Complaints & Corrections Policy
We Get Things Wrong.
Here Is How We Fix Them.
Finance Authority Hub publishes financial content that directly influences real decisions. We take accuracy seriously — but no editorial process is infallible. This page explains exactly how to report a factual error, raise an editorial concern, or file a complaint about our advertising practices, and what we commit to doing about it.
Submit a Report
Choose the type that fits your concern
All three addresses forward to our editorial team. Response within 5 business days for all valid submissions.
Our Commitment to Accuracy and Accountability
Finance Authority Hub publishes financial content that falls under Google’s “Your Money or Your Life” (YMYL) classification. Errors in this category are not trivial — they can cost readers money, lead to poor financial decisions, or cause genuine harm. We therefore treat every factual correction request and editorial complaint with the same seriousness we apply to our original publishing process. If we made a mistake, we will correct it, acknowledge it, and ensure it does not recur.
Types of Reports — What You Can Submit
Finance Authority Hub accepts four categories of submissions through our corrections and complaints process. Each is handled through a dedicated channel and reviewed by our editorial team.
Factual Correction Request
A factual correction request is submitted when you believe specific information on a Finance Authority Hub page is factually incorrect, outdated, or materially misleading in a way that could harm a reader’s financial decision-making.
To be actionable, a correction request should identify the specific claim you believe is incorrect and provide a credible primary source supporting the correct information.
Editorial Complaint
An editorial complaint is submitted when you have a concern about the fairness, balance, tone, or editorial judgement of a piece of content — rather than a specific factual claim. These concerns are investigated by our editorial leadership.
Editorial complaints do not require a primary source, but should describe your concern specifically and reference the content in question.
Disclosure Failure Report
A disclosure failure report is submitted when you believe Finance Authority Hub has failed to adequately disclose a commercial relationship — for example, an affiliate link without disclosure, or sponsored content presented as independent editorial.
Disclosure complaints are treated with high urgency given the regulatory implications of disclosure failures on YMYL content.
Expert or Author Credential Concern
A credential concern is submitted when you have reason to believe that an author or expert contributor’s stated credentials are inaccurate, exaggerated, or cannot be independently verified — or that an author has a conflict of interest not disclosed on their profile.
Credential concerns are treated as high priority given our EEAT obligations. We will verify all such concerns directly with the individual named and take corrective action where warranted.
How to Submit a Report
You can submit a correction or complaint using the form below, or by emailing us directly. All submissions are received by our editorial team — not a general inbox or automated system.
Submit Your Report
Fill in the details below. The more specific you can be, the faster we can investigate and respond.
Your contact details are used only to respond to your submission. We do not share them with third parties or advertisers. See our Privacy Policy.
Your email client will open with your report pre-filled. If it does not open automatically, email us directly at corrections@financeauthorityhub.com
Direct Email Addresses
You can also email us directly. All three addresses forward to our editorial team.
What Makes a Strong Submission
Reports that lead to published corrections typically include: the exact URL of the page; the precise text or section you believe is wrong; a credible primary source (regulator, central bank, official statistics, provider documentation) supporting the correction.
We cannot action reports that say “this is wrong” without any specific claim or supporting evidence. We review all submissions on their merits, but specificity significantly accelerates the process.
Anonymous Submissions
We accept anonymous correction requests for factual errors. Anonymous submissions are reviewed on the same basis as named ones, but we are unable to provide a personalised response or keep you updated on the outcome. To receive a response, please provide a valid email address.
How We Investigate and Resolve Reports
Every submission that meets our threshold for review follows the same structured process. Here is what happens from the moment we receive your report to the moment a resolution is reached.
Receipt & Triage
Every submission received through our corrections and complaints channels is read by a member of our editorial team. We triage the report into one of four categories (factual correction, editorial complaint, disclosure failure, credential concern) and assign it to the appropriate reviewer. We send an acknowledgement to submissions that include a contact email.
Initial Assessment
The assigned reviewer assesses whether the report presents a credible, specific, and supported concern. For factual corrections, we verify the claim against primary sources — central bank data, regulatory publications, official product documentation, or peer-reviewed research. For editorial complaints, we review the content in question against our editorial guidelines. For credential concerns, we initiate direct verification with the author named.
Determination
Following assessment, we make one of three determinations: Upheld — the report is valid and a correction, update, or amendment is required; Partially Upheld — part of the concern is valid and a partial amendment is made; Not Upheld — our review finds the original content to be accurate and the concern is not supported by the evidence provided. In all three cases, we respond to the submitter with our determination and reasoning where a contact email was provided.
