A two-adviser independent financial advice firm in the South West receives a Financial Ombudsman Service complaint from the executors of a former client. The advice in question dates back to 2014 — a recommendation to consolidate two personal pensions into a Self-Invested Personal Pension and invest a meaningful proportion in an unregulated property fund that subsequently suspended redemptions and then wound up at a fraction of net asset value. The estate is claiming a six-figure sum. The firm's current Professional Indemnity policy is on cover. The adviser who gave the advice has since left. The question of whether the policy responds, and on what terms, will determine whether the firm survives.
That kind of file landing on a principal's desk is the reason Professional Indemnity Insurance — PI, or PII — sits where it does in the FCA's regulatory framework for personal investment firms. It is mandatory under the Handbook, it is the consumer's primary protection where things go wrong, and it is the single largest fixed cost line for many small and mid-sized IFA practices. Yet the wording, the limits, the exclusions and the run-off all reward close attention, and a renewal handled on autopilot is the renewal most likely to leave a firm exposed.
This guide is for principals, compliance officers and directors at FCA-authorised personal investment firms — IFAs, restricted advice firms, wealth managers and discretionary investment managers operating in the UK retail advice market. It runs longer than most online explainers because the detail genuinely matters. A complaint upheld at the Ombudsman with no PI response behind it can finish a firm; a complaint upheld with a well-structured policy in force is an unpleasant but survivable event.
What Professional Indemnity Insurance covers for IFAs
At its core, Professional Indemnity Insurance pays the legal costs of defending a civil claim made against your firm by a client or third party who says they have suffered financial loss as a result of regulated advice or activities you provided, and pays any damages, settlement or Ombudsman award against you up to the limit of the policy.
For a personal investment firm the envelope of "regulated activities" is wide. A typical IFA PI policy responds to claims arising out of investment advice, pension advice (including defined contribution and defined benefit transfers where the firm is permitted to give it), pension switching and consolidation, retirement income planning and drawdown, advice on tax wrappers, advice on protection products, mortgage and equity release advice (where the firm holds those permissions), inheritance tax planning, and the broader category of "advice on the suitability of investments and pensions for retail clients" that sits at the heart of what an IFA does.
Most policies respond regardless of whether the alleged failing was unsuitable advice, a failure to disclose risks adequately, a breach of suitability rules under COBS 9 or COBS 9A, a failure to act on a client instruction, an administrative error in implementation, or a breach of contractual or fiduciary duty. The trigger is the assertion of negligence, error or omission in the conduct of regulated business — not whether the firm did anything obviously wrong.
What PI does not cover is equally worth noting. Investment performance in itself is not a covered loss — markets fall, and a fall in a client's portfolio does not give rise to a PI claim unless the underlying advice was unsuitable or the product was misrepresented. Regulatory fines and penalties levied against the firm by the FCA are not covered as a matter of policy and as a matter of public policy under English insurance law. Dishonesty, fraud or deliberate criminal conduct by principals are excluded — though most policies will continue to defend "innocent" partners where one adviser is alleged to have acted dishonestly, subject to wording. And fee disputes, in themselves, sit outside the cover; though as below, the moment a client refuses to pay and counter-alleges unsuitable advice, the PI policy is back in play.
The regulatory backdrop — FCA, FOS and FSCS
Three regulators or quasi-regulators shape what a UK IFA must hold by way of PI cover and what a covered claim looks like when one arrives.
The Financial Conduct Authority is the prudential and conduct regulator for personal investment firms. The Handbook requires personal investment firms to hold PI cover meeting the minima set out in IPRU-INV 13 (the Interim Prudential sourcebook for Investment Businesses). The minimum cover figures are set in euros under the Insurance Distribution Directive framework and indexed periodically — currently in the region of €1.3 million for any one claim and €1.9 million in the aggregate, equating to approximately £1.1 million per claim and £1.7 million aggregate at recent exchange rates. The Handbook also permits the firm to deduct an excess from those headline numbers, with the excess capped by reference to the firm's annual income. Firms should read the precise figures in IPRU-INV 13.1.10R at the time of each renewal because both the euro amounts and the sterling equivalents move.
Alongside the prudential minima, the Handbook's conduct rules drive the volume and shape of claims. SUP 13A and PRIN apply throughout; DISP sets out the complaints rules and the route to the Ombudsman; COBS 9 and 9A govern suitability of investment and pension advice; COBS 19 governs pension transfer advice and the role of the Pension Transfer Specialist; CASS protects client money; PROD applies to product governance. Any breach of any of these can crystallise into a complaint and, ultimately, a PI notification.
