A true story (with identifiers removed) illustrating why conduct supervision and mentorship matter — both inside and outside the FCA perimeter.
1. The Background: From Adviser to Empowered Planner
After years working in a traditional financial-advice firm, one planner decided to take a bold step: to leave the world of product intermediation and build a new kind of practice — one based on financial life planning rather than financial product sales.
His new business focused on holistic, education-led planning, helping clients clarify their goals, understand their assets, and make empowered decisions.
No product sales. No commissions. Just strategy, reflection, and support — the kind of work that sits outside the FCA’s regulatory perimeter but still firmly within UK law.
Among his early clients were professionals from the health sector, whose wealth was tied up in NHS pensions, property, and business assets — all areas generally outside FCA regulation. His approach was sound, lawful, and values-driven.
But it soon drew unwanted attention.
2. The Incident: A Message from the Former Employer
Shortly after his new clients engaged him, a message arrived from a regulated financial-advice firm he had previously worked with.
The message, written to those same clients, questioned his competence and legality.
Its tone was authoritative, its intent clear: to sow doubt and reclaim the clients.
The firm’s director made a series of claims — many of them false or misleading.
Among them:
- That the NHS Pension Scheme was an FCA-regulated retail investment, and that any advice about it required FCA authorisation.
- That SIPPs and SSASs were “firmly within the regulated perimeter,” implying the planner had no right even to discuss them.
- That only FCA-registered individuals could call themselves “financial planners” or “pension advisers.”
- That the planner “could not offer advice,” “could not consider personal circumstances,” and operated “entirely outside the framework of consumer protection.”
- And, most damagingly, that his firm was “unregulated” and “not subject to professional standards.”
These statements were inaccurate in law and unfair in ethics.
They blurred the distinction between regulated financial advice (recommendations on specific financial products) and generic or educational guidance (support with goals, strategy, and life planning).
They also suggested — wrongly — that professional ethics and consumer protection exist only inside FCA authorisation.
In short: the letter misrepresented the regulatory perimeter, maligned a competitor, and risked misleading consumers — all potential breaches of UK consumer-protection law.
3. The Legal and Ethical Analysis
The Academy conducted a line-by-line review, comparing the letter’s assertions with the Financial Services and Markets Act (FSMA), FCA Perimeter Guidance (PERG), Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs), and Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCC).
Here’s what the evidence showed:
| Claim Made by the Firm | Factual Position | Relevant Rule / Regulation |
|---|---|---|
| NHS Pension = FCA-regulated investment | False – public sector DB schemes are not retail investments. | FCA PERG 12.6; FSMA Schedule 2 |
| All SIPPs/SSAS are “regulated” | Misleading – SSASs generally are not; SIPPs are personal pensions, regulated as wrappers not advice per se. | RAO Art. 82; FCA Perimeter Report |
| Only FCA advisers can use the term “Financial Planner” | False – titles are not protected outside regulated marketing. | COBS 6.2B; DMCC Part 3 |
| Unregulated firms = “no consumer protection” | False – consumers retain full contractual and statutory rights under UK law. | CPR 2008 Regs 5–7; CRA 2015 |
| We’re “Fully authorised” status | Misleading – there is no FCA category called “fully authorised.” | COBS 4.2 (fair, clear, not misleading) |
| Suggesting competitor’s illegality | Potential denigration and misleading comparative advertising. | CAP Code 3.1–3.43; ASA/DMCC |
In short, the firm’s communication could be considered a misleading commercial practice and denigratory advertising.
It violated multiple principles of fair dealing — the same standards FCA-regulated firms are supposed to uphold under Principle 6 (Customers’ Interests) and Principle 7 (Clear, Fair and Not Misleading Communications).
4. The Academy’s Response
The planner turned to the Academy of Life Planning for help.
