UK broker pages quote £50k, £85k and £120k for FSCS protection

Two UK retail-broker websites currently give clients three different Financial Services Compensation Scheme limits—£50,000, £85,000 and £120,000—without consistently separating the failure of an investment firm from the failure of a bank. The current FSCS limit for eligible investment claims is £85,000. The £120,000 figure applies to eligible deposits at banks, building societies and credit unions from 1 December 2025.[1][2][3][4][5]

OANDA Europe Limited’s client-money page still says a shortfall following the broker’s liquidation may be compensated up to £50,000 and that loss following failure of a bank holding client money may be covered up to £85,000. Both figures are historical for the events described. Tickmill UK’s website has the opposite problem: prominent safety and help pages say clients are covered up to £120,000 if Tickmill itself defaults, while another live FAQ and its legal documents state the investment limit of £85,000.[3][4][5][6]

The scheme has different limits for different legal failures

FSCS protection is not one generic pot attached to any money held by a financial company. The amount and route depend on what type of authorised firm failed, what regulated activity created the liability, whether the customer and claim are eligible, and when the firm failed. For an investment firm that failed on or after 1 April 2019, FSCS says it may compensate a valid claim up to £85,000 per eligible person, per firm. The previous investment limit of £50,000 applies to failures from 1 January 2010 through 31 March 2019.[1]

Deposit protection is separate. If a UK-authorised bank, building society or credit union fails after 30 November 2025, the limit is £120,000 per eligible person, per authorised deposit-taker. Between 30 January 2017 and 30 November 2025, it was £85,000. FSCS expressly warns that the £120,000 limit is only its deposits-and-savings limit, not the limit for investments and other protected activities.[2]

That distinction is particularly important for broker client money. A retail broker normally segregates qualifying client money from its own funds. If the broker fails and the segregated pool is complete, clients should receive their share subject to the insolvency and distribution process. FSCS becomes relevant where there is an eligible claim and the failed firm cannot meet it—for example, a shortfall in money or assets held for clients. If instead the bank holding the segregated account fails, a deposit-protection analysis may apply, subject to legal ownership, beneficiary identification and the customer’s other eligible balances with the same authorised bank.[1][2][3][6]

OANDA’s page preserves two superseded limits

OANDA’s UK help page correctly distinguishes the two events. It asks first what happens if OANDA Europe Limited goes into liquidation and then what happens if a bank used to hold client money goes into liquidation. The problem is the numbers. For the broker-failure shortfall it quotes £50,000, the investment limit that ceased to apply to new firm failures on 1 April 2019. For the bank-failure scenario it quotes £85,000, the deposit limit replaced by £120,000 on 1 December 2025.[1][2][3]

The lag is therefore not a single missed annual update. One statement is at least seven years behind the current investment limit; the other remained correct until late 2025 but is now almost a year out of date. The page is live and presented as an answer for current UK clients, with no visible qualification that the figures apply only to historical failure dates.[1][2][3]

OANDA’s statement that other balances at the failed bank affect the deposit limit is directionally consistent with the FSCS rule that protection is aggregated per eligible person, per authorised firm. But keeping that caveat while leaving the limit at £85,000 could make a careful reader more, rather than less, confident that the page is current. The structure is technically detailed enough to look authoritative while its two central amounts point to different historical regimes.[2][3]

Tickmill gives opposite answers on the same live site

Tickmill’s safety-of-funds page says a client is eligible for compensation of up to £120,000 in the event of Tickmill UK’s insolvency. Its licences page similarly says Tickmill UK clients are protected up to £120,000 if the firm cannot meet its obligations. A dedicated fund-protection help page repeats that clients are covered to £120,000 in the event of default by Tickmill UK Ltd.[4]

Other Tickmill pages say £85,000. A live FAQ on whether funds are protected gives that figure for default by Tickmill UK Ltd. The firm’s terms of business say investment claims are subject to a maximum payment of 100% of the first £85,000. Its risk disclosure and security-of-funds document also use £85,000 for investment-business or firm-administration claims.[5][6]

The £120,000 statement therefore cannot be reconciled merely by saying one page describes a failed bank and another a failed broker. The pages using £120,000 expressly connect it to insolvency or default of Tickmill UK Ltd, an FCA-authorised investment firm. FSCS’s own current guidance assigns £85,000 to eligible investment claims and reserves £120,000 for eligible deposits at authorised deposit-takers.[1][2][4][5]

Tickmill’s broad wording creates a second issue. It says all clients are covered. FSCS describes protection as dependent on the eligibility of the person, firm, product, service and claim. Professional classification, the regulated activity involved, the legal entity contracted with and the circumstances of loss can matter. A marketing summary can be concise, but replacing conditional eligibility with an unqualified statement about all clients expands the promise beyond the scheme’s own language.[1][4]

The errors point in different directions

OANDA understates the currently published limits in both scenarios. Tickmill overstates the investment limit on some pages by £35,000, while stating the correct £85,000 on others. The consumer consequences are therefore not symmetrical. An understated figure may discourage a client or cause unnecessary concern; an overstated figure may create confidence in compensation that is not available under the described category.[1][2][3][4][5]

Neither discrepancy establishes that client money is missing, that either broker is insolvent or that FSCS would reject a particular claim. Compensation is a last-resort mechanism after a firm cannot meet liabilities. The audit is about disclosure integrity: the amount a retail client is told while deciding where to hold money and how much exposure to place with one legal entity.[1][3][4]

The FCA’s communication rules provide the relevant standard without predetermining an enforcement conclusion. COBS 4.2.1 requires a firm’s communication or financial promotion to be fair, clear and not misleading. The Consumer Duty also requires retail communications to meet information needs, be likely to be understood and support properly informed decisions. Whether a specific page breaches those rules is a matter for the firm and regulator after considering its context; the factual conflicts are visible without making that legal finding.[7]

A correct page needs a failure map, not one large number

The cleanest disclosure would identify the contracting entity, explain segregation, and set out separate rows for failure of the broker and failure of a client-money bank. Each row should state the current limit, eligibility conditions, aggregation rule and effective date, while linking directly to FSCS. It should also avoid implying