The Financial Ombudsman Service is the statutory dispute-resolution body for retail financial services. It hears complaints from "eligible complainants" — broadly, consumers, micro-enterprises, charities below certain thresholds, and small trustees of small trusts — and makes binding awards up to the FOS compulsory jurisdiction money award limit. That limit is indexed annually on 1 April; for complaints about acts or omissions on or after 1 April 2019 it sits in the mid-£400,000s for the 2026/27 financial year (the exact figure is republished by the FCA each spring), and a lower cap applies for older acts or omissions. The FOS can also recommend awards above the limit, which the firm is not legally obliged to pay but may choose to. We deal with how FOS complaints become PI claims, and how PI insurers handle them, in our companion article on FOS complaints and IFA PI cover.
The Financial Services Compensation Scheme is the safety net behind the IFA. Where a firm has gone out of business and a valid claim cannot be paid by the firm or its PI insurer, eligible claimants can apply to FSCS, currently for compensation up to £85,000 per person per firm for investment and pension claims. FSCS funding levies are paid by the surviving authorised firms in each funding class, which is one reason renewal premiums for IFAs have been sensitive to the wider sector's claims experience as well as the individual firm's.
The interaction between the three is the structural point: the FCA Handbook mandates the cover, the Ombudsman drives a large proportion of the claims that hit the cover, and the FSCS catches what the cover does not.
What claims actually look like
The popular image of an IFA PI claim is a single dramatic mis-selling case. The reality is more diverse, and recurring patterns drive most of the loss cost. Working from publicly-available FCA, FOS and FSCS material rather than any firm-specific data, the recurring categories include:
Unsuitable advice on pension transfers. Far and away the largest single category of claim by value over the last decade — chiefly defined benefit (DB) to defined contribution transfers, which we deal with in detail in our DB transfers and PI exposure article. The British Steel Pension Scheme cohort, advised in 2017, has been a particularly significant driver, and the FCA's consumer redress scheme for BSPS, which began in 2023, has crystallised claims that PI policies in force at the time are working through.
Unsuitable investment advice — concentration and risk profile. A client described as cautious or balanced ends up with a portfolio whose volatility, illiquidity or concentration is not consistent with that description. The fact-finds, attitude-to-risk questionnaires and suitability letters become the evidence. Claims often arise after a market event exposes the mismatch — 2008-09 produced a wave of these, as did the 2022 fixed-income drawdown.
Unregulated and high-risk investments held within SIPPs. Storage pods, overseas property, unregulated collective investment schemes, peer-to-peer lending, mini-bonds. The advisory firm did not select the underlying investment but is alleged to have failed to give a clear suitability assessment, failed to warn about illiquidity or counterparty risk, or failed to identify that the investment was not appropriate for retail clients. The FCA's policy positions on non-mainstream pooled investments (PS13/3 and successors) and on speculative illiquid securities (PS19/29) have tightened the regulatory framing, but pre-tightening files continue to generate claims.
Inheritance tax and estate planning. Advice on Business Relief portfolios, AIM IHT portfolios, insurance-based gift schemes and discounted gift trusts. Claims arise where the relief is denied by HMRC, the structure does not work as represented, or the client's circumstances change in a way that the planning did not allow for. These claims often emerge a long way after the advice, when the estate is administered, which is why retroactive cover matters.
Pension drawdown and decumulation advice. As Pension Freedoms (in force since April 2015) move further through the population, the volume of decumulation advice has grown and so has the number of complaints about it. Common patterns include sustainable withdrawal rates that did not prove sustainable, sequencing risk that was not adequately explained, and product choices (annuity versus drawdown, fixed-term versus lifetime annuity) where the trade-off was not made clear.
Sustainable, ESG and climate-themed investing claims. A newer category, expected to grow under the FCA's Sustainability Disclosure Requirements (SDR) and the investment labelling regime that began phased implementation in 2024. Complaints in this category allege that the recommended fund was not sustainable in the way the client was led to expect, that the labelling was inconsistent with the marketing, or that the firm failed to assess sustainability preferences as part of the suitability process. The volume is still modest but the framework for these claims is now in place.
Defined contribution to defined contribution switching. Lower-risk than DB transfer advice but still a recurring claim source — switching out of a workplace scheme into a personal arrangement, with or without sufficient analysis of the costs and benefits given up. The FCA's continuing focus on transfer value and the Consumer Duty have raised the bar on the evidence the firm needs to keep.
