The Compliance Gap Hiding in Plain Sight on IFA Websites

Over the past two days I've run five marketing audits for financial services businesses using my framework. A few expected items cropped up - generic/boilerplate copy, almost no third-party mentions and social media presence that's either dormant or an afterthought. Those are familiar problems, and most advisers already have an idea that they are falling short there.

What surprised me most though was the compliance element of my audit. For background, this part of my framework looks at how a firm's digital presence stacks up against its Consumer Duty and FCA obligations, and firms are consistently scoring around 18 out of 30.

That's not a catastrophic score on this section (it sits in our adequate band), but I wouldn’t say it’s a great starting point either, especially for firms that spend real money on compliance, training and shiny new websites.  An 18/30 on the digital side suggests a gap between what's happening internally and what's visible externally, as well as good practice, on the one channel every prospect and every regulator can see without an appointment.

Here's what I score, and why I think each one matters.

FCA register match

This is basic housekeeping: does the firm name, address, FCA reference number and the individuals listed on the website match what's actually held on the Financial Services Register? Potential clients now do more due dilligence than ever before and increasingly check the register before making contact. A mismatch here, however innocent, is one of the easiest things to put doubt in a prospective clients mind. It's also one of the easiest things to fix.

Fee and disclosure consistency

Under COBS, advisers already have to disclose their charging structure to a client in writing before giving advice and that disclosure duty only kicks in once someone is in the advice process. What I score on here is about whether a a prospect can get any sense of cost before making contact at all. There's no FCA rule requiring that, but it does sit pretty close to the spirit of the Consumer Duty's price and value outcome. A potential client can't judge fair value if they can't see the price.

It also does something practical for the firm. A prospect who has a sense of your fees before they enquire is a prospect who has already decided you're roughly the right fit. Pricing on your site qualifies leads before they pick up the phone. That means fewer enquiries from people who were never going to convert once they heard your number.

Consumer Duty: clear, fair and not misleading

The Consumer Duty's consumer understanding outcome requires firms to communicate with clients in a way that's clear, fair and not misleading, in plain language. The FCA hasn't specifically named things like broken links, outdated privacy policies or inconsistent cookie handling as examples of misleading communication. I'd argue the point that a site riddled with errors and mistakes isn't really meeting that standard. If the basics aren't accurate, it's a reasonable question to ask what else might not be. Scoring here goes wider than the copy itself because your website should be considering the end user here as well as your obligation to produce a compliant website.

Complaints procedure - where is it?

You all know the rules around the complaints process - comprehensive procedure with explicit timelines, escalation routes, the Financial Ombudsman Service and a separate complaints email.  What I'm scoring on a website is slightly different: it’s’ not whether the procedure exists, but whether it's easy to find. Is it in the footer, or three clicks deep on a page that isn't in the navigation? This shouldn’t be a hard thing for clients to find. I'd file that under 'just good practice and good service'.

Testimonial and compliance risk

Testimonials are one of the strongest trust signals a firm can put on its website. Now there isn't a specific named FCA rule requiring "risk wording" on testimonials. What does apply is the general financial promotion standard, communications must be fair, clear and not misleading, and firms can't lead on past performance. A testimonial that implies an investment outcome sits very close to that line. This is why many firms add risk wording as a safeguard. If you're using testimonials, it's worth checking the current wording with your compliance team rather than assuming a blanket rule, because interpretation will always, always vary.

Vulnerable client signals

The FCA's guidance on the fair treatment of vulnerable customers expects firms to identify and respond to vulnerability, not just note it in file records. Whether that needs to show up as an explicit accessibility statement is more of a judgement call than an FCA rule. Accessibility itself is predominately an Equality Act 2010 obligation rather than something the FCA prescribes directly. But under Consumer Duty, showing that vulnerability is something your firm actively considers, not just documents privately, is good evidence of the consumer support outcome in practice.

Where this leaves your firm

For an IFA firm, this should be one of the easier sections to score well on. It's largely a housekeeping exercise, checking that what's already true internally is reflected accurately online. Done properly, some parts should double as evidence for your Consumer Duty file.

At this point, it’s worth being clear about what's rule and what's judgement here. The register matching what's on file, the eight-week complaints timeline, and the requirement to communicate clearly, fairly and not misleadingly, those are FCA rules.

The rest of it, fees visible, a complaints procedure that's easy, risk wording on testimonials and vulnerable client language, is closer to good practice than binding regulation. Nobody's going to be fined for a hard-to-find complaints link. But Consumer Duty was built to reward firms who can show they've thought about the client's experience, not just the letter of the rule.

If it's been a while since anyone looked closely at your website, the chances are it's overdue a review. Getting a site refreshed is one thing. Whether it stays accurate and compliant once the agency hands it back to you is another question entirely. Unless you have an in-house marketing team, or outsource that function, if it's not on someone's job description, it's not getting done.

If you want to know where your own site would land against this framework, I run these audits regularly. Get in touch and I'll talk you through what one would look like for your firm.