Skip to main content
WUHLD
← Back to insights

Partnering with Online Will Providers: Compliance, Risks, and Opportunities for IFAs

· 20 min

Executive Summary

The growth of online will writing services presents IFAs with a commercially attractive but regulatory complex partnership opportunity. Will writing remains unregulated in England and Wales, yet the FCA's Consumer Duty distribution chain obligations, inducements rules under COBS 2.3, and conflicts of interest requirements under SYSC 10 apply fully to the regulated firm irrespective of the partner's regulatory status. The CMA's October 2024 compliance guidance for unregulated will writing providers, reinforced by direct enforcement powers under the DMCCA 2024, has materially altered the risk landscape. Simultaneously, the residence-based IHT regime enacted from April 2025 and the inclusion of pension death benefits within IHT from April 2027 create a genuine suitability imperative for coordinated will and financial planning. This article examines the regulatory architecture, due diligence frameworks, and practical governance structures that IFAs require to evaluate, structure, and monitor compliant partnerships with online will providers.

1. The Shifting Landscape: Online Will Providers and the IFA Opportunity

The UK wills, probate, and trusts market was valued at an estimated GBP 2.81 billion in 2024, according to industry research, reflecting sustained demand for estate planning services.1 Within this market, a structural shift is under way: consumer research indicates that approximately 49% of adults who made a will in 2025 used a solicitor, down from 56% in 2020,2 with increasing migration toward online platforms, hybrid services, and DIY templates.3 The trend is not merely a function of consumer price sensitivity; it reflects the maturation of technology-enabled will writing services that offer speed, accessibility, and integration with broader financial planning workflows.

The online will writing market has attracted significant capital investment. Several providers have built referral partnership models specifically targeting IFA networks, recognising that financial advisers occupy a privileged position in the client relationship -- often engaging with clients at precisely the moments when estate planning becomes most pressing. These moments include retirement planning, pension drawdown decisions, property transactions, and inheritance events. The commercial logic is straightforward: the IFA identifies the estate planning need through routine financial planning conversations, refers the client to a will provider, and potentially receives reciprocal referrals or commercial benefits in return.

The IHT Reform Imperative

The commercial case for IFA-will provider partnerships has been materially strengthened by two legislative developments. The residence-based IHT regime, enacted from 6 April 2025, replaced the long-standing domicile-based system with a 10-year long-term resident test for non-UK domiciled individuals and a 20-year test for UK-domiciled individuals who leave the jurisdiction.4 The 3-to-10-year tail provisions mean that clients who have relocated internationally may retain IHT exposure for a significant period after departure, necessitating coordinated planning between financial arrangements and testamentary provisions.

More consequentially for the broader IFA client base, from 6 April 2027, unused pension funds and death benefits will be brought within the scope of IHT, taxed via income tax rules.5 This change is transformative: pension funds that were previously outside the IHT net must now be considered alongside testamentary arrangements. For any IFA advising on pension drawdown strategies, retirement income planning, or intergenerational wealth transfer, the interaction between pension death benefit nominations and will provisions becomes a suitability-critical consideration. A financial plan that optimises pension drawdown without reference to the client's will -- or vice versa -- risks delivering suboptimal outcomes.

These reforms do not merely create a marketing opportunity; they establish a genuine client need for coordinated planning that neither the IFA nor the will provider can fully address in isolation. The question is not whether IFAs should engage with will provision as part of holistic planning, but how such engagement can be structured within a compliant framework.

2. The Regulatory Framework: What Applies to the Referring IFA

Will Writing as an Unregulated Activity

Will writing is not a regulated activity under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 or the Regulated Activities Order.6 The FCA's Perimeter Guidance Manual (PERG) confirms that will writing falls outside the FCA's regulatory perimeter.7 The Legal Services Board recommended in 2013 that the Legal Services Act 2007 be amended to bring will writing within the regulatory framework, but the Government rejected this recommendation, and the position remains unchanged as of February 2026.8

The practical consequence is significant: approximately 208,000 unregulated providers operate across all legal services sectors in England and Wales, with a significant proportion in the will writing sector, and no FCA or SRA authorisation is required, no FSCS protection is available, and no statutory complaints mechanism exists beyond general consumer protection law.9 For the referring IFA, the absence of partner regulation does not reduce the IFA's own regulatory obligations -- it amplifies them.

