FT Logo

Copy article

FT Editor Banner

Advice liability and PII implication of govt's 10-year limit on Fos cases

Journalist: Ima Jackson-Obot, FTAdviser

ended 25. March 2026

Hello advisers,

I’m working on a feature for FT Adviser looking at the Treasury’s plans to reform the Financial Ombudsman Service, particularly what they could mean in practice for adviser liability and professional indemnity insurance.

I would be grateful for your thoughts on:

  • Do these plans make you feel more confident about your future exposure to complaints — or not yet?
  • What would need to change in practice for you to feel that your risk has genuinely reduced?
  • Do you expect any impact on PI costs, or is that still too uncertain?
  • Are you concerned that Consumer Duty still leaves too much open to interpretation?
  • How are you approaching these plans — planning ahead or waiting to see how they land?
  • What would meaningful reform look like from your perspective?
  • I would be grateful for your thoughts on:

Thanks

Ima

1 responses from the Newspage community

Copy all

Copy

My reaction is cautious rather than celebratory. A clearer time limit and a closer link between the Ombudsman and the FCA should, in theory, create more certainty for advisers, but theory and real life are not always the same thing. Until firms actually see more consistency in decisions, lower PI pressure and less hindsight-driven complaint risk, I do not think many advisers will feel materially safer yet. The real test is whether this reduces ambiguity in practice, not just on paper. Consumer Duty still leaves plenty open to interpretation, and that is exactly where advisers remain exposed. Meaningful reform, from my perspective, would mean clearer boundaries, more predictable outcomes, and a system where firms that have acted reasonably, documented properly and followed the rules do not still feel like they are one complaint away from years of stress. That is when confidence genuinely starts to return.