A borrower coming to the end of a mortgage deal appears to have a simple choice: speak to a mortgage broker or approach a lender directly. In practice, there is often a third route sitting between them — taking a new deal from the existing lender without moving the mortgage elsewhere — and the differences between those routes can matter as much as the interest rate eventually chosen.
The broker channel now dominates UK regulated mortgage distribution. The Intermediary Mortgage Lenders Association’s latest market outlook expects around 87% of regulated mortgage lending to be conducted through brokers in both 2026 and 2027. That does not mean roughly nine in ten individual borrowers necessarily sit down with a broker, because the statistic measures the share of regulated lending distributed through the intermediary channel rather than consumer behaviour in every type of transaction.
The difference becomes clearer in the FCA’s 2024 Financial Lives mortgage survey, which looked at residential mortgage holders who had remortgaged or switched deal during the preceding three years. Across that group, 57% had sought advice from a broker. Among borrowers who moved their mortgage to another lender, the figure was 80%; among those who switched deal but stayed with their existing lender, it was only 36%. A borrower moving lender is choosing across institutions, underwriting policies and product ranges, while someone taking an internal product transfer may instead be weighing the convenience of staying put against the possibility that a wider search would produce a cheaper or more suitable result.
The scale of that third route is easy to underestimate. The same IMLA outlook forecasts around £260 billion of product transfers in 2026, compared with £103 billion of remortgage lending, after product transfers reached an estimated £250 billion in 2025. IMLA nevertheless expects remortgaging to grow faster during 2026 as improving affordability gives more borrowers the option of moving lender. For anyone reaching the end of a fixed rate, the product-transfer decision is therefore a central part of the mortgage market rather than an administrative afterthought.
The useful question is not whether brokers are generally good or direct lenders generally bad, but what part of the market is actually being compared, what level of advice is being provided and what sits outside the chosen route. The regulatory discussion below principally concerns regulated residential mortgages. Business buy-to-let and consumer buy-to-let can sit under different regulatory arrangements, so landlords should not assume every advice or sales rule applies identically to an investment mortgage.
What a broker actually does
Where a mortgage broker gives regulated advice, the broker is not merely producing a list of available rates. The job is to make a personal recommendation after considering the borrower’s needs and circumstances, then identify a suitable mortgage from the range the firm offers. Much of the practical value lies in combining access to products with experience of how lenders interpret cases: two lenders advertising similar mortgages can take very different views of self-employed income, bonuses, previous credit problems, unusual construction or flats above commercial premises.
Product access still has limits. Under the FCA’s mortgage disclosure rules, firms must explain any limitations in the range of mortgages they will consider and disclose if they do not consider deals available only by going directly to a lender. A broker can therefore offer a very broad or effectively unrestricted market search without literally arranging every mortgage available in Britain, because some products are distributed only through the direct channel while others are broker-exclusive.
The phrase “whole of market” can be useful shorthand, but it should not be read as a promise of universal access. What matters is the service actually being offered: whether the broker works from an unlimited range or a restricted panel, whether direct-only products are considered or at least flagged, and whether there are particular lenders or product types outside the search. A restricted panel is not automatically poor advice — FCA rules allow representative selections where they are sufficiently broad, regularly reviewed and do not materially disadvantage the customer — but the borrower should understand the boundaries before relying on the comparison.
For more complicated borrowers, those boundaries can matter as much as the headline rate. A broker’s accumulated knowledge of where a case is likely to fit can be especially valuable for applicants with irregular income, several sources of earnings, unusual property types or specialist borrowing needs. Portfolio landlords and company borrowers can face similarly varied lender appetite, although business buy-to-let often sits outside the ordinary regulated residential mortgage framework and should not be assumed to carry identical advice protections.
What a lender’s own adviser does
Approaching a lender directly does not necessarily mean giving up regulated advice. A bank or building society can provide advice through its own mortgage adviser, but the available products will normally come from that lender’s own range rather than competing lenders. The difference between lender advice and broker advice is therefore primarily breadth, not whether one is “proper” advice and the other is not.
Suitability still matters even when the adviser only has one lender’s products available. A restricted adviser cannot properly solve the absence of a suitable product simply by recommending the least unsuitable option in the range. In practical terms, the advice can establish that the lender has nothing appropriate for the borrower, but it cannot turn that restricted range into a comparison with competing banks or building societies.
