We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide

FSCS protection - ISA and SIPP, same fund

If I have the same fund invested in both my SIPP and my ISA and the fund defaults, do the FSCS protections allow max £85k protection or 2 x £85k protection?

Comments

  • Jacksoag
    Jacksoag Posts: 4 Newbie
    First Post Name Dropper Photogenic

    By same fund I mean UK-domiciled OEIC or UT.

  • Albermarle
    Albermarle Posts: 31,697 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Seventh Anniversary Name Dropper

    What fund is is? For mainstream funds on mainstream platforms, the chance of something going that badly wrong that FSCS compensation comes into play is about zero.

  • masonic
    masonic Posts: 29,927 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    edited 28 April at 5:36PM

    The answer to your question is that the compensation relating to the fund defaulting would be limited to £85k per eligible investor. If you have more than one fund from the same fund house, and this fails, then I suspect it would be £85k max across the affected investments.

  • dunstonh
    dunstonh Posts: 121,455 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker

    Typically, it is £85k per fund house. However, it is theoretically possible that the pension and an ISA would be treated twice due to the ownership structure. It has never been tested and probably never will be so nobody really knows for sure.

    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
  • gm0
    gm0 Posts: 1,340 Forumite
    Eighth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper

    This is NOT a rules and certainty a priori thing. Incentives

    In a major crisis caused by fraud or something otherwise unexpected

    Lawyers make out like bandits. Everyone sues everyone (insurers, outsourcers, companies). Lawyers profit. Former customers - wait.

    Government fearing subsidy falling upon the public purse find a way to dissemble and delay about the regulatory backstop - citing ongoing litigation. Delaying an unwelcome decision being a civil service core competence. It can go on a long time.

    The outcome is uncertain and delayed. See also Equitable Life for an example.

    I can't find the link quickly this morning but there was a more general House of Lords briefing on pensions regulation which basically says the same thing on pensions regulation as a backstop on trusts and pensions in general. Untested. Nobody really knows.

    It's complicated via layers of law applied over older drafting. To the benefit of lawyers. I forget the drafting but I think the sentiment was "unknown" and absent testing in actual fire - "unknowable".

    We are - as they say - where we are.

Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 354.7K Banking & Borrowing
  • 254.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 455.6K Spending & Discounts
  • 247.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 604.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 178.6K Life & Family
  • 262.1K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.7K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.