Some 96% of those asked by Boon responded that brokers should provide written and verbal explanations of commissions and fees before an application, while 85% believed brokers should not receive both a commission and a fee. A further 87% stated that full transparency strongly influenced their trust in brokers.

The findings demonstrate that many borrowers are still confused about how the dynamic of fees and commissions works.

Jason Berry, group sales director at Crystal Specialist Finance, emphasised that transparency around these charges was crucial across the entire broker community.

“I was slightly surprised by the relatively high percentages shown in the Boon Brokers report, though it does underline a very important point: clarity around fees and commissions remains absolutely central to building trust with clients,” he said.

According to Jason, the FCA had set clear expectations for regulated firms, with Consumer Duty pushing higher standards of transparency around commission, fee disclosure, and positive advice, creating a culture where openness and fairness underpinned both advice and funding.

While brokers operating in regulated financial advice are legally required to disclose all fees and commissions, the same requirements are not imposed in unregulated markets.

However, Jason argued that financial advisers operating outside of FCA regulation should still be transparent about their fees and commissions.

“Even where disclosure isn’t legally required, transparency builds trust. The market as a whole benefits when clients feel informed and confident, regardless of whether the transaction is regulated or unregulated,” he explained.

•   B&C Awards 2025: The Video
•   An open letter to the commercial and business finance community
•   The Bottom Line: Bridging proc fee imbalances, deal delays, and undermining trust

Back in 2021, the NACFB urged its members to disclose all commissions and fees to customers promptly before a credit agreement or a consumer hire agreement was entered into. The trade body stated that although FCA rules only applied to regulated firms, there was still an expectation for others to toe a similar line.

“Although this only applies to regulated firms, the NACFB would expect to see all firms adopt this approach as a best practice,” the association had stated.

Jason believed the majority of brokers were clear in explaining the services provided to clients, as well as the commissions and fees that would be earned from these. He felt it was the actions of a minority that could tarnish the majority.

In addition, the question of charging both a commission and a fee came down to whether a broker could articulate and justify why these had been charged, Jason noted.

“The problem arises only when the explanation is lacking or when clients feel uncertain about the value they’re getting,” said Jason.

He felt that written and verbal explanations of fees and commissions could potentially create a more efficient advisory process.

“Providing both written and verbal clarity shouldn’t materially slow down the process if brokers integrate it properly into their client journey.

“In fact, in specialist finance — where transactions can be high-value and time-sensitive — it may actually speed things up, as clients who feel informed from the outset are less likely to raise concerns or query costs further down the line.”

In the wider broker community — both regulated and unregulated — full disclosure is something that should not be seen just as financial red tape but as an ace in the hole for brokers, suggested Jason.

“Transparency is not just a regulatory expectation; it is a commercial advantage. Clients who trust their broker are far more likely to proceed with confidence, return for future transactions, and recommend the broker to others.”