Complaints & Corrections Policy
We Get Things Wrong.
Here Is How We Fix Them.
Finance Authority Hub publishes financial content that directly influences real decisions. Accuracy is taken seriously here — but no editorial process is infallible. This page explains exactly how to report a factual error, raise an editorial concern, flag a tool problem, or file a complaint about advertising practices, and what’s committed to in response. Every report goes straight to the founder — not a support queue.
Submit a Report
Choose the type that fits your concern
All three addresses come straight to the founder. Response within 5 business days for 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. Every factual correction request and editorial complaint is therefore treated with the same seriousness as the original publishing. If a mistake was made, it gets corrected, acknowledged, and the cause addressed so it doesn’t recur.
Types of Reports — What You Can Submit
Finance Authority Hub accepts four categories of submission through this corrections and complaints process. Each has a dedicated channel and is reviewed personally.
Factual Correction Request
A factual correction request is for when you believe specific information on a Finance Authority Hub page is factually incorrect, outdated, or materially misleading in a way that could harm a reader’s financial decision-making.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 for when you have a concern about the fairness, balance, tone, or editorial judgement of a piece of content — rather than a specific factual claim.
Editorial complaints don’t require a primary source, but should describe your concern specifically and reference the content in question.
Disclosure Failure Report
A disclosure failure report is for 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.
Tool or Calculator Error
This is for when you believe one of the site’s calculators or tools is producing an incorrect result, uses an outdated figure, or applies a flawed formula. Because the tools are used at the point of a real financial decision, errors here are treated as high priority.
Please include the tool’s URL, the inputs you used, the output you got, and what you believe the correct result or methodology should be.
How to Submit a Report
You can submit a correction or complaint using the form below, or by emailing directly. Every submission comes straight to the founder — not a general inbox or an automated system.
Submit Your Report
Fill in the details below. The more specific you can be, the faster it can be investigated and answered.
Your contact details are used only to respond to your submission. They are not shared with third parties or advertisers. See the Privacy Policy.
Your email client will open with your report pre-filled. If it does not open automatically, email directly at corrections@financeauthorityhub.com
Direct Email Addresses
You can also email directly. All three addresses come straight to the founder.
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; and a credible primary source (regulator, central bank, official statistics, provider documentation) supporting the correction.
A report that just says “this is wrong” without any specific claim or supporting evidence is hard to action. All submissions are reviewed on their merits, but specificity significantly speeds up the process.
Anonymous Submissions
Anonymous correction requests for factual errors are accepted, and reviewed on the same basis as named ones. Without a contact address, though, there’s no way to send you a personalised response or keep you updated on the outcome. To receive a reply, please include a valid email address.
How Reports Are Investigated and Resolved
Every submission that meets the threshold for review follows the same structured process. Here is what happens from the moment a report arrives to the moment it’s resolved.
Receipt & Triage
Every submission received through the corrections and complaints channels is read personally. It’s sorted into one of the four categories (factual correction, editorial complaint, disclosure failure, tool error), and submissions that include a contact email get an acknowledgement.
Initial Assessment
The report is assessed for whether it presents a credible, specific, and supported concern. For factual corrections, the claim is verified against primary sources — central bank data, regulatory publications, official product documentation, or peer-reviewed research. For editorial complaints, the content is reviewed against the editorial guidelines. For tool errors, the calculation is re-run and the methodology checked against the correct formula and figures.
Determination
After assessment, one of three determinations is reached: 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 — the review finds the original content accurate and the concern unsupported by the evidence provided. In all three cases, where a contact email was provided, you’ll get the determination and the reasoning behind it.
Correction & Publication
Where a report is upheld, the 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. Content is never silently edited to pretend an error never happened. The correction notice stays on the page permanently unless the content is retired.
Systemic Review
Where an upheld correction points to a systemic issue — a regulatory change affecting multiple pages, or a research step that repeatedly produced the same kind of error — all affected content gets a broader review. A single correction is a starting point, not the end of it.
Six Commitments to You
These are not aspirational statements. They are the operating standards applied to every correction and complaint received.
Every Valid Submission Is Read
No submission that meets the basic threshold — a specific concern about a specific page — is dismissed without being read by a person. There’s no automated system filtering out correction requests.
Honesty About Errors
When something’s wrong, it’s said clearly and specifically on the page where the error appeared — no vague language designed to minimise it. If incorrect information was published, the notice states what it was and what the correct information is.
