Someone a few years from retirement asks a simple question: which financial adviser near me could advise me on my pension, are they regulated, and what will the advice cost? An answer engine, or a careful reader, needs the page to name the firm and the adviser, show a registration anyone can check, say whether the advice is independent or restricted, and explain the fee. We reviewed pages from eight Leeds and Manchester firms that appeared in search results for pension financial advice in each city and whose websites say they are regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), without saying they are an appointed representative of another firm.
The regulatory basics were stated. The names and links that let a reader check them mostly were not. Seven of the eight showed their own FCA firm reference number and all eight described their advice as independent. None linked to its own entry on the FCA register. Three named an adviser, and four gave a figure for an advice fee.
What we found on these eight firms’ pages
Five of the eight pages the search returned linked to a fees page. Three of the firms said how initial advice is charged, four said how ongoing advice is charged (three explained both), and four gave a figure for an advice fee. Five said what a first meeting involves and six said the first meeting is free or gave its cost. Five told a reader how to complain or named the Financial Ombudsman Service. None named the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) in the page text, and none carried a visible date. Six showed reviews, a rating, a review count or a link to a review platform. Information not found on the pages we reviewed may appear elsewhere on the firm’s website or be given at a first meeting.
Download the eight-firm observation sheet (CSV) · See the eight-firm table
Why the number, the name and the link matter
The FCA’s Financial Services Register is its public record of firms, individuals and other bodies that are, or have been, authorised. The FCA tells consumers that its Firm Checker and the register show whether a firm is authorised and what it is allowed to offer, alongside contact details the firm confirms, including its contact details for complaints. An individual can be checked on the register too, although not every individual at a firm needs approval, so some will not appear. The FCA’s page on the register says people should check the details of any individual carrying out regulated activities on their behalf.
On the pages we reviewed, seven firms showed their own firm reference number; the other showed only a related group company’s number. None linked to its own register entry. One linked to the register’s home page, and one other printed the register’s home address as plain text, not as a link. When we opened the same pages in a browser and let their scripts run, there was still no link to a firm’s own entry. A number lets a reader search the register; a link to the entry saves them the search and ties the page to the record.
Three of the eight named an adviser, and all three gave the advisers’ roles, with a qualification or professional designation beside at least one name. On the other five firms’ pages, any people named appeared only in client reviews or case studies, or as a contact for complaints. Adviser profiles may be on other pages of these websites, so this is a page observation, not a finding about any firm.
Independent or restricted, and what the advice costs
The FCA’s conduct rules require a firm to tell a client, in good time before giving investment advice, whether its advice will be independent or restricted, using those terms. They also require a firm to disclose its charging structure in writing, in good time before a personal recommendation, and the FCA’s guidance asks for that disclosure to use clear and plain language and, as far as practicable, cash terms, with examples in cash terms where the charging structure is not. These rules are about what a firm tells a client before advising, not about web pages, and nothing here says whether any firm meets them.
All eight pages described the firm’s advice or advisers as independent. Five linked to a fees page; one of those covered investment management charges rather than advice fees. Four firms gave a figure for an advice fee, and three explained how both initial and ongoing advice are charged.
Complaints and compensation
The FCA’s complaints rules require firms to publish information about their procedures for handling complaints and to give information about the Financial Ombudsman Service, including its website address, on their website. That rule concerns a firm’s website as a whole; we reviewed one or two pages per firm. The ombudsman explains that a complaint goes to the business first, which for most complaints has up to 8 weeks to consider it, and that its own service is free. Five of the eight pages told a reader how to complain or named the ombudsman: three named the ombudsman, and two gave only a footer link to a complaints procedure. As with every count here, the information may appear elsewhere on a firm’s website, and nothing here says whether any firm meets the rule.
The FSCS says people may be able to claim compensation if their pension provider or adviser has gone out of business, and that compensation for bad pension advice from a failed firm is paid up to a limit per eligible person, per firm. The FCA says that someone who deals with a firm that is not authorised, or lacks permission for what they need, will not have access to the ombudsman and will not be protected by the FSCS if the firm goes out of business. All eight firms say on their websites that they are regulated by the FCA; we did not check the register. None of the eight pages named the FSCS in their text; one named it only in structured data, the code written for search engines and other software, which we did not code.