Administrative and implementation failures. Instructions not actioned, the wrong tax wrapper used, a switch executed on the wrong date with consequent loss, contributions not invested promptly, drawdown payments late. Individually low-value, but they multiply where the failing is systemic.
How cover limits work for IFAs
Most IFA PI policies are written on a claims-made basis with a limit of indemnity stated per claim and a separate aggregate cap across the policy year. The two numbers are not the same and the difference matters.
A policy of £1.7 million any one claim with an aggregate of £1.7 million covers very differently from £1.7 million any one claim with a £5 million aggregate, which in turn covers differently from £1.7 million each and every claim with unlimited reinstatement. For a firm with a meaningful book of DB transfer advice, or with concentrated exposure to a single failed investment that may produce a wave of related claims, the aggregate is often the constraint that bites first.
Defence costs treatment is the next variable. Policies may treat defence costs as additional to the limit ("costs in addition"), inside the limit ("costs inclusive"), or in a hybrid arrangement. For IFAs the position matters because defence costs on a contested Ombudsman case, particularly one that escalates to court, can be substantial — six figures is not unusual on a complex pension transfer matter. A "costs inclusive" wording can see a large fraction of the limit consumed by defence before any settlement is paid.
The third variable is aggregation. Where a single root cause has produced a number of related claims — for example, an unsuitable model portfolio recommended to several dozen clients, or a single product failure affecting many of the firm's clients — the policy wording determines whether those claims aggregate as one claim against the per-claim limit, or as separate claims each against the per-claim limit but counting once each against the aggregate. The Handbook requirement is for a minimum per-claim limit and a minimum aggregate; the wording that delivers that can be more or less favourable to the insured. Reading the aggregation clause at renewal is one of the things a competent broker does.
For sizing — a small advisory firm with under £500,000 of revenue, no DB transfer permissions, no complex tax-mitigation work, and a clean claims history may sit at the IPRU-INV minimum of approximately £1.1 million per claim and £1.7 million aggregate. A firm with DB transfer permissions, complex pension work, or a substantial book of wealth-management clients with concentrated portfolios typically buys at multiples of the minimum. A firm with a book of historic DB transfer advice running off, or with notifications open against it, may find that the only available cover is at the minimum and at materially elevated premium. The right limit is the one that comfortably exceeds the firm's worst-case exposure on its largest individual client engagement, with headroom for defence costs and for the risk that several related claims aggregate against a single limit.
Run-off and retroactive cover
Two features of claims-made PI policies matter particularly for IFAs because the time gap between advice and complaint is so long.
Retroactive cover. A claims-made policy responds to claims notified during the policy period regardless of when the underlying advice was given, provided the advice was given on or after the policy's retroactive date. For an IFA that has been authorised for, say, fifteen years, the retroactive date should be the original authorisation date or earlier — if it is not, the policy excludes claims arising from advice given before the retroactive date, and those claims are likely to be exactly the ones the firm gets sued on. Allowing the retroactive date to creep forward at renewal — sometimes inadvertently, when an insurer changes — is a common source of avoidable uninsured exposure.
Run-off cover. If an IFA stops trading, retires, sells the firm, or has its FCA permissions cancelled, its liability for advice already given does not vanish. A claims-made policy only responds to claims notified during its currency. Once the firm stops paying premiums, the last policy is the last policy that will respond — unless run-off is purchased. The FCA expects firms ceasing personal investment business to maintain appropriate run-off cover for an extended period, in practice typically at least six years and often longer where the firm has given pension transfer advice. The standard sensible benchmark is six years to match the ordinary contractual limitation period under English law, with longer periods where the work has produced potential long-tail exposures.
Selling a firm rather than winding it down does not automatically extinguish the run-off obligation. The sale documentation has to deal with the position explicitly — either the acquirer assumes liability for historic advice and provides equivalent cover going forward, or the seller buys run-off as part of the transaction, or some combination. We see the same issue in other professions and have written about it in the context of architects and accountants; the principles are similar but the FCA dimension makes the IFA position more sensitive.
Run-off is normally priced as a single up-front premium calculated as a multiple of the last working-policy premium, often in the range of one to two and a half times the annual premium spread across the run-off term. Firms with DB transfer exposure may face higher pricing and a more constrained market for run-off; firms with notifications open may struggle to buy run-off on commercial terms at all, which is one reason to keep the file clean throughout the firm's life rather than try to fix it at exit.
