At Pension Justice, we adhere to strict editorial standards and robust legal review processes to ensure that all published content is accurate, relevant, and trustworthy.
Our website exists to support individuals who have suffered losses due to mis‑sold pensions, negligent financial advice, or pension administration failures. Many of our readers rely on this information when making important financial and legal decisions. For this reason, we place the highest priority on experience, expertise, authoritativeness, and trustworthiness across all content we publish.
These guidelines explain how our content is created, reviewed, verified, and maintained.
Pension Justice is a specialist pension claims service led by a fully qualified, SRA‑regulated solicitor with decades of experience in complex financial and pension litigation.
All information published on this website is grounded in real‑world case experience and current UK regulatory frameworks. Our goal is to empower readers with clear, practical, and legally sound information that helps them understand their rights and potential routes to redress.
For the purposes of these guidelines, “Website” refers to all content published on the pensionjustice.co.uk domain, including articles, guides, FAQs, blog posts, and informational resources.
All content published on the Pension Justice website is written, reviewed, or overseen by Howard Davis, a fully qualified SRA‑regulated solicitor with nearly four decades of legal practice and over nine years specialising exclusively in pension and investment negligence claims.
Howard holds an LLB degree and has been regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority since 1986 (SRA no: 133828). His work focuses on claims arising from negligent financial advice, pension transfers, unsuitable investments, and administrative failures by pension providers. He has personally handled hundreds of pension mis‑selling cases and has secured millions of pounds in redress for affected clients.
Where additional drafting support is used, all material is subject to legal review and final approval by Howard before publication. This ensures that every article reflects real‑world case experience, current UK law, and regulatory best practice.
Accuracy is central to our editorial philosophy. Every piece of content is checked against authoritative legal and regulatory sources before publication to ensure that statements relating to pension rights, claims procedures, and regulatory obligations are correct and up to date.
Our fact‑checking process includes verification against primary sources such as the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), the Pensions Regulator (TPR), and relevant UK legislation and statutory instruments. Where appropriate, guidance from the Financial Ombudsman Service is also reviewed.
Content is cross‑checked by a legally qualified reviewer to confirm that all factual claims can be substantiated. If a statement cannot be reliably verified, it is revised or removed prior to publication.
Pension law and financial regulation evolve frequently. To ensure continued accuracy, our editorial team conducts periodic reviews of existing content and updates material whenever changes to legislation, regulatory guidance, or Ombudsman practice occur.
Content may also be reviewed following significant court decisions, new FCA or TPR publications, or changes to complaints and redress frameworks. At a minimum, core informational pages are reviewed annually.
If outdated information is identified, we aim to correct or update it promptly to reflect the current legal position.
We rely on authoritative, primary sources to support factual statements and legal explanations. These include UK regulators, statutory bodies, government publications, and official Ombudsman guidance.
Typical reference sources include the Financial Conduct Authority, The Pensions Regulator, the Financial Ombudsman Service, legislation.gov.uk, and official government departments.
Where facts, statistics, or regulatory requirements are referenced, we either link directly to the source or clearly identify its origin. This approach enables readers to verify information independently and reinforces transparency in our editorial process.
We do not rely on unverified blogs, forums, or anonymous sources when producing legal or financial content.
Our editorial content is produced independently and is not influenced by advertisers, commercial partners, or third parties.
We do not accept payment in exchange for positive coverage, endorsements, or inclusion of external products or services. All topics are selected based on their relevance to individuals affected by pension mis‑selling and negligent financial advice.
This independence ensures that our content remains objective, balanced, and focused solely on providing accurate and helpful information.
Despite rigorous editorial controls, errors may occasionally occur. If an inaccuracy is identified, we investigate the issue promptly.
Where a correction is required, the content will be amended as soon as reasonably practicable, and the corrected version will reflect the most accurate and up‑to‑date information available.
Readers who believe they have identified an error are encouraged to contact us so we can review the matter.
Content published on Pension Justice must be created or reviewed by individuals with demonstrable expertise in pension and investment claims.
At a minimum, legal content must be reviewed by an SRA‑regulated solicitor with experience in financial mis‑selling or pension negligence claims. Contributors must be able to evidence relevant qualifications, professional experience, and subject‑matter competence.
This standard ensures that all published material meets the level of accuracy and reliability expected of a specialist legal service.