The FCA is consulting on changes intended to make the Consumer Duty clearer and more proportionate. For credit brokers, that does not mean the Duty has been switched off, softened into a checklist or replaced by a general instruction to do less.

CP26/23 is a consultation. Its proposed rule and guidance changes are not current requirements. The existing Consumer Duty remains in force while the FCA considers responses, with the consultation closing on 18 September 2026 and a policy statement and any new rules expected in Q1 2027.

The practical opportunity for credit brokers is more useful than a headline about deregulation. The FCA is asking whether firms can focus more tightly on the parts of a distribution chain they actually control and influence, reduce duplicated work and still evidence good retail customer outcomes.

What the rules require today

The current Consumer Duty is built around the Consumer Principle that a firm must act to deliver good outcomes for retail customers, supported by three cross-cutting rules and four outcomes covering products and services, price and value, consumer understanding and consumer support.

The FCA's current information for firms also makes clear that proportionality is already part of the framework. What is reasonable depends on factors including the nature of the product or service, customer characteristics, the firm's relationship with customers and its size. A small credit broker is not expected to reproduce the systems of a major bank, but it is still expected to understand the outcomes it can influence and to have evidence for its approach.

Distribution chains matter particularly to brokers. The FCA currently says the Duty applies to firms with a key role in delivering retail customer outcomes, including firms without a direct customer relationship where they can determine or influence product design or operation, communications or customer support. Manufacturers and distributors also need to share information so each can perform its own role effectively.

Those are current expectations. They should not be set aside because a consultation is open.

What CP26/23 is proposing

The consultation is a targeted package rather than a rewrite of the Consumer Duty. The FCA says its core objective of good retail customer outcomes remains unchanged, but it has seen the Duty applied more widely and more intensively than intended in some areas, particularly wholesale markets and complex distribution chains.

Four proposed changes are central:

• limiting the Duty's territorial scope so it generally applies to retail market business where the retail customer is usually resident in the UK;
• making clearer which activities and firms are within and outside scope;
• clarifying how responsibility can be allocated and how firms can rely on each other in distribution chains; and
• making targeted adjustments around information gathering, outcomes monitoring and board reporting so firms focus on activities for which they are responsible.

The FCA also proposes revised non-Handbook guidance and technical clarifications. If adopted, the updated guidance would replace FG22/5.

Again, these are proposals. Firms should distinguish them from the Handbook rules and guidance that apply now.

Why credit brokers should pay attention to the distribution-chain proposals

Credit broking is often a chain rather than a single customer relationship. A journey can involve an affiliate or publisher, a broker, a lender or lender panel, technology providers and sometimes other intermediaries. The broker may control the advert and landing page but not the lender's underwriting. It may choose a lender panel but not design the credit product. It may receive outcome data but not own every post-sale interaction.

That division of responsibility is exactly why proportionality matters. A broker should not be expected to recreate a lender's control framework merely because both firms touch the same journey. Equally, a broker cannot outsource responsibility for the things it actually controls.

If a broker writes the promotion, captures the lead, explains its role, chooses where the enquiry is sent and handles the initial customer contact, those activities can materially influence understanding and outcomes. Calling the lender the 'manufacturer' does not make the broker's own communications somebody else's problem.

The useful question is therefore not, 'Can we do less Consumer Duty work?' It is, 'Can we show which outcomes we influence, what evidence we need for those outcomes and where another firm's evidence can reasonably be relied upon?'

Reliance should reduce duplication, not accountability

CP26/23 says the FCA wants more reliance among parties in a distribution chain and less duplication. That could be valuable for brokers that currently request large evidence packs from lenders or partners without a clear explanation of how every document informs a decision.

But reliance needs structure. A proportionate framework might identify who owns each part of the customer journey, what information is needed from another firm, how often it is refreshed, what would trigger challenge and what happens when the evidence points to harm.

For example, a broker may reasonably rely on a lender for information about product design or aspects of fair-value assessment that sit with the lender. The broker still needs to consider whether its own distribution strategy, customer communications and hand-offs are consistent with the target market and whether its own data reveals poor outcomes.

That is different from collecting a policy once a year and treating the existence of the PDF as assurance.

Outcomes monitoring may become more focused

The consultation proposes greater clarity that firms should focus monitoring on activities for which they are responsible. For smaller credit brokers, that could support a more useful evidence set.

Rather than producing a large dashboard because the phrase 'Consumer Duty MI' sounds reassuring, a broker can ask what its data actually proves. Relevant measures might include customer confusion about broker versus lender status, complaint themes by lead source, consent disputes, failed or abandoned journeys, vulnerable-customer indicators, lender rejection patterns, repeat applications, contact-channel issues and outcomes by introducer or affiliate.

The FCA's current July 2026 outcomes-monitoring material reinforces the underlying point: firms need to assess, test, understand and evidence the outcomes customers are receiving. A future clarification on proportionality would not turn evidence into an optional extra. It may make the evidence more tightly connected to responsibility.

Board reporting is another area to watch

Current rules require a firm's board or equivalent governing body to review and approve an assessment of retail customer outcomes at least annually. CP26/23 proposes targeted adjustments intended to make board reporting more proportionate and focused on the firm's responsibilities.

For a small broker, this should be read as an argument for a better report, not necessarily a longer one. Senior management should be able to see where poor outcomes occurred, which customer groups were affected, the root cause, what changed and whether the remediation worked.

A board pack that contains dozens of green metrics but cannot explain a recurring complaint theme is not made stronger by its page count.

What credit brokers should do before 18 September

There is no need to redesign a Consumer Duty framework around rules that have not been made. There is, however, a useful review firms can do now.

1. Map responsibility across the real journey. Identify what the broker controls, what a lender or other partner controls and where responsibility is shared.
2. Challenge duplicated evidence. For every recurring information request or monitoring pack, ask what decision it supports and whether reliable partner evidence could be used instead.
3. Keep the broker's own controls specific. Promotions, lead generation, customer understanding, hand-offs, complaints and support should remain connected to evidence the broker can actually observe.
4. Review contracts and information flows. Check whether agreements with lenders, introducers, affiliates and service providers support the information sharing needed to identify poor outcomes and act on them.
5. Separate today's rules from tomorrow's proposals. Record any process changes that depend on CP26/23 and wait for the final policy statement before treating them as regulatory requirements.

Firms with practical evidence about duplicated work, unclear responsibility or information-sharing friction can also consider responding to the consultation before 18 September.

The direction is proportionality, not retreat

The most important line in CP26/23 is that the FCA's core objective of delivering good outcomes for retail customers remains unchanged. The consultation is about making the Duty more targeted, proportionate and predictable.

For credit brokers, that should encourage a move away from compliance theatre. A smaller evidence pack can be stronger if every measure is connected to a customer journey, a responsibility, a risk and an action. Reliance on another firm can be sensible if the boundary is understood and the evidence is credible. Fewer duplicated controls can improve oversight if accountability becomes clearer rather than weaker.

Until final rules are made, the current Duty continues to apply. The job now is to understand the proposals, test whether existing Consumer Duty work is genuinely useful and be ready to adapt once the FCA publishes its final position.

Authorised Compliance helps credit brokers map Consumer Duty responsibilities across customer journeys, distribution partners and monitoring frameworks so that evidence is proportionate, practical and tied to the outcomes the firm can influence.

This article provides general compliance information and is not legal advice. CP26/23 is a consultation and its proposals may change before any final rules or guidance are made.

Sources:

• FCA CP26/23: Consumer Duty – scope and proportionality
• FCA: Consumer Duty information for firms
• FCA: About the Consumer Duty
• FCA: Consumer Duty publications and resources