Excess, aggregation and the firm's own risk
Most IFA PI policies carry an excess — a deductible the firm pays first on every claim, before the insurer's cover responds. Excess levels vary widely. The Handbook caps the excess at certain levels relative to the firm's relevant income, so very high excesses are not permitted; but within that envelope, the firm can choose. A higher excess buys a lower premium but exposes the firm's own balance sheet to more of every claim. A lower excess costs more in premium but means a single complaint settled at modest value does not produce a five- or six-figure cash call.
Aggregation rules apply to the excess as well as the limit. Where multiple related claims aggregate against a single per-claim limit, they typically aggregate against a single excess too — which is helpful. Where they do not aggregate, each claim attracts a separate excess, which can be punishing. Wording matters.
A subset of the IFA market — typically the larger firms — buy excess-layer cover above the primary policy. A primary layer of, say, £2 million sits underneath an excess layer of an additional £3 million from a separate insurer, providing a total programme limit of £5 million. Layered structures are routine in the audit-firm and large-solicitor space and are used by IFA networks and larger advisory firms where the catastrophic-claim exposure on the book warrants it.
How an IFA chooses cover
The renewal submission is what shapes the quote. Underwriters look at five things, in roughly this order:
The firm's permissions, services and product mix — what regulated activities the firm is permitted to conduct, how its income breaks down between investment advice, pension advice (broken further between defined contribution and defined benefit), protection, mortgages and equity release. Underwriters apply different loadings to each and a firm whose mix moves materially year on year should be ready to explain it.
The firm's client demographics and average client engagement size — retail mass-market, mass-affluent, high-net-worth, ultra-high-net-worth; the size of typical portfolios under advice; the prevalence of complex planning, trusts and offshore arrangements.
The claims and notifications history, typically over five years. Closed claims and circumstances that did not crystallise are very different from open notifications and settled claims, and the renewal submission should present each clearly. Late notifications are particularly damaging to the underwriter's perception of the firm.
The firm's compliance infrastructure — file review programmes, the role of the compliance officer or external compliance consultancy, training records, the FCA Senior Managers and Certification Regime mapping, MI on suitability outcomes. A firm that can show it tests its own files looks less risky than one that cannot.
The firm's exposure to specific claim drivers — DB transfer advice given (volume, dates, outcomes, FCA Defined Benefit Advice Assessment Tool review status), exposure to failed providers and failed investments, exposure to the British Steel cohort, exposure to non-mainstream pooled investments held within SIPPs. Underwriters cross-reference these against the FCA's published findings and the FSCS's published default lists.
The work the firm does in the weeks before submitting the renewal proposal form is, in our experience, the highest-leverage hour the principal spends each year. A renewal submission that anticipates the underwriter's questions and answers them in advance receives more confident quotes than one that requires the underwriter to extract the information piece by piece.
How Apex helps
Apex Insurance Brokers Limited is an independent FCA-authorised insurance broker (firm reference number 724952). We are not tied to any one insurer, we are not a network, and we do not write our own policies or take any underwriting decision. We act for you, the firm, under FCA Conduct of Business rules, which means we represent your interests in negotiations with the insurance market.
In practice that means we take your renewal information, present it to insurers we think will price your particular profile sensibly, negotiate terms, explain the differences in wording between the quotes that come back, document the decision so that it stands up to your own internal compliance review, and remain available throughout the year to take notifications and circumstance-disclosures from you and pass them on to the insurer correctly. We do not promise a particular price or a particular insurer — those are underwriting decisions that depend on your individual profile — and we do not have arrangements with any insurer that would skew our recommendation.
What we do undertake, because it is regulatory, is to act fairly, with integrity, and with reasonable skill and care, and to tell you the basis on which we are remunerated. That information sits on our Terms of Business page, our handling of your data is described on our Privacy page, and the route to raising any concerns about our service is on our Complaints page.
What to do next
If you are within ninety days of your PI renewal, this is the moment to look at the policy you currently hold and decide whether the limit, the wording, the retroactive date, the excess level and the broker relationship are doing what your firm needs them to. If you are mid-policy, this is the moment to confirm that everything notifiable has been notified — the rules on disclosure during the policy year are strict, and getting that wrong is the single most common reason a claim fails to be covered.
To talk through your firm's PI position with an Apex broker, see the IFAs sector page or contact us. The first conversation costs nothing and does not commit your firm to anything.