Correction & Publication
Where a report is upheld, the relevant content is corrected promptly. All upheld factual corrections are acknowledged with a visible correction notice on the amended page — stating what was changed, when, and why. We do not silently edit content and pretend an error never occurred. The correction notice remains on the page permanently unless the content is retired.
Systemic Review
Where an upheld correction identifies a systemic issue — for example, a regulatory change that affects multiple pages, or an editorial process that repeatedly produced the same type of error — our editorial leadership initiates a broader review of all affected content. Individual corrections are a starting point, not an end point.
Our Six Commitments to You
These are not aspirational statements. They are the operating standards applied to every correction and complaint we receive, enforced by our editorial policy and reviewed regularly.
We Read Every Valid Submission
No submission that meets the basic threshold — a specific concern about a specific page — is dismissed without being read by a human member of our editorial team. We do not use automated systems to filter correction requests.
We Are Honest About Our Errors
When we are wrong, we say so clearly and specifically on the page where the error appeared. We do not use vague language designed to minimise the significance of an error. If we published incorrect information, we state what it was and what the correct information is.
We Never Silence Corrections for Commercial Reasons
Advertisers, affiliate partners, and commercial partners do not receive immunity from corrections. If content about an advertiser’s product contains a factual error, we correct it — regardless of the commercial relationship in place. Commercial partners cannot use their status to prevent or delay corrections.
We Apply the Same Standard to All Reporters
Corrections submitted by industry insiders, competitors, legal representatives, or ordinary readers are reviewed on exactly the same basis. The identity of the submitter does not influence how we investigate or determine the merits of a report.
We Explain Our Determinations
Where a report is not upheld, we provide the submitter with a clear explanation of why — not a form rejection. If our review found evidence that contradicts the reporter’s position, we describe that evidence. You deserve to understand why your submission was or was not acted upon.
We Learn from Corrections
Upheld corrections are logged, reviewed for patterns, and used to improve our editorial process and research standards. A correction is not just a repair — it is information about how our process can be strengthened to prevent similar errors in future content.
How Corrections Appear on Our Pages
Upheld corrections are published in two places: a visible correction notice on the specific page that was amended, and in our rolling corrections log. Below is an example of how a correction notice appears on an amended page, and the format of our log entries.
Correction Notice — Example
Correction (14 March 2026): This article originally stated the ISA annual allowance for 2025–26 as £18,000. The correct figure is £20,000. This has been updated. We thank the reader who reported this error and regret any confusion caused. — Finance Authority Hub Editorial Team
Corrections Log — Example Format
Published corrections are recorded hereThe above are illustrative examples showing the format of our corrections log. A live corrections log is maintained internally and is available on request.
Submissions We Do Not Accept or Act Upon
Our corrections and complaints process is designed to address genuine factual errors and editorial failures — not to serve as a channel for commercial pressure, competitive attacks, or bad-faith manipulation of our content. The following categories of submission are declined or closed without further action.
Advertiser or Commercial Partner Pressure
Submissions from advertisers, affiliate partners, or their representatives requesting that negative editorial content be amended, removed, or softened in exchange for continued commercial activity — or as a condition of any new commercial relationship — are declined immediately and the relevant commercial relationship is reviewed for termination.
Competitor-Motivated Requests
Submissions that appear to be motivated by competitive interest — for example, a company requesting corrections to a competitor’s positive review without substantive factual grounds — are reviewed with heightened scrutiny. We will identify and discard submissions that serve competitive interests rather than reader accuracy.
Opinion or Editorial Judgement Disputes
Finance Authority Hub’s editorial team forms independent judgements about products, services, and financial topics. Disagreement with our editorial assessments, star ratings, or recommendations does not constitute a corrections ground unless a specific factual claim within the assessment is demonstrably incorrect.
Requests to Remove Accurate Negative Content
Requests to remove, amend, or suppress accurate negative editorial content — for example, a poor product review or a risk disclosure — are declined. Accurate editorial content that reflects genuine product weaknesses is not subject to removal on the grounds that it is unfavourable.
Legal Threats Without Substantive Grounds
We take legal obligations seriously. However, legal threats that do not identify a specific, substantive legal basis — or that appear designed to intimidate rather than address a genuine legal concern — do not accelerate or influence our editorial review process. Legal correspondence should be directed to our legal contact address.
