The FCA's recently announced multi-firm review into how investment firms support bereaved customers makes clear this is now an area actively under scrutiny. The regulator has issued a detailed survey (which we have seen) focusing on how bereavement cases are handled in practice, with questions relating to complaint volumes, delays, firms' processes on notification of a death, staff training and governance. This is being seen as a key test of firms’ approach to vulnerability under the Consumer Duty.
A particular focus is placed on the services that continue after death and the charges applied to bereaved customer accounts. The focus on charges is not new. In a speech on its 2025 priorities, the FCA noted that it had intervened and "stopped firms charging ongoing advice fees for deceased customers whilst their estates were being administered".
So, on death, firms should cease services and charging?
As a matter of English law, the general position is that an agreement does not end upon the client’s death. Personal representatives step into the shoes of the deceased in relation to contracts they have made (and claims made by or against that individual during their lifetime).
A client agreement will therefore ordinarily survive death and become binding on the estate, unless the contract provides otherwise or the contract is rendered physically or commercially impossible to fulfil after its formation and can therefore be discharged on the ground of ‘frustration’.
However, frustration is only available in respect of "personal" contracts, not commercial contracts. A standardised discretionary or execution-only mandate, operating under standard terms, is therefore unlikely to be frustrated by a client's death. Advisory mandates, which are tailored to the individual client's circumstances and require ongoing personal engagement, may have a stronger claim to personal contract status; however, given that personal representatives are entitled to receive information and give instructions on behalf of the estate, frustration is unlikely to be established in most cases.
Therefore, the starting point is to look at the contract to see what, if anything, it says about the effect of a party's death. Provisions may include an express term providing for automatic termination, or a right to terminate in the event of the counterparty's death. Where the contract does not provide for automatic termination but instead deals with the practical steps that follow death, that too is a legitimate and enforceable approach.
As an example of market practice, some client terms provide that in the event of the client's death, any person purporting to be a legal personal representative must provide formal notice of the death, including an original or certified copy of the death certificate, whereupon the account shall be suspended.
A person shall not be proven to be a legal personal representative until a Grant of Representation for the estate is received, at which point the firm will carry out the written instructions of the legal personal representatives. This approach does not terminate the agreement outright but places it in a holding position pending formal appointment of the personal representatives, which is often the more practical outcome.
The practical recommendation is therefore that client terms should address death expressly and clearly, covering notification procedures, account suspension, the documentation required before instructions from personal representatives will be accepted, and the treatment of fees during estate administration, and those terms should be reviewed against the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (“CRA”) fairness and transparency standards.
Where the agreement has not been terminated and provides for an ongoing fee, there is a credible contractual basis for the firm to continue accruing charges during the period of estate administration. Personal representatives are bound by the terms of the agreement and must honour the obligations of the deceased so far as the assets of the estate permit.
However, because wealth management client agreements are consumer contracts, they are subject to the CRA. Under the CRA, a contractual term is unfair, and therefore not binding, if it creates a significant imbalance between the parties' rights and obligations to the detriment of the consumer. This protection does not end on death: personal representatives inherit the deceased's rights, including the right to challenge an unfair term.
In practice, this means that a fee provision entitling a firm to continue charging at standard rates during a period where the account is suspended, no instructions can be taken, and no active management is being carried out, is vulnerable to challenge. Where an ongoing fee is defined by reference to active portfolio management, regular client contact, or suitability reviews, it is difficult to justify that the full contracted service is being delivered post-death. A fee that continues to run in those circumstances, with no corresponding service, risks being found to create precisely the kind of significant imbalance the CRA is designed to address.
Firms should therefore consider carefully whether they can demonstrate genuine ongoing value for any charges accrued during the estate administration period. This is not only a contractual question - it intersects directly with the FCA's Consumer Duty expectations around fair value and good outcomes for bereaved customers.
As discussed above, even if the contractual position is clearer, the legal framework governing who can act following death adds further complexity.