Consumer Duty Distribution Chain Obligations

The Consumer Duty (PS22/9), effective from 31 July 2023 for open products and 31 July 2024 for closed products, applies to all firms that can determine or materially influence retail customer outcomes.10 The three cross-cutting rules under PRIN 2A.2 are directly applicable to referral partnerships:

Acting in good faith (PRIN 2A.2.4R) requires honesty, fair and open dealing, and conduct consistent with reasonable customer expectations. An IFA that refers a client to an online will provider without conducting adequate due diligence on that provider's service quality, complaints record, or regulatory compliance cannot credibly claim to have acted in good faith.11

Avoiding foreseeable harm (PRIN 2A.2.8R) extends to harm caused through the firm's role in the distribution chain, including through omission. The FCA has confirmed that its 2025-26 focus areas include how Consumer Duty requirements apply through the distribution chain.12 If a poorly governed referral partner causes client harm -- through misleading advertising, unfair contract terms, or inadequate will drafting -- the referring IFA faces the question of whether that harm was foreseeable and whether reasonable steps were taken to prevent it.

Enabling and supporting customers (PRIN 2A.2.12R) to pursue their financial objectives requires that clients are empowered to make informed decisions. This includes ensuring clients understand that the will provider is unregulated, that FSCS protection does not apply, and that the will writing service is separate from the IFA's regulated activities.13

The asymmetric accountability is the critical insight: the regulated IFA bears Consumer Duty obligations for the distribution chain, while the unregulated will provider bears none. This asymmetry demands that the IFA's due diligence and ongoing monitoring compensate for the regulatory gap.

Inducements Rules and Referral Arrangements

COBS 2.3.1R provides that a firm must not pay or accept any fee, commission, or non-monetary benefit in relation to designated investment business unless it does not impair compliance with the firm's duty to act in the client's best interests.14 COBS 2.3 explicitly treats the direction or referral of business to another person as a non-monetary benefit, meaning that referral arrangements -- whether involving direct fees, reciprocal business introductions, or enhanced service propositions -- are caught by the inducements framework.

A nuance requires attention: COBS 2.3 applies specifically to designated investment business. Will writing itself is not designated investment business. However, where the referral arrangement exists within the broader context of an IFA's regulated activities -- for example, where estate planning conversations arise from investment advice, pension planning, or protection reviews -- the boundary between regulated and unregulated elements becomes commercially intertwined. Firms should adopt a conservative approach, treating the referral arrangement as subject to inducements scrutiny even where the technical perimeter argument might permit a narrower reading.

For independent advisers, COBS 6.1A imposes additional constraints on the receipt of third-party benefits, reinforcing the need for transparent fee arrangements that clearly separate the IFA's adviser charges from any commercial relationship with the will provider.15

Conflicts of Interest Management

SYSC 10.1.4R requires firms to maintain and operate effective organisational and administrative arrangements to prevent conflicts of interest from constituting or giving rise to risks of damage to client interests.16 For IFA-will provider partnerships, three categories of conflict demand specific attention:

First, financial incentives -- whether referral fees, revenue sharing, or preferential commercial terms -- that could bias the IFA toward recommending a particular provider irrespective of suitability. Second, reciprocal business arrangements where the will provider refers clients back to the IFA for financial advice, creating a circular commercial dependency. Third, information asymmetry where the IFA possesses knowledge of the client's financial position that could influence the referral recommendation in ways not apparent to the client.

SYSC 10.1.10R requires a written conflicts of interest policy appropriate to the firm's size and complexity.17 Any firm operating a will provider partnership must ensure this policy explicitly addresses the partnership arrangement, identifies the specific conflicts arising, and documents the measures in place to manage them. Disclosure under SYSC 10.1.8R should be treated as a last resort, not a substitute for effective conflict prevention.

