You’d think with all the idioms about money and commerce out there, everyone would understand by now that money doesn’t grow on trees and there is no free lunch.

Unfortunately, no matter how often these statements are spoken, many people still think advice is free or, at the very least, should come cheaply.

And just when you thought it was safe for advisers to champion the fee charging model, a spanner is thrown into the works.

That spanner came from Which? Money, which looked into the fees IFAs across the UK charge for their services.

Pension providers and fund managers have already taken a great deal of flak for the fees they charge, so it was only a matter of time before IFAs were targeted.

The Which? investigation compiled the prices advisers charge in four areas of financial advice: transferring £5,000 single premium into a stakeholder pension; transferring £10,680 into a stocks and shares ISA; arranging a 20 year level term assurance policy with a £100,000 sum assured; and arranging an income protection policy for a 30-year-old woman earning £30,000 pa.

Between 148 and 192 quotes were received for each question and Which? published the most expensive, the cheapest and the average quoted. It found that fees could be as little as £50 or £106 or as high as £2,500, as was the case for the stakeholder pension and stocks and shares ISA. One of the demands Which? made was for advisers to be forced to publish a list of their fees on their websites so consumers could shop around for the best deal.

I asked Which? to show me more of its data and, while it said that it can’t show me all of the individual figures, I was given the fee range for the stakeholder pension transfer.

Of the 156 IFAs who provided a quote, five were £100 or less, 103 quoted £101 to £300, 34 quoted £301 to £500, one quoted £1,500 and one quoted £2,500.

Without this kind of detail added to the original press coverage, you would have been forgiven for thinking the advisory world is full of rogue traders out to dupe people of their hard earned cash at the first opportunity.

The reality of the wide range of fees is much less salacious.

While Which? asked the IFAs what it would cost to advise on and arrange the services in question, what likely wasn’t being taken into account was the fact IFAs can have very different outlooks when it comes to advice.

This helps to explain why some would have quoted a cheap price, because they are willing to take on small transactions, whereas others would have charged more because they wanted to accompany it with some degree of financial planning.

As for the high quotes, even Which? admitted that these were likely deliberate attempts by firms that have little interest in doing small, one off transactions to deter the consumer. My thinking is perhaps it might have been better for the adviser just to say no in this case, rather than give additional fodder for criticism from consumers.