Corrections Are Never Silenced for Commercial Reasons
Advertisers, affiliate partners, and commercial partners get no immunity from corrections. If content about an advertiser’s product contains a factual error, it’s corrected — regardless of the commercial relationship. No partner can use their status to prevent or delay a correction.
The Same Standard for 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 doesn’t change how a report is investigated or determined.
Determinations Are Explained
Where a report isn’t upheld, you get a clear explanation of why — not a form rejection. If the review found evidence that contradicts your position, that evidence is described. You deserve to understand why your submission was or wasn’t acted upon.
Corrections Are a Learning Tool
Upheld corrections are logged, reviewed for patterns, and used to improve the research and publishing process. A correction isn’t just a repair — it’s information about how the process can be strengthened to prevent similar errors.
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 a rolling corrections log. Below is an example of how a correction notice appears on an amended page, and the format of the log entries.
Correction Notice — Example
Correction (14 March 2026): This article originally stated the 2024 401(k) employee contribution limit as $22,500. The correct 2024 figure is $23,000. This has been updated. Thanks to the reader who reported it, and apologies for any confusion caused. — Sameer Patel, Finance Authority Hub
Corrections Log — Example Format
Published corrections are recorded hereThe above are illustrative examples showing the format of the corrections log. A live corrections log is maintained and is available on request.
Submissions We Do Not Accept or Act Upon
This 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 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 asking for negative editorial content to 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. Submissions that serve competitive interests rather than reader accuracy are discarded.
Opinion or Editorial Judgement Disputes
Finance Authority Hub forms independent editorial judgements about products, services, and financial topics. Disagreement with an editorial assessment, rating, or recommendation isn’t 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 content that reflects genuine product weaknesses is not subject to removal on the grounds that it’s unfavourable.
Legal Threats Without Substantive Grounds
Legal obligations are taken seriously. However, legal threats that don’t identify a specific, substantive legal basis — or that appear designed to intimidate rather than address a genuine legal concern — don’t accelerate or influence the editorial review process. Legal correspondence should be sent through the Contact page.
Vexatious or Repetitive Submissions
Where an individual or organisation submits multiple corrections or complaints about the same content after receiving a reasoned response, further correspondence on that matter may be closed. Repetitive submissions without new evidence are treated as vexatious and closed without further action.
Appeals & Independent Escalation
If You Disagree with a Determination
Finance Authority Hub is run by one person, so an appeal isn’t reviewed by a separate department — that would be dishonest to claim. What an appeal does mean is a genuine commitment to re-open the decision and look at it again carefully, especially in light of any new evidence you provide. For genuinely independent review, the external routes below are the right path.
How to Request a Re-Review
Reply to the determination email with the subject line “Appeal — [original reference]” and explain specifically why you believe the determination was wrong. Please include any new evidence not previously submitted. A re-review without new arguments or evidence will reach the same conclusion, so new information is what makes it worthwhile.
Timeline
Re-reviews are acknowledged within 3 business days and determined within 10 business days of receipt. Since there’s no separate internal tier beyond this, the next step after a re-review is external escalation.
External Escalation
If you remain unsatisfied and your concern relates to a potential breach of applicable advertising standards or consumer protection law, you can escalate to the relevant external regulator 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. This is the genuinely independent review that a one-person publication can’t provide internally.
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. Tool or calculator errors within 2 business days. Disclosure failure reports within 2 business days, given their regulatory sensitivity. These are target timelines — complex matters may take longer, and you’ll be told if that’s 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 the review. But a specific factual claim will still be investigated even without a source — primary sources are located during the 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. The names of people who submit corrections are not published unless you explicitly request attribution and it’s agreed. Correction notices on pages state that a 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 is factually incorrect or editorially unfair, submit through the 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 a wrong financial conclusion. 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. The calculation is then re-run and the methodology checked against the correct formula.
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 can’t see a correction notice on the relevant page, please get in touch at corrections@financeauthorityhub.com referencing your original submission. Silent edits — corrections made without acknowledgement — are against editorial policy here.
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 tool or calculator corrections 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, and any sponsored content. 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 editorial practices evolve. Material changes will be reflected in the “Last Reviewed” date on this page. Questions about this policy can be sent to corrections@financeauthorityhub.com. This policy was last reviewed in June 2026.