AoLP immediately stepped in with two coordinated actions:
- Mentorship and Conduct Consultancy Support
The planner’s Academy mentor reviewed the case, clarified the regulatory facts, and provided emotional and professional support.
A written client clarification letter was prepared — calm, factual, and reassuring — correcting each false statement while maintaining professionalism. - Legal and Ethical Escalation via Goliathon
Through AoLP’s Goliathon Legal Support Service, formal complaints were prepared for submission to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and Competition and Markets Authority (CMA).
These documents alleged breaches of the CAP Code, CPRs, and DMCC Act, and demanded a retraction and correction from the regulated firm.
This was done not to attack, but to defend truth — and to ensure that clients could make informed choices free from fear or manipulation.
5. The Outcome: Setting a New Standard
The episode highlighted a serious gap in the industry:
Outside the FCA perimeter, there is no structured system of professional conduct supervision for life planners — even though they handle complex personal, financial, and ethical issues.
The Academy realised that if it wanted to protect both planners and clients, it needed to formalise what it already did informally — to create a structure as robust as FCA supervision, but rooted in education, reflection, and ethics rather than regulation and fear.
Thus, from this case was born the AoLP Conduct Supervision Framework.
6. The AoLP Conduct Supervision Framework
The new framework provides every Academy member with access to:
- Qualified Mentorship — Monthly supervision by a senior planner or conduct consultant.
- Ethical Oversight — Continuous alignment with AoLP’s Code of Conduct.
- Annual Conduct Declarations — Assurance of ongoing competence, CPD, and integrity.
- Advisory Board Review — Quarterly oversight of anonymised supervision outcomes.
- Access to Compliance Partners — Optional consultancy support from qualified professionals.
- Legal Defence (Goliathon) — Guidance and escalation support where members face misrepresentation, regulatory attack, or consumer confusion.
It allows AoLP to proudly state that its members operate under conduct supervision equivalent to FCA standards, providing clients with confidence and transparency — even in the unregulated advice space.
7. Lessons Learned
- Regulation ≠ Protection
FCA authorisation alone does not guarantee honesty or competence.
Ethical frameworks, education, and community accountability often provide stronger safeguards. - Empowerment Requires Oversight
True independence does not mean isolation.
Every planner — however experienced — benefits from reflection, mentorship, and peer review. - Integrity is a Professional Asset
Upholding truth, even when challenged, builds long-term credibility.
The Academy’s calm, evidence-based approach strengthened both the planner’s position and the profession’s reputation. - Systemic Change Needs Structure
The Academy’s decision to formalise conduct supervision moves holistic planning from “movement” to “profession.”
It bridges the gap between ethical freedom and regulatory credibility.
8. Conclusion: Mentorship, Integrity, and the Future of Financial Planning
This case was a turning point.
It proved that even within a system that sometimes rewards fear over fairness, professionalism and conscience can prevail.
Through the Academy’s mentoring and legal support, the planner regained confidence, the clients stayed protected, and the misleading statements were neutralised.
More importantly, the Academy transformed a defensive moment into a proactive framework for excellence.
The AoLP Conduct Supervision Framework now ensures that every planner, mentor, and consultant in the Academy operates with the same level of professional governance expected of FCA-regulated firms — but without the conflicts of intermediation or product sales.
It embodies the Academy’s founding ethos:
“We don’t regulate through fear — we uphold integrity through fellowship.”
Footnote
This case study is based on a real incident within the Academy community.
All names, business details, and identifying information have been removed to preserve confidentiality.
The facts have been verified against relevant FCA, ASA, and CMA guidance as of 2025.
Join the Movement
If you’ve worked with me or the Academy, your voice matters. Please share your experience — your story inspires others to find theirs.
Leave a Google Review
If you’re new here, let’s explore how we can help you build your own freedom-based future.
Book a Free Call
Contact: steve.conley@aolp.co.uk
Website: www.aolp.info
Follow: Steve Conley on LinkedIn
Academy of Life Planning 