What "evidence" really means in a mis-selling claim
A mis-selling claim turns on suitability: did the adviser properly assess your circumstances, your objectives and your attitude to risk, explain the risks, and recommend something appropriate? Evidence is therefore anything that shows what you were told, what you were sold, and what the adviser knew about you at the time. Often the most powerful evidence is the gap between what your file says about you and what you were actually recommended.
The key documents and what each one proves
You will not need all of these, and you do not need them to begin — but this is what helps.
| Document | What it can prove | How to obtain it |
|---|---|---|
| Suitability report / recommendation letter | What was advised and why — the core suitability question | Adviser file; via Letter of Authority or DSAR |
| Fact-find / know-your-client form | Your circumstances, objectives and risk profile at the time | Adviser file / DSAR |
| Illustrations & key features | What risks and charges were (or weren't) disclosed | Adviser or product provider |
| Transfer / transaction history | What was moved, when, and into what | Pension provider / investment platform |
| Correspondence (emails, letters, texts) | Cold contact, pressure, or undisclosed commission | Your own records / DSAR |
If you have no paperwork
This is one of the most common situations, and it rarely stops a claim. Two routes recover records on your behalf:
- Letter of Authority. A short form authorising a representative to request your file directly from the adviser, pension provider or platform.
- Data request (DSAR). Under UK data protection law you have a right to a copy of the personal data a firm holds about you. A data subject access request is normally free and the firm must usually respond within one month. This often recovers the fact-find, suitability report and correspondence even where the adviser is uncooperative.
Your right to your own records
The right of access under the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 is yours to use directly, with or without a representative. It is a powerful tool because a firm cannot simply refuse to hand over the records that would reveal whether its advice was suitable. Where a firm has closed down, records can often still be obtained from administrators, the product provider or the platform that held your money.
What makes evidence persuasive
The strongest cases rest on contemporaneous records — what was written at the time, not what is remembered later. Two comparisons matter most: the fact-find versus the recommendation (did the product match your stated risk profile and objectives?), and the disclosure documents versus what you were actually told (were the real risks and charges spelt out?). A clear mismatch is often what supports a claim.
What the records often reveal
When files are recovered, recurring patterns emerge: a cold approach or unsolicited contact; little or no genuine risk profiling; a commission or introducer arrangement that was not properly disclosed; "guaranteed" or "too good to be true" returns; and template suitability letters that do not reflect the individual's circumstances. None of these guarantees a successful claim, but each can support one.
A note on signed risk warnings
Signing a form that says you understood the risks does not, by itself, end a claim. The adviser's duty to give suitable advice remains. If the recommendation was unsuitable for you, a signature acknowledging risk does not cure that.