The firm should also use QA information at portfolio level. If one adviser, product type or customer segment consistently generates weaker outcomes, management should understand the cause and whether broader remediation is required.
A strong Duty framework therefore connects individual file assurance with management information about the advice population.
Outcomes monitoring should explain what is happening, not just report metrics
The FCA's July 2026 outcomes-monitoring publication is clear that collecting data and producing MI does not itself demonstrate good outcomes. Firms should understand what the information shows, how it is interpreted and what action follows when standards are not met.
Mortgage brokers should therefore select evidence that relates to the real customer journey. Depending on the business, this can include file review results, complaints, customer surveys, fees, application withdrawals, lender declines, vulnerable customer outcomes, AR data and post-completion feedback.
Lender acceptance rates should be treated carefully. The FCA's second charge review found intermediaries using acceptance rates as an outcome measure rather than assessing the quality of their own advice. A high acceptance rate may demonstrate that cases are packaged effectively, but it does not establish that the recommendations were suitable.
Segmentation can make the data more useful. Overall results may look satisfactory while customers consolidating debt, borrowing into later life or dealing through a particular AR receive materially different outcomes.
The firm should also define what good looks like. Without thresholds, expected ranges or qualitative standards, management can collect large datasets without knowing when intervention is required.
Vulnerable customers should be visible in the evidence
The FCA continues to expect firms to deliver appropriate outcomes to customers in vulnerable circumstances. Mortgage customers can be particularly exposed where low financial resilience, health, life events or capability affect their ability to absorb a poor decision.
The firm's framework should identify where vulnerability changes the advice or support required. A vulnerability flag should not exist only for reporting. It should influence communication, time, channel, additional explanation or other support where the customer's needs require it.
Outcome monitoring should then consider whether those customers receive materially different results. A higher complaint rate, more failed journeys or repeated difficulty understanding information can indicate that the support model needs adjustment.
The FCA's 2026 second charge work is relevant because many customers in that market have high debt and limited resilience. It found that some intermediaries overlooked potential indicators of vulnerability that could have been relevant to the application.
The lesson for the wider mortgage market is not to assume vulnerability from product type, but to ensure the advice process can identify and respond when customer circumstances create an increased risk of harm.
Fees, incentives and conditional selling deserve management attention
The 2026 Mortgage Regulatory Priorities identify incentives and conflicts of interest as an area of focus for mortgage intermediaries. The FCA has seen evidence of estate agents requiring consumers to use specific mortgage intermediaries and is looking at incentives across first and second charge firms and estate-agent-based brokers.
Firms should avoid oversimplifying this as a rule that every referral arrangement or connected broker model is prohibited. The regulatory assessment depends on the facts, including how the arrangement is presented, whether consumers are misled or pressured, what choice they have and whether incentives create a conflict with delivering good outcomes.
Consumer Duty makes the customer experience central. A customer should understand whether they are free to use another broker, what the broker's relationship with the introducer is and what fees or incentives are relevant to the service.
Management should therefore review referral scripts, estate-agent interactions, remuneration structures and customer feedback where the business uses these channels. Complaints or evidence that consumers believe a broker is mandatory should be investigated rather than dismissed as isolated misunderstanding.
The same principles apply to adviser incentives. Sales targets or remuneration structures should not encourage advisers to prioritise completion over suitable advice.
Board or governing-body review should drive action
The governing body's annual Consumer Duty assessment should be based on the firm's underlying evidence. For a mortgage broker, that can include advice QA, fees and value, customer understanding, support, vulnerability, complaints and AR outcomes where relevant.
The report should identify weaknesses as well as strengths. A document in which every outcome is rated positively without meaningful challenge can indicate that the methodology is not sensitive enough to detect poor outcomes.
Senior management should also understand the firm's data limitations. If the business lacks post-completion feedback or cannot segment AR outcomes, the report should identify the gap and the action being taken rather than assume that the missing evidence is positive.
The FCA's direction is towards firms being able to explain outcomes. A mature board report should therefore answer which customers receive the weakest outcomes, why management believes this is happening and what the firm has changed as a result.
How Regulatory Counsel can support
Regulatory Counsel supports mortgage brokers and networks with Consumer Duty reviews, fair value, customer journey testing, advice quality assurance, vulnerable customer frameworks, outcomes monitoring and board reporting.
We can assess the complete Consumer Duty framework or focus on a particular outcome, product, AR population or customer journey.
Speak to Regulatory Counsel to discuss Consumer Duty support for a mortgage firm.
Frequently Asked Questions
Yes where the firm's relevant retail market business falls within the Duty's scope. The Duty operates alongside MCOB and other applicable FCA requirements.
No. Mortgage advice firms still need to comply with MCOB. Consumer Duty adds a wider outcomes framework and does not remove detailed advice, disclosure or conduct requirements.
Where the broker provides a retail product or service within the price and value outcome, the firm needs an appropriate fair value assessment of that service. The methodology should reflect the nature of the service and customer price rather than rely only on competitor benchmarking.
The appropriate data depends on the business, but can include advice QA, complaints, fees, customer surveys, journey completion, vulnerability, AR data and other information that helps the firm understand outcomes across the customer journey.
Yes. We can review the underlying outcomes framework, the evidence used by management, the annual governing-body report and any resulting remediation.