3. CMA Enforcement: Due Diligence Implications for IFAs

The October 2024 Compliance Guidance

On 9 October 2024, the CMA published finalised compliance guidance for unregulated businesses providing will writing, online divorce, and pre-paid probate services, accompanied by an open letter from Cecilia Parker Aranha, Director of Consumer Protection.18 The guidance identified five categories of consumer harm prevalent in the sector:

  • Misleading advertising, including unsubstantiated claims about qualifications, regulatory affiliations, or the quality of documents produced
  • Unfair contract terms that restrict consumer rights or impose disproportionate liabilities
  • Pressure selling and coercion, particularly targeting vulnerable consumers during bereavement or health crises
  • Lack of cost transparency, with hidden fees, unclear pricing structures, or undisclosed ongoing charges
  • Suitability concerns, where products or services sold do not match the consumer's actual needs

The CMA wrote to seven specific businesses cautioning them against concerning practices, including aggressive up-selling and refusal of refunds.19 The regulator has indicated that a compliance review will follow.

DMCCA 2024 Enforcement Powers

From 6 April 2025, the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 grants the CMA direct enforcement powers, including the ability to impose financial penalties of up to 10% of worldwide annual turnover for breaches of consumer protection law -- without needing to go to court.20 This fundamentally changes the enforcement calculus for online will providers. Previously, the CMA's primary remedy was court action under the Enterprise Act 2002, a slow and resource-intensive process. The DMCCA enforcement regime means that a will provider engaging in the practices identified in the October 2024 guidance faces material and immediate financial risk.

For the referring IFA, the CMA enforcement landscape has two implications. First, a will provider subject to CMA enforcement action or financial penalties represents an elevated reputational and operational risk that could, in turn, trigger Consumer Duty concerns for the IFA. Second, the CMA's compliance guidance provides a ready-made due diligence checklist: the five categories of consumer harm identified by the CMA should form the baseline against which IFAs assess potential partners.

A Due Diligence Framework for Partner Assessment

Drawing on both the FCA's Consumer Duty expectations and the CMA's compliance guidance, IFAs evaluating potential will provider partnerships should assess the following:

Regulatory and professional standing. Does the provider hold membership of a recognised professional body such as the Society of Will Writers, the Institute of Professional Willwriters, or the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives? While membership does not confer regulatory status, it indicates acceptance of a voluntary code of practice and access to a complaints mechanism.21

Advertising and marketing practices. Does the provider's marketing comply with the CMA's guidance? Are claims about qualifications, regulatory status, or document quality substantiated? Any misleading representations risk both CMA enforcement action and reputational contamination for the referring IFA.

Cost transparency. Are all fees clearly disclosed at the outset, including any ongoing charges for will storage, review services, or executor services? The CMA identified lack of cost transparency as a specific concern.

Contract terms. Has the provider reviewed its standard terms against the Consumer Rights Act 2015 unfair terms provisions? Do terms include appropriate cancellation rights and complaints procedures?

Professional indemnity insurance. Does the provider maintain adequate PI cover? While not a regulatory requirement, PI insurance provides a minimum level of consumer recourse and signals professional commitment.

Data protection compliance. Will writing involves the processing of sensitive personal data. Does the provider demonstrate compliance with UK GDPR, including appropriate data processing agreements where client data is shared by the IFA?

Complaints history. What is the provider's complaints record? How does it handle complaints, and what redress mechanisms are available in the absence of the Legal Ombudsman or Financial Ombudsman Service jurisdiction?

4. Structuring Compliant Partnerships: A Practical Framework

Partnership Models

IFA-will provider arrangements typically take one of three forms, each carrying distinct compliance considerations:

Referral model. The IFA identifies the client need and refers the client to the will provider. The IFA may receive a referral fee or reciprocal business introduction. This model is the simplest to implement but requires careful management of inducements and conflicts obligations. The client must understand that the referral is to an unregulated service provider and that the IFA's regulated status does not extend to the will writing service.

Integrated service model. The will provider's service is presented as part of the IFA's broader financial planning proposition. This model creates a stronger client experience but raises more complex Consumer Duty questions, as the client may reasonably expect the will writing service to benefit from the same regulatory protections as the IFA's other services. Clear disclosure is essential.