Three useful patterns to take from the review
1. Name the adviser, with the qualification, the role and a way to check
One firm’s location page lists named advisers, each with a job title, a qualification or professional designation, a short account of their experience, and a rating and review count from a review platform with a link to their profile there. Another firm’s fees page lists its advisers by name with a role and their areas of work.
Neither page linked to the firm’s or an adviser’s own entry on the FCA register. Adding the firm reference number as a link to the firm’s own register entry, and a link to the adviser’s register entry where they appear, would let a reader, or an AI system, connect the name on the page with the public record.
We did not open any register entry or check any registration or qualification; we recorded what the pages contain.
2. Show the fee in pounds, with worked examples
Two firms’ fees pages set out how initial advice and the ongoing service are charged, give the percentages or bands used, and turn them into pound amounts for example portfolio sizes. A third prices its initial advice service by service and walks through worked examples for different client situations, showing the first meeting at no charge and the total initial fee.
A percentage alone leaves the reader to do the sum. A worked example shows the likely cost in pounds, and a sentence on what each fee covers answers the next question.
Observed page structure, not an endorsement of any firm or a check of its fees or its compliance.
3. Keep one figure, and date the page
None of the eight pages carried a visible date for their own content; dated news listings beside the page content did not count.
Two firms gave different figures for the same item on the same page. One gave two different percentages for managing a pension, in different sections. The other gave two different minimum fees for the same review service. The differences may have explanations, such as different service levels, but the pages do not say which figure applies when. A reader, or an AI system, that meets two figures cannot tell which applies. One reviewed figure per item, a review date and the name of the person who checked the page avoid the question.
A practical review of your own pension advice page
Open your pension or retirement advice page and your fees page and work through these questions. Use the worksheet to record the evidence, the person responsible and the next change. The tick boxes below are a temporary reading aid; they do not create a score or save your work.
- Name the adviser on the page, with their role and their qualification.
- Show the firm reference number and link it to your own entry on the FCA register; link to the adviser’s entry where they appear.
- Say which, in those words, and what it means for the reader.
- Explain the initial and ongoing charges, what each covers, and give a worked example in pounds.
- Say what is discussed, how long it takes, whether it is free and whether advice is given at that meeting.
- Say how to complain and name the Financial Ombudsman Service; show a review date and who reviewed the page.
Download the 10-question worksheet (CSV)
A content-review aid, not a regulatory checklist, a view on financial promotions or professional advice. Check the FCA’s rules and your own obligations, and have your compliance function approve the page before publication.
How this relates to AI visibility
An AI assistant answering “who could advise me on my pension near me” can only repeat what it can find and connect. A named adviser, a firm reference number linked to the register entry and a fee explained in pounds give it specific facts it can check against other sources; a logo and a general claim give it less. These checks identify information a reader can verify; they do not show whether a page is cited in AI answers. Our page on AI visibility for financial advisers explains how we test the answers, and our measurement guide explains how to keep that evidence separate from a page review.
The firms we reviewed
We do not name the firms. Several observations concern information that is absent from the pages we reviewed, and a page review is not a fair basis for public judgements about individual businesses. Firms are labelled A to D (Leeds) and E to H (Manchester); letters were assigned at random within each city and do not follow search order. The page addresses, capture times and SHA-256 hashes are held on file. A firm in the sample can ask us for its own coding.
“Not found in reviewed pages” means we did not find that information in the page code returned for the one or two pages reviewed for that firm; it may appear elsewhere on its website, appear once scripts run in a browser, or be provided at a first meeting. A recorded feature does not establish accuracy or completeness.