A direct customer can also proceed without receiving a personal recommendation. Under the FCA’s execution-only rules, a lender or intermediary may still provide factual information and interact with the customer without making a suitability recommendation. The borrower chooses the mortgage rather than being advised that it is suitable for them, and the relevant warnings or instructions have to be satisfied before an execution-only sale can proceed. For somebody who already knows exactly what product they want, this can be a perfectly rational route; it is nevertheless materially different from having an adviser weigh the mortgage against the borrower’s circumstances and recommend it.
Speed or simplicity may favour some direct transactions, particularly straightforward switches, but neither should be confused with a wider search of the market. A lender adviser may know that institution’s criteria exceptionally well while remaining unable to recommend a rival lender that would suit the borrower better.
Fees: who actually pays, and how
Broker remuneration is often misunderstood because the borrower may never pay the broker directly. The FCA’s latest retail intermediary market data shows mortgage-broking firms reporting £1.6 billion of revenue in 2025, with commission accounting for 77.5% of mortgage-broking revenue. Those are sector-level figures rather than evidence that every firm or every mortgage is paid for in the same way, but they show how important lender-paid remuneration remains.
A broker described as fee-free to the borrower may therefore still receive a procuration fee from the lender when the mortgage completes. Other firms charge the borrower as well, through a fixed fee, percentage charge or fee payable at a particular stage. Before proceeding, the borrower should understand what they will pay, what the lender will pay the broker and whether that remuneration varies depending on the recommended mortgage.
Commission is an obvious potential conflict to examine, but the evidence is more nuanced than assuming the highest-paying lender must win. The FCA’s 2018 research into intermediary choice found no evidence in the sample studied that higher procuration fees resulted in customers paying more for their mortgages. It did, however, find something arguably more useful for borrowers choosing an adviser: for comparable customers taking two-year fixed mortgages, average borrowing costs differed by 27 basis points between intermediaries at opposite ends of its distribution, equivalent to roughly £800 over the introductory period on the median loan in the study.
The same research found that intermediaries placing business with a larger number of lenders tended, on average, to sell cheaper products than those using fewer lenders. The study is historical rather than a snapshot of today’s mortgage pricing, so its 27-basis-point figure should not be treated as a current saving available to every borrower. Its structural lesson remains useful: “use a broker” is not the end of the decision, because the breadth of the search, the quality of the advice and the broker chosen can affect the outcome.
Product transfers sit slightly apart from the normal new-business process. A broker may be paid by the existing lender for arranging an internal switch, but remuneration can differ from new-business terms and change over time. Payment alone does not establish whether staying with the lender is right or wrong; where regulated advice is being given, the suitability of the recommendation remains the relevant test.
Comparing the three routes
| Broker-led market search | Go direct to another lender | Existing-lender product transfer | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Product range | Broad intermediary market, subject to the broker’s disclosed range; may include broker-exclusive deals | One lender’s direct range, including any direct-only products | Existing lender’s retention/product-transfer range |
| Advice | Regulated advice where a recommendation is made; execution-only can also exist | Lender advice on its own range, or execution-only | Can be advised or execution-only depending on route and lender |
| Criteria matching | Can compare how several lenders may treat the case | Deep knowledge of one lender’s own criteria | Existing lender already knows the mortgage/account; treatment depends on the change being made |
| Administration | Broker manages much of the lender interaction; moving lender may still require valuation and legal work | Borrower deals directly with the new lender; full remortgage process may still apply | Often administratively simpler than moving lender on a straightforward switch |
| What might be missed | Direct-only mortgages or products outside the broker’s range | Better deals or more suitable criteria elsewhere | Better external deals and wider-market criteria |
| Most valuable when | Market comparison or lender matching matters | A specific direct deal is attractive and the borrower understands what they want | Staying put is competitive and simplicity has genuine value |
The product-transfer column explains why the broker-versus-direct debate changes when a fixed rate is ending. A straightforward internal switch can involve far less friction than moving the mortgage elsewhere because the borrower is remaining with the same lender, although the process can change if they want additional borrowing, a different term or another material alteration. The decision is still being made within one lender’s retention range, so staying can be an excellent result when the offer is competitive and an expensive form of convenience when nobody establishes what the wider market would have offered.