White-label model. The will provider operates under the IFA's branding or as an embedded service within the IFA's client platform. This model carries the highest compliance burden, as the client may not distinguish between the IFA's regulated services and the unregulated will writing component. Firms adopting this model must ensure particularly robust contractual governance and ongoing quality monitoring.

Contractual Governance

Regardless of the partnership model, the contractual framework should address the following minimum requirements:

Service standards and quality benchmarks. The contract should specify minimum qualifications for will drafters, quality assurance processes (including peer review of drafted wills), and measurable service level agreements for turnaround times and error rates.

Complaints and redress. The contract should define the complaints handling process, including escalation procedures where the client's complaint relates to the interaction between the will and the IFA's financial planning advice. The FSCS coverage gap must be addressed through alternative redress mechanisms such as professional indemnity insurance or a fidelity bond, ensuring clients retain a meaningful path to compensation in the event of provider negligence.22

Data sharing and protection. A data processing agreement compliant with UK GDPR should govern the sharing of client information between the IFA and the will provider, including provisions for data retention, deletion, and breach notification.

Termination and wind-down. The contract should specify the circumstances under which either party may terminate, including provisions for CMA enforcement action, loss of professional body membership, or material breach of service standards. Client transition arrangements must protect ongoing service continuity.

Audit and monitoring rights. The IFA should retain the right to audit the will provider's operations, complaints records, and quality metrics at reasonable intervals, consistent with the IFA's ongoing Consumer Duty monitoring obligations.

Ongoing Monitoring

The Consumer Duty is not a one-time compliance exercise. PRIN 2A.9.10R requires firms to monitor outcomes and take action where outcomes are not consistent with the Duty.23 For will provider partnerships, this means establishing an annual review framework that examines:

  • Client complaint volumes and themes relating to the will provider
  • Quality audit results, including any instances of wills that were defective, inadequate, or unsuitable
  • Changes in the will provider's professional body membership, PI insurance, or commercial standing
  • CMA or other regulatory action affecting the will provider or the broader online will writing sector
  • Client feedback on the referral experience and the quality of the integrated service proposition

Client Communication and Disclosure

The FSCS coverage gap is material information that clients must receive before being referred to an unregulated provider.13 Best practice client communication should address:

  • The will provider's unregulated status and what this means in practice
  • The absence of FSCS protection and what alternative redress mechanisms are available
  • The commercial nature of the referral arrangement, including any financial benefit the IFA receives
  • The client's right to choose an alternative will provider, including regulated solicitors
  • The distinction between the IFA's regulated financial planning advice and the unregulated will writing service

5. Commercial Opportunity and Risk Assessment

Revenue Models

The commercial opportunity for IFAs engaging with online will providers extends beyond direct referral fees. Estate planning conversations frequently reveal unadvised assets, protection gaps, and planning deficiencies that generate additional regulated business. Industry participants report that structured professional connections in estate planning can generate substantial reciprocal investment business.24 The Advice Guidance Boundary Review, with targeted support rules set to take effect from 6 April 2026 under PS25/22, may further expand the scope of estate planning conversations that IFAs can initiate within the advice continuum.25

However, the commercial model must be assessed against a realistic risk matrix.

Risk Assessment Matrix

IFAs considering will provider partnerships should evaluate risk across four dimensions:

Regulatory risk. The probability and impact of FCA supervisory scrutiny of the partnership arrangement, particularly in the context of Consumer Duty distribution chain reviews. Mitigation: robust due diligence, contractual governance, and documented monitoring.

Reputational risk. The impact on the IFA's brand and client relationships if the will provider is subject to CMA enforcement action, media criticism, or a significant client complaint. Mitigation: partner selection criteria, ongoing monitoring, and contractual termination rights.

Operational risk. The risk that the will provider's service quality deteriorates, systems fail, or the provider exits the market, leaving clients with incomplete or inadequate wills. Mitigation: service level agreements, business continuity provisions, and client communication protocols.

Liability risk. The potential for the IFA to face claims arising from defective wills produced by the partner, particularly where the client perceived the will writing service as part of the IFA's regulated proposition. Mitigation: clear disclosure, PI insurance requirements, and contractual indemnification.