| Firm | Its own FCA firm reference number | Link to its own register entry | Named adviser | Advice fee figure |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Firm A Leeds | Found | Not found in reviewed pages | Not found in reviewed pages | Not found in reviewed pages |
| Firm B Leeds | Found | Not found in reviewed pages | Not found in reviewed pages | Found |
| Firm C Leeds | Found | Not found in reviewed pages | Not found in reviewed pages | Found |
| Firm D Leeds | Not found in reviewed pages | Not found in reviewed pages | Found | Not found in reviewed pages |
| Firm E Manchester | Found | Not found in reviewed pages | Not found in reviewed pages | Not found in reviewed pages |
| Firm F Manchester | Found | Not found in reviewed pages | Found | Found |
| Firm G Manchester | Found | Not found in reviewed pages | Not found in reviewed pages | Not found in reviewed pages |
| Firm H Manchester | Found | Not found in reviewed pages | Found | Found |
Download all fifteen recorded features for each firm (CSV)
Method, boundaries and corrections
On 27 September 2026 we wrote down a selection rule and recorded it in a dated version-control commit before running any search. We then ran one web search per city, “pension financial adviser Leeds UK” and “pension financial adviser Manchester UK”, with the web search tool of the AI assistant used for this research, not directly on a named search engine. “UK” was part of the query from the start because the same tool had returned places called Leeds and Manchester in the United States in an earlier review. The query did not mention fees, cost, free meetings, independence or qualifications, so that it would not favour pages that publish them.
In result order, we took the first four distinct firms in each city that offer pension or retirement advice to private clients, have an office in the city or present themselves as serving it, and state on their own website that they are authorised and regulated by the FCA without saying they are an appointed representative of another firm. We read each firm’s own statement; we did not check the FCA register. We excluded directories, comparison, review and lead-generation sites, networks’ and wealth-management groups’ adviser-finder pages, national firms’ city pages that name no office or adviser in the city, public-sector and guidance services, and articles not published by an advice firm. Along the way we passed over one national firm’s Leeds and Manchester pages, whose text was identical apart from the city name and which named no office or adviser in either city, a page that returned HTTP 403 on two attempts, and a firm whose page and linked complaints procedures did not state its own authorisation. A page that returned HTTP 403 on its first attempt and loaded on the second was kept, as the rule allows, so blocking of automated requests affected which firms were reviewed. Manchester’s first query gave three eligible firms, so we ran the written fallback query, “financial adviser Manchester UK”, for the fourth. Three of the four Manchester firms are based in other cities and present themselves as serving Manchester. Two points were judgements, which we recorded: whether one firm’s statement of its regulation met the rule, and whether a multi-office firm whose Manchester page names advisers based elsewhere who cover the city fell under the exclusion for national firms’ city pages. We kept both firms. The sample is purposive, not random, and search order favours firms that are already easy to find.
For each firm we reviewed the page the search returned and, where that page linked to one, its fees page; five of the eight linked one. We captured the returned HTML with UTC timestamps and SHA-256 hashes and extracted the text and link list. We did not run JavaScript for the coding, so content that loads only in the browser, and anything shown only inside images, was not coded; image descriptions (alt text) and fallback content for browsers without scripts were read. We coded text present in the page code, links and image descriptions, not structured data or dates held only in page code. As a separate check on the same day, we opened every reviewed page in a browser, let its scripts run and recorded links to the FCA register, the ombudsman and the FSCS. We did not contact firms, request fee quotes, check the FCA register or visit other pages, except that a firm’s own regulatory or complaints page was read to apply the selection rule where the reviewed page carried no statement.
Each firm was coded on fifteen features using a written codebook, also recorded before coding began. A fee figure counts where a number is given for an advice fee; investment, product or platform charges alone do not count. Names that appear only inside client reviews do not count as named advisers. A general five-star claim without reviews, a stated rating, a count or a platform link does not count as reviews. Where a page showed only a related group company’s reference number, we did not count it, and say so in the observation sheet. Research and coding were assisted by AI. A separate AI-assisted adversarial review re-coded every feature from the captures and, on the same day, re-fetched the reviewed pages; two pages refused its automated requests. It found that one firm’s only FCA number belonged to a related group company, which we recoded, and several wording points; all were corrected before publication. Presence of a feature does not establish its accuracy or completeness.
The regulatory statements above are taken from the linked FCA Handbook, FCA, Financial Ombudsman Service and FSCS pages as read on 27 September 2026. This narrow page review makes no finding about any firm’s authorisation, permissions or compliance with the FCA’s rules or any legal requirement.
Send specific corrections, with the page address and passage, to hello@answari.co.uk. Later corrections will be dated here.