This policy explains how Financial Adviser Hub selects topics, researches financial information, writes and reviews content, handles corrections and maintains editorial independence.
Editorial purpose
Financial Adviser Hub publishes educational content for UK consumers who want to understand financial advice before seeking personalised help. Our aim is to explain systems, terminology, service models, costs and consumer protections clearly and neutrally.
We do not provide personal financial advice. Editorial content must not tell a reader which investment, pension, adviser, platform or financial strategy to choose.
Topic selection
Topics are selected according to consumer usefulness, search demand, uncertainty and relevance to the UK financial advice market. Priority is given to questions that arise before or during an advice relationship, including adviser types, fees, retirement planning, regulation, qualifications and complaint routes.
We avoid publishing speculative investment content, product rankings, unsupported “best” lists or articles designed mainly to attract attention without improving understanding.
Source hierarchy
Primary and authoritative sources are preferred. Depending on the subject, these may include:
- the Financial Conduct Authority;
- MoneyHelper and Pension Wise;
- GOV.UK and HM Revenue & Customs;
- the Financial Ombudsman Service;
- the Financial Services Compensation Scheme;
- official legislation, consultations and regulatory policy statements; and
- recognised professional bodies and reputable industry research.
A third-party article may help identify an issue, but material claims should be checked against the most authoritative available source. Where reliable sources disagree or a rule is open to interpretation, the content should make that uncertainty clear.
Research and fact-checking
Writers should identify which statements are enduring explanations and which depend on current rules, thresholds, allowances, compensation limits or market practice. Time-sensitive information must be checked against a current source and dated where useful.
Pages involving regulation, pensions, tax or consumer protection require particular care. A guide should not rely on memory for a current threshold or regulatory position when an official source is available.
Writing standards
Content should answer the main question early, then explain the relevant context. Headings must describe the information that follows. Examples should be realistic and clearly labelled as illustrations rather than personal recommendations.
We use UK English, define technical terms and avoid unnecessary jargon. Claims should be proportionate. Words such as “guaranteed”, “best”, “safe” or “will save you money” should not be used unless a statement is objectively supportable and appropriately qualified.
Neutrality and balance
Financial choices commonly involve trade-offs. Our content should explain advantages, limitations, costs and risks without steering readers toward a predetermined outcome.
For example, an article comparing one-off and ongoing advice should explain how the services differ rather than assuming that one model is always better. A pension article should distinguish general information from a recommendation based on personal circumstances.
Advice boundaries
Financial Adviser Hub must remain an educational publisher. Content may explain how advisers assess circumstances, how products or services work and what consumers often compare. It must not assess an individual reader’s needs or suggest a personalised course of action.
When the correct answer depends on personal circumstances, the article should say so. Where regulated advice is mandatory or commonly relevant, that fact should be described carefully and linked to an authoritative source.
Internal links and reader journeys
Internal links should help readers answer the next logical question. They should not be inserted only to influence search rankings. A page about adviser costs may link to fee structures, ongoing advice and comparing total charges; a regulation page may link to FCA checks, complaints and adviser qualifications.
Related-reading sections should contain genuinely useful pages and avoid overwhelming readers with long lists.
Use of artificial intelligence
Digital tools, including artificial intelligence, may support research organisation, drafting, editing or quality checks. They are not treated as authoritative sources. Material factual claims must be checked, and published content remains subject to our editorial standards.
AI-generated wording should not be published without review for accuracy, duplication, tone, relevance and unsupported claims.
Advertising and commercial independence
The site may be supported by display advertising. Advertising is separate from editorial decision-making. Advertisers do not approve articles, choose conclusions or receive favourable coverage in exchange for payment.
If affiliate relationships, sponsorships or other commercial arrangements are introduced later, they should be disclosed clearly and should not be presented as independent editorial recommendations.
Review schedule
Substantive guides should be reviewed at least periodically and sooner when there is a material regulatory, legal or consumer-guidance change. Pages involving tax years, pension rules, compensation limits or newly introduced services may require more frequent checking.
A visible “last reviewed” date indicates when the page received a substantive editorial check. It does not mean that every external source was updated on that date.
Corrections
Readers can report a possible error through our Contact page. Useful correction requests include the page URL, the relevant passage, the reason it may be inaccurate and a supporting source where available.
Minor typographical corrections may be made without a public note. Material corrections should be incorporated promptly and, where appropriate, explained on the page.
Author and reviewer transparency
Content is published under the Financial Adviser Hub Editorial Team identity. We do not invent credentials or imply FCA authorisation. If external specialists review content in future, their role and relevant expertise should be described accurately.
Reader feedback
Editorial feedback is welcome, including suggestions for clearer explanations, missing questions and accessibility improvements. We consider feedback according to usefulness and evidence rather than commercial interest.
Policy owner: Financial Adviser Hub Editorial Team
Last reviewed: June 2026