Each dimension should be assessed on a probability-impact basis, with residual risk documented in the firm's risk register and reviewed as part of the annual partnership review cycle.

The Suitability Imperative

The pension death benefit changes effective from April 2027 create a new category of suitability risk for IFAs who advise on pension arrangements without considering testamentary implications.5 Where a client's pension drawdown strategy is optimised for income but fails to account for the IHT treatment of residual pension funds on death, the adviser's recommendation may be challenged as unsuitable if a more tax-efficient outcome could have been achieved through coordinated will and pension planning.

This does not mean that every IFA must establish a will provider partnership. It means that every IFA advising on pension drawdown, retirement income, or intergenerational wealth transfer must have a clear process for ensuring that testamentary planning is considered as part of the holistic advice process -- whether through a formal partnership, an informal referral network, or simply a documented conversation with the client about the need for will review.

Conclusion

The convergence of IHT reform, pension death benefit changes, and the maturation of online will writing platforms creates a commercially and regulatorily significant opportunity for IFAs. The residence-based IHT regime and pension-IHT inclusion from April 2027 make coordinated will and financial planning a suitability imperative rather than an optional service enhancement.

However, the absence of statutory regulation for will writing does not create a compliance vacuum for the referring IFA. The Consumer Duty's distribution chain obligations, COBS 2.3 inducements rules, and SYSC 10 conflicts requirements apply with full force to the regulated firm, creating an asymmetric accountability framework in which the IFA bears regulatory responsibility for outcomes arising from unregulated partner conduct. The CMA's October 2024 compliance guidance and DMCCA 2024 enforcement powers further sharpen the due diligence requirements.

IFAs that approach will provider partnerships with a compliance-first mindset -- conducting rigorous due diligence, establishing contractual governance, maintaining ongoing monitoring, and ensuring transparent client communication -- can capture genuine commercial value while managing regulatory risk. Those that treat the partnership as a simple referral arrangement without regulatory infrastructure risk both Consumer Duty breaches and reputational damage in a sector subject to increasing regulatory attention.

CPD Declaration

Estimated Reading Time: 20 minutes Technical Level: Advanced Practice Areas: Estate Planning, Regulatory Compliance, Business Development, Consumer Duty

Learning Objectives

Upon completing this article, practitioners will be able to:

  1. Identify the FCA regulatory obligations -- including PRIN 2A cross-cutting rules, COBS 2.3 inducements framework, and SYSC 10 conflicts requirements -- that apply to IFAs when referring clients to unregulated will writing services
  2. Evaluate the CMA's October 2024 compliance guidance as a due diligence framework for assessing potential online will provider partners
  3. Apply a structured governance model to IFA-will provider partnerships, incorporating contractual safeguards, ongoing monitoring protocols, and client disclosure requirements
  4. Analyse the interaction between the residence-based IHT regime, pension death benefit IHT inclusion from April 2027, and the suitability imperative for coordinated will and financial planning

FCA Competency Mapping

  • Regulatory compliance and risk management (Consumer Duty distribution chain obligations)
  • Professional ethics and conflicts of interest (SYSC 10 organisational requirements)
  • Estate planning and intergenerational wealth transfer (IHT reform, pension-IHT convergence)

Reflective Questions

  1. How would you assess whether your firm's current referral arrangements with will providers satisfy the Consumer Duty's foreseeable harm test under PRIN 2A.2.8R?
  2. What due diligence steps drawn from the CMA's October 2024 compliance guidance would you incorporate into your firm's partner assessment process?
  3. How might the inclusion of pension death benefits within IHT from April 2027 change your approach to coordinating financial planning advice with testamentary arrangements?

Professional Disclaimer

The information presented reflects the regulatory and legislative position as of 2026-02-04. Regulations, tax rules, and professional guidance are subject to change. Readers should independently verify all information before acting and seek advice from appropriately qualified solicitors, financial advisors, or other professionals for their specific circumstances.

Neither WUHLD nor the author accepts liability for any actions taken or decisions made based on the content of this article. Professional readers are reminded of their own regulatory obligations and duty of care to their clients.