On death, authority to deal with a client’s assets generally vests in their personal representatives; either Executors appointed by Will or Administrators on intestacy. While, in principle, Executors' authority arises automatically on death (while Administrators require formal appointment), in practice, investment firms (and financial institutions generally) will require a formal Grant of Representation as formal proof of their authority before acting on their instructions.
Firms are entitled to take this cautious approach as acting on instructions before a Grant is obtained exposes firms to potential liability if it later transpires that those Executors or Administrators were not actually entitled to administer the estate.
This brings about the holding position discussed above, during which no party can demonstrate the necessary authority to transact, notwithstanding that steps may be taken to preserve or gather in assets. Executors may be able to undertake limited administrative actions, but key activities, such as transferring or realising investments, will typically be restricted pending receipt of the Grant.
This often creates several timing and operational constraints for professional Executors. While these safeguards are necessary, they can result in delays extending over several months and often driven by the time taken to obtain the Grant itself and, in this period, accounts are frequently frozen or subject to restrictions. Third-party institutions will be reluctant to accept instructions from family members or even named Executors without formal documentation, given the potential liability if they act incorrectly.
While firms should strive to assist the families of bereaved customers as much as they can, they do also need to consider their own potential liability. Unless firms are willing to take a view regarding potential risk and the level of liability, insisting on a formal Grant is wholly reasonable even though it may cause delays.
At the same time, clear and consistent communication throughout the estate administration process is critical. Bereaved family members are also dealing with grief while navigating a complex and unfamiliar legal framework, and there remain widespread misconceptions about what can be done, and how quickly, following a death. Regular communication can help explain why these steps are necessary and manage expectations, however, it can also give rise to tension around costs, particularly where prolonged administration and increased engagement result in higher fees.
Firms must therefore strike a careful balance between maintaining transparency on charges and providing clear, empathetic support to vulnerable individuals in line with regulatory expectations.
Finally, in addition to the legal and operational backdrop, firms must consider the FCA's focus on outcomes.
From a regulatory perspective, bereavement is being assessed with reference to the full customer journey, including communications, service standards, vulnerability support and, in particular, how fees are handled.
The FCA has made clear that it will intervene where ongoing advice fees continue after death without justification. At the same time, its current review goes further, asking not just whether firms can charge under the terms of the agreement, but whether those charges deliver fair value in practice and how they are communicated.
In the meantime, firms are placed in a difficult position: they are responsible for safeguarding assets but may lack a clear mandate to take substantive action. This tension can give rise to poor customer outcomes, particularly where markets move or urgent decisions are required. Doing nothing is not necessarily a neutral option, portfolios may drift and value can be affected. Conversely, continuing to manage assets, particularly where fees continue, risks regulatory challenge if the firm cannot demonstrate that a service is being delivered and that value is being provided (notwithstanding the potential exposure discussed above for firms acting on instructions before a Grant of Representation is obtained).
Overlaying this is the FCA’s treatment of bereavement as a vulnerability issue, bringing expectations around clear communication, support and good outcomes. The question is therefore not simply whether firms are entitled to act, but whether what they are doing can be justified from an outcomes perspective.
The FCA’s focus on outcomes and fair value is understandable, particularly in the context of vulnerable customers. However, there is a risk in treating the issue as a simple question of stopping services and charges on death. In reality, firms are often making judgement calls in circumstances where authority is unclear, instructions are unavailable, and delay is unavoidable. Firms will therefore frequently be choosing between imperfect options and will be judged on how well those decisions can be justified in the circumstances.
It is unlikely that there will be a single, universally correct approach. What the FCA's current focus makes clear, however, is that firms will need to be able to justify their approach. That means that firms should not simply default to stopping all activity. In many cases, inactivity itself can lead to poor outcomes, as discussed above.
Firms will therefore need to be proactive and ensure they can demonstrate a clear and consistent framework for handling bereavement cases, which includes when services are paused or continue, how any ongoing charges are assessed for fair value, how vulnerable customers are identified and supported, and how decisions are recorded and monitored.