Going directly to a new lender should not be confused with bypassing that lender’s underwriting. The borrower is still asking a new institution to lend and will normally face that lender’s criteria and application process; the difference is that no intermediary is selecting or managing the route. A broker can help identify the lender most likely to fit the case, but cannot override the lender’s credit or property decision.
Where each route tends to add the most value
A broker’s value tends to be greatest where choice and lender fit genuinely matter. Complex income, previous credit problems, unusual properties and specialist ownership structures are obvious examples, but complexity is not a prerequisite: an otherwise conventional borrower can still benefit from having competing products, fees and criteria assessed across lenders.
The expertise can be as much about knowing where not to apply as knowing where to apply. Published criteria cannot describe every underwriting judgement, and applications to lenders that were never realistic candidates can waste time and create unnecessary credit searches. For landlords, portfolio size, company structures and specialist properties can make lender appetite particularly variable, although business buy-to-let borrowers need to remember that the regulatory protections around the advice may not mirror those applying to an owner-occupier mortgage.
Going direct can be equally rational when there is a specific reason to do it. A lender may have an attractive direct-only mortgage, an existing borrower may have a competitive retention offer, or a confident customer may already have identified the product they want and prefer to proceed without a recommendation. Current consumer research from Which? makes the same practical point from the other side: some mortgages are available only direct, while preferential mortgage rates simply for holding a current account are relatively rare. Familiarity with a bank may make the process feel easier, but it does not demonstrate that its mortgage is competitive or suitable.
For someone approaching the end of a deal, the useful comparison is therefore between the existing lender’s retention offer, the wider intermediary market and any material direct-only options that sit outside the broker’s search. A borrower does not need to launch three separate applications to make that comparison; they need to understand which parts of the market have actually been tested before committing.
This also keeps the subject distinct from the separate question of why different lenders accept or reject apparently similar borrowers. Underwriting criteria explain why lender decisions differ. The issue here is whether the route chosen gives the borrower access to enough of those different lenders — and enough advice about them — in the first place.
What using a broker doesn’t guarantee
A broker does not guarantee the lowest headline rate available anywhere in the market. A direct-only mortgage may occasionally beat anything the broker can arrange, just as a broker-exclusive product may be unavailable to somebody dealing directly with a lender. Nor does a broker guarantee approval: good lender matching can prevent unsuitable applications and improve the chances of placing a difficult case, but it cannot turn a borrower who falls outside every available lender’s criteria into an acceptable risk.
The comparison should not stop at the interest rate. Arrangement fees, cashback, valuation costs, incentives, early-repayment charges, overpayment flexibility and the length of the initial deal can alter which mortgage is actually cheaper or better suited to the borrower. The FCA’s intermediary research also shows why the broker itself deserves scrutiny: different firms can produce measurably different outcomes even for broadly comparable customers.
The direct route has an equivalent blind spot. A lender adviser can recommend a suitable mortgage from that lender’s available range, but they are not conducting a market-wide competition between their employer and rival banks. An execution-only borrower keeps control of the choice but accepts that nobody is making a personal suitability recommendation for them.
The most useful distinction is therefore not broker good, lender bad — or the reverse. Each route exposes the borrower to a different part of the mortgage market and a different level of advice. Knowing which slice has been searched, what has been excluded and whether the convenience of staying put is worth the possibility of a better external option is what turns a mortgage choice into an informed one.
The regulatory position is different for some investment lending. The FCA’s guidance on buy-to-let regulation explains that consumer buy-to-let has a separate regime and that many business buy-to-let arrangements fall outside the ordinary regulated mortgage framework. Landlords should therefore check what regulatory status and advice service applies to the mortgage they are arranging rather than assuming the owner-occupier rules above apply unchanged.
This article provides general information about mortgage distribution and advice in the UK and does not constitute mortgage, financial or investment advice. Mortgage availability, criteria, fees and regulatory protections vary by product and borrower. The regulatory discussion principally concerns regulated residential mortgages; different rules can apply to buy-to-let lending. Borrowers should check the scope of any advice service and the products being considered before making a mortgage decision.