Footnotes

Footnotes

  1. UK Wills, Probate & Trusts Market Report 2024 (December 2024). https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2024/12/12/2995934/28124/en/UK-Wills-Probate-Trusts-Market-Report-2024-Market-Value-Surges-to-2-81bn-in-2024-Amidst-Increasing-Demand-for-Estate-Planning-Services.html ↩

  2. IRN Research, UK Wills, Probate & Trusts Market Report 2020 (November 2020), sample: 755 consumers. https://todayswillsandprobate.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/IRN-Research-UK-Wills-Probate-Trusts-Market-Report-2020.pdf ↩

  3. UK Wills & Probate Consumer Research Report 2025 (April 2025). https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2025/04/09/3058231/28124/en/UK-Wills-Probate-Consumer-Research-Report-2025-Demand-Grows-for-LPAs-Funeral-Plans-and-Digital-Legacy-Services-in-UK-Wills-Market.html ↩

  4. Finance Act 2025 / Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (as amended). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/51/contents ↩

  5. Gov.uk Pension Death Benefits and Inheritance Tax (October 2024). https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/inheritance-tax-on-pensions ↩ ↩2

  6. House of Commons Library, Regulation of Will Writers (SN05683). https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn05683/ ↩

  7. FCA Perimeter Guidance Manual (PERG 2). https://handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/PERG/2/ ↩

  8. Legal Services Board State of Legal Services 2025 (December 2025). https://legalservicesboard.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/State-of-Legal-Services-2025.pdf ↩

  9. Legal Services Board, Mapping Unregulated Legal Services Providers (June 2022). https://legalservicesboard.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/20220616-Mapping-unregulated-legal-services-FINAL.pdf; see also CMA Will Writing and Other Unregulated Legal Services Case Page (July 2023). https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/will-writing-and-other-unregulated-legal-services ↩

  10. FCA PS22/9: A New Consumer Duty (July 2022). https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/policy-statements/ps22-9-new-consumer-duty ↩

  11. FCA Handbook PRIN 2A.2 Cross-Cutting Obligations. https://handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/PRIN/2A/2.html ↩

  12. FCA Consumer Duty Focus Areas 2025-26. https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/corporate-documents/consumer-duty-focus-areas ↩

  13. FSCS What We Cover (2025). https://www.fscs.org.uk/what-we-cover/ ↩ ↩2

  14. FCA Handbook COBS 2.3 Inducements. https://handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/COBS/2/3.html ↩

  15. FCA Handbook COBS 6.1A Adviser Charging. https://handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/COBS/6/1A.html ↩

  16. FCA Handbook SYSC 10.1.4R Conflicts of Interest. https://handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/SYSC/10/1.html ↩

  17. FCA Handbook SYSC 10.1.10R Conflicts of Interest Policy. https://handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/SYSC/10/?view=chapter ↩

  18. CMA Open Letter to the Unregulated Legal Services Sector (9 October 2024). https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/open-letter-to-unregulated-legal-services-providers/open-letter-to-the-unregulated-legal-services-sector ↩

  19. CMA Press Release: CMA Cautions Will Writing and Legal Service Providers as New Guidance Launched (9 October 2024). https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-cautions-will-writing-and-legal-service-providers-as-new-guidance-launched ↩

  20. Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (c.13). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2024/13/contents/enacted ↩

  21. Society of Will Writers Code of Practice. https://www.willwriters.com/about-us/code-of-practice/ ↩

  22. Society of Will Writers, Professional Standards and Insurance Requirements. https://www.willwriters.com/about-us/code-of-practice/ ↩

  23. FCA Handbook PRIN 2A.9 Monitoring of Consumer Outcomes. https://handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/PRIN/2A/9.html ↩

  24. Money Marketing, How Do You Get the Right Estate Planning Professional Connections (2015). https://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/opinion/how-do-you-get-the-right-estate-planning-professional-connections/ ↩

  25. FCA PS25/22 Consumer Pensions and Investment Decisions: Rules for Targeted Support (December 2025). https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/policy-statements/ps25-22-consumer-pensions-investment-decisions-rules-targeted-support ↩

Preview Free