Planning and implementation fees: what our 50-firm dataset actually lets you compare
Thirteen entries in Advisedly's 50-firm published-fee dataset explicitly describe implementation as an additional or separate charge alongside planning. Fifteen describe implementation as included in, or priced together with, the relevant initial service. Three explicitly credit or offset the planning fee. These differences matter before a reader adds two prices together or compares one firm's starting figure with another's.
This is a new analysis of the existing disclosure snapshot, whose individual sources were checked on 14–15 September 2026. It is not a fresh survey of current quotations, a representative estimate of the UK advice market or a ranking of firms. The original records and links remain available in the published financial advice fee comparison.
The question we investigated
Our original comparison records planning, implementation and ongoing charges separately. For this analysis, we asked a narrower question: what does each entry actually establish about the relationship between planning and implementation?
That relationship determines whether two visible figures should be added, whether one is already included in the other, whether a credit applies or whether the information requires clarification. Simply finding a number in both columns does not establish a combined bill.
We manually read the planning, implementation, treatment and scope notes for all 50 entries. Each received one primary classification using the rules below. We did not infer that an unmentioned fee was zero, or resolve inconsistent wording by selecting the lower figure.
Results from the recorded sample
| Relationship recorded | Entries | Share of these 50 entries | Meaning of the classification |
|---|---|---|---|
| Additional or separate implementation charge | 13 | 26% | The record explicitly places implementation alongside planning as an additional or separate cost |
| Included or combined initial service | 15 | 30% | Implementation forms part of the described service or combined initial price |
| Planning fee credited or offset | 3 | 6% | An explicit credit links the planning and implementation charges |
| Standard charge linked to investment or implementation | 3 | 6% | The record explicitly connects the described charge with proceeding to investment or implementation |
| Scope-dependent or unresolved interaction | 16 | 32% | The recorded menu, quote requirement, ambiguity or inconsistency prevents a narrower conclusion |
The percentages describe this deliberately selected dataset only. They should not be presented as the proportion of all UK advisers using each approach. The sample was assembled from accessible public fee disclosures, which excludes many firms and introduces selection bias.
Why the unresolved category is necessary
Sixteen entries remain scope-dependent under our conservative rules. That is not a finding that those firms do not disclose fees or cannot give a clear quote. A public menu may accurately price several different services without specifying which combination a particular client needs.
Atticus, for example, has separately priced tasks in the recorded entry, but the combined scope needs confirmation. Hargreaves Lansdown's Financial Planning and Investment Advice schedules describe different services. Adding both tariffs would not be a sound way to estimate one client's bill.
The recorded M&G illustration deducts an initial fee from invested money. That tells us about payment mechanics; on its own it does not establish that no fee is owed if the client stops before investing. We therefore did not put it in the investment-linked category merely because the money comes from the investment.
This distinction is central to the method: classification follows what the record supports, not the inference that produces the tidiest comparison.
Uncertainty about an amount does not always mean uncertainty about the relationship. Herbert & Webster's recorded scope explicitly describes separate paid stages, so it falls in the additional category even though the implementation minimum needs clarification. We can classify the interaction without claiming to know the final bill.
Three ways the arithmetic can change
Consider a hypothetical £2,000 planning fee and a hypothetical £3,000 implementation figure. These are invented numbers, not quotations from the firms in the dataset.
If implementation is additional, the two charges total £5,000. If the £3,000 implementation figure already includes the planning work, adding another £2,000 would double-count it. If the £2,000 is credited against a £3,000 implementation total, £1,000 may remain payable at that stage, subject to the actual agreement.
The same two visible numbers can therefore support different cash-payment sequences and totals. VAT, specialist work, minimum fees and third-party costs may change the result further. An accurate comparison needs both the figures and the rule connecting them.
Included does not mean every service is free
The included category applies to the specific service described. It does not mean the firm has no additional charges, that ongoing advice is included indefinitely or that every pension task follows the same tariff.
Our record for Chadwicks describes the initial plan and portfolio setup within its wealth service, alongside separate terms for other work. Paramount presents planning-only separately from its investment advice and implementation tariff. Those qualifications remain part of the evidence rather than being erased by the category label.
Likewise, a credit may have conditions. Britannic Place's recorded plan offset sits alongside a minimum total initial fee. Xentum's recorded credit depends on the firm implementing the plan. A reader needs the full proposal to establish when payment is due and what happens if the work stops.
What a useful written quote should answer
Ask for the initial planning cost, implementation cost, any credit and the resulting total on one page. The proposal should identify the work covered and explain the consequences of not proceeding with an investment recommendation.
Then separate ongoing advice from the initial project. Add platform, fund, product and transaction charges where relevant, and request the treatment of VAT. This prevents a precise initial-fee calculation from being mistaken for the complete first-year cost of the arrangement.
Method, audit trail and limits
The unit of analysis is one recorded firm/service entry. Each entry has one category and a written reason. The companion coding record and row-level analysis retain the firm ID, source link, original source-check date, classification and reasoning. The accompanying calculation checks that all 50 entries appear once and that the category counts reconcile.
This analysis was prepared on 18 September 2026. That date describes the analysis, not a new check of every source. Historical disclosure wording can change, documents can be superseded and a personal quote can differ because of the work required. Readers should obtain current terms directly from a firm before making a decision.
The finding is a comparability issue, not a verdict on value: the interaction between charges must be understood before prices are compared. A service that costs more may include more work; a lower starting price may be appropriate for a narrower need. This dataset cannot establish which arrangement is suitable for an individual reader.
Related reading
Sources and context
Analysis of the recorded September 2026 disclosure sample. Source dates and sample limitations are explained in the report.
Sources checked 18 September 2026. Our editorial standards.