Vexatious or Repetitive Submissions
Where an individual or organisation submits multiple corrections or complaints about the same content after receiving a reasoned response, we reserve the right to close further correspondence on that matter. Repetitive submissions without new evidence are treated as vexatious and closed without further action.
Appeals Process
If You Disagree with Our Determination
If you believe our determination on your submission was incorrect or that we failed to adequately consider material evidence, you may request an appeal. Appeals are reviewed by our editorial leadership — a senior editor not involved in the original determination.
How to Request an Appeal
To request an appeal, reply to our determination response email with the subject line “Appeal — [original reference number]” and explain specifically why you believe our determination was incorrect. Please include any new evidence not previously submitted. Appeals without new arguments or evidence are not reviewed.
Appeal Timeline
Appeals are acknowledged within 3 business days and determined within 10 business days of receipt. The appeal determination is final — we do not operate a further tier of internal review beyond editorial leadership.
External Escalation
If you remain unsatisfied following our appeal determination and your concern relates to a potential breach of applicable advertising standards or consumer protection law, you may escalate your complaint to the relevant external regulatory body in your jurisdiction — for example, the FTC (United States), the ASA (United Kingdom), or the relevant EU consumer protection authority. Finance Authority Hub cooperates fully with all regulatory inquiries.
Frequently Asked Questions
How long will it take to get a response?
Acknowledgement within 1 business day for submissions with a valid email address. Factual correction determinations within 3 business days. Editorial complaints within 5 business days. Credential concerns within 7 business days (verification takes longer). Disclosure failure reports within 2 business days given their regulatory sensitivity. These are target timelines — complex matters may take longer, and we will inform you if that is the case.
Do I need to provide a source to submit a correction?
For factual corrections, a credible source significantly strengthens your submission and speeds up our review. However, we will investigate a specific factual claim even without a source — we will locate primary sources ourselves during our review. Submissions that say only “this is wrong” without identifying the specific claim are difficult to action and may be closed pending clarification.
Will my name be published if my correction is accepted?
No. We do not publish the names of individuals who submit corrections unless you explicitly request attribution and we agree to include it. Correction notices on pages state the correction was made and when — not who identified it. If you submitted anonymously, no identifying information appears in any correction notice.
Can I submit a complaint about an advertiser on your site?
Yes. Complaints about the editorial coverage of an advertiser’s products are reviewed on exactly the same basis as complaints about non-advertiser products. Advertisers have no immunity from editorial corrections or complaints. If you believe content about an advertiser’s product on Finance Authority Hub is factually incorrect or editorially unfair, submit through our standard process and it will be reviewed without regard to the commercial relationship.
What if the error is in a tool or calculator, not an article?
Corrections to financial tools and calculators are treated with the same or higher urgency as article corrections — an error in a calculator can directly cause a reader to reach an incorrect financial conclusion. Please submit the URL of the tool, describe the specific calculation or output you believe is incorrect, and provide the correct methodology or figure with a supporting source where possible. Tool corrections are assigned to the relevant specialist for verification.
What happens if content I reported is updated but the error notice doesn’t appear?
Valid corrections to factual content should always be accompanied by a visible correction notice on the amended page. If you submitted a correction that was upheld and you cannot see a correction notice on the relevant page, please contact us at corrections@financeauthorityhub.com referencing your original submission. Silent edits — corrections made without acknowledgement — are against our editorial policy.
Formal Policy Statement — Complaints & Corrections
Finance Authority Hub is committed to accuracy, accountability, and transparency in all content published on financeauthorityhub.com. This Complaints and Corrections Policy governs how Finance Authority Hub receives, investigates, determines, and publishes the outcome of all factual correction requests, editorial complaints, disclosure failure reports, and credential concerns submitted by readers, industry participants, and regulatory bodies.
This policy applies to all content published on Finance Authority Hub, including editorial articles, financial guides, product reviews and comparisons, financial tools and calculators, sponsored content, and data-driven research pieces. It applies regardless of the commercial relationship between Finance Authority Hub and any party referenced in the relevant content.
Finance Authority Hub reserves the right to update this policy as our editorial practices evolve. Material changes will be reflected in the “Last Reviewed” date on this page. Readers with questions about this policy should contact us at corrections@financeauthorityhub.com. This policy was last reviewed on 19 May 2026.