Frequently asked questions
What is the minimum PI cover for an FCA-authorised IFA?
The FCA Handbook requires personal investment firms to hold PI cover meeting IPRU-INV 13. The minimum cover is set in euros under the Insurance Distribution Directive framework and indexed periodically — currently in the region of €1.3 million for any one claim and €1.9 million in the aggregate, equating to approximately £1.1 million per claim and £1.7 million aggregate at recent exchange rates. The Handbook permits an excess capped by reference to the firm's annual income. Firms should check the precise figures in IPRU-INV 13.1.10R at each renewal because both the euro amounts and the sterling equivalents move.
Does my PI policy cover FOS awards as well as court awards?
A properly-structured IFA PI policy should respond to determinations by the Financial Ombudsman Service in the same way it responds to a court judgment, up to the policy limit. The FOS compulsory jurisdiction binding money award limit is indexed annually on 1 April and sits in the mid-£400,000s for the 2026/27 financial year for complaints about acts or omissions on or after 1 April 2019. Most IFA policy limits comfortably exceed the FOS cap on any one complaint, but firms facing multiple related complaints from a single root cause need to read the aggregation clause carefully. We cover the FOS-PI interaction in detail in our companion article.
Do I need PI cover during run-off after I stop advising?
Yes. The FCA expects personal investment firms ceasing regulated business to maintain appropriate run-off cover for an extended period — in practice typically at least six years to match the ordinary contractual limitation period under English law, and often longer where the firm has given pension transfer advice. Run-off is priced as a single up-front premium calculated as a multiple of the last annual premium, typically spread across the run-off term. Firms with notifications open at the time of cessation may find run-off harder to place, which is one reason to keep the claims file clean throughout the firm's life.
Does PI cover unregulated investments held within SIPPs?
It depends on the policy wording and on whether the firm gave a personal recommendation in relation to the unregulated investment. Where the firm advised on the SIPP wrapper and the client then placed the unregulated investment without advice, the position can be contested; where the firm advised on the underlying unregulated investment, the policy typically responds subject to any specific exclusion. The PI market hardened materially against SIPP-with-unregulated-asset claims after a wave of cases in the late 2010s, and some insurers now exclude certain non-mainstream pooled investments by name. Reading the schedule and the exclusions list is important.
What is the FCA's position on contingent charging for DB transfer advice?
Contingent charging — where the adviser is paid only if the transfer goes ahead — was banned by the FCA in Policy Statement PS20/6, with effect from 1 October 2020, for advice on the transfer or conversion of safeguarded benefits including most defined benefit transfers. Limited carve-outs apply for certain client circumstances (terminal illness, serious financial hardship) within COBS 19. PI underwriters use the firm's historic charging model as one indicator of the firm's DB transfer file risk. See our DB transfer PI article for more.
Will my PI premium rise if I have an open notification?
Possibly, but it depends on the circumstance, the eventual outcome, and the underwriter's view. A circumstance that closes out without crystallising into a claim usually has limited long-term effect on premium; a settled claim, particularly above the policy excess, typically does affect renewal pricing and may make some insurers reluctant to quote. Multiple notifications, particularly on related fact-patterns, materially harden the market position. A broker's role at renewal includes presenting the circumstance fairly to the market so it is not perceived more harshly than it deserves.
Can I change PI brokers part-way through a policy year?
Yes, although most broker changes happen at renewal because the relationship and the disclosures are organised around the annual cycle. Mid-year, the existing policy stays in force with the existing insurer until renewal; the new broker takes over the relationship and the next renewal submission. There is no FCA requirement to stay with one broker.
How does the FSCS interact with my firm's PI cover?
The Financial Services Compensation Scheme is the safety net behind the IFA. Where an eligible claim cannot be paid by the firm (because the firm has gone out of business) and cannot be paid by the firm's PI insurer (because the insurer has gone out of business or because cover does not respond), the FSCS pays the claimant up to the relevant per-person compensation limit — currently £85,000 per person per firm for investment and pension claims. The FSCS is funded by levies on the surviving authorised firms in each funding class, which is one reason IFA PI premiums are sensitive to the wider sector's claims experience as well as to the individual firm's.
Related guides
- IFA PI cover and FOS complaints — how Ombudsman decisions become PI claims
- Defined benefit transfer advice and PI exposure
- IFAs sector page — speak to a broker
About Apex Insurance Brokers — Apex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, FCA firm reference 724952. Registered in England and Wales, Companies House 07014570. Last reviewed: May 2026.
This guide is general information about Professional Indemnity Insurance for FCA-authorised personal investment firms and is not advice tailored to any individual firm's circumstances. For advice on your own renewal please speak to a broker — see our contact page.
FAQPage JSON-LD (hand-rolled — add via Yoast Custom Field or theme injection)
{
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "FAQPage",
"mainEntity": [
{
"@type": "Question",
"name": "What is the minimum PI cover for an FCA-authorised IFA?",
"acceptedAnswer": {
"@type": "Answer",
"text": "The FCA Handbook requires personal investment firms to hold PI cover meeting IPRU-INV 13. The minimum cover is set in euros under the Insurance Distribution Directive framework and indexed periodically — currently in the region of €1.3 million for any one claim and €1.9 million in the aggregate, equating to approximately £1.1 million per claim and £1.7 million aggregate at recent exchange rates. The Handbook permits an excess capped by reference to the firm's annual income. Firms should check the precise figures in IPRU-INV 13.1.10R at each renewal."
}
},
{
"@type": "Question",
"name": "Does my PI policy cover FOS awards as well as court awards?",
"acceptedAnswer": {
"@type": "Answer",
"text": "A properly-structured IFA PI policy should respond to Financial Ombudsman Service determinations in the same way it responds to a court judgment, up to the policy limit. The FOS compulsory jurisdiction binding money award limit is indexed annually on 1 April and sits in the mid-£400,000s for the 2026/27 financial year for complaints about acts or omissions on or after 1 April 2019. Firms facing multiple related complaints from a single root cause need to read the policy aggregation clause carefully."
}
},
{
"@type": "Question",
"name": "Do I need PI cover during run-off after I stop advising?",
"acceptedAnswer": {
"@type": "Answer",
"text": "Yes. The FCA expects personal investment firms ceasing regulated business to maintain appropriate run-off cover for an extended period — in practice typically at least six years to match the ordinary contractual limitation period under English law, and often longer where the firm has given pension transfer advice. Run-off is priced as a single up-front premium calculated as a multiple of the last annual premium."
}
},
{
"@type": "Question",
"name": "Does PI cover unregulated investments held within SIPPs?",
"acceptedAnswer": {
"@type": "Answer",
"text": "It depends on the policy wording and on whether the firm gave a personal recommendation in relation to the unregulated investment. The PI market hardened materially against SIPP-with-unregulated-asset claims after a wave of cases in the late 2010s, and some insurers now exclude certain non-mainstream pooled investments by name. Reading the schedule and the exclusions list is important."
}
},
{
"@type": "Question",
"name": "What is the FCA's position on contingent charging for DB transfer advice?",
"acceptedAnswer": {
"@type": "Answer",
"text": "Contingent charging — where the adviser is paid only if the transfer goes ahead — was banned by the FCA in Policy Statement PS20/6 with effect from 1 October 2020, for advice on the transfer or conversion of safeguarded benefits including most defined benefit transfers. Limited carve-outs apply for certain client circumstances (terminal illness, serious financial hardship) within COBS 19."
}
},
{
"@type": "Question",
"name": "Will my PI premium rise if I have an open notification?",
"acceptedAnswer": {
"@type": "Answer",
"text": "Possibly, but it depends on the circumstance, the eventual outcome, and the underwriter's view. A circumstance that closes out without crystallising into a claim usually has limited long-term effect on premium; a settled claim typically does affect renewal pricing. Multiple notifications on related fact-patterns materially harden the market position."
}
},
{
"@type": "Question",
"name": "Can I change PI brokers part-way through a policy year?",
"acceptedAnswer": {
"@type": "Answer",
"text": "Yes, although most broker changes happen at renewal because the relationship and the disclosures are organised around the annual cycle. Mid-year, the existing policy stays in force with the existing insurer until renewal; the new broker takes over the relationship and the next renewal submission. There is no FCA requirement to stay with one broker."
}
},
{
"@type": "Question",
"name": "How does the FSCS interact with my firm's PI cover?",
"acceptedAnswer": {
"@type": "Answer",
"text": "The Financial Services Compensation Scheme is the safety net behind the IFA. Where an eligible claim cannot be paid by the firm or its PI insurer, the FSCS pays the claimant up to the relevant per-person compensation limit — currently £85,000 per person per firm for investment and pension claims. The FSCS is funded by levies on the surviving authorised firms in each funding class."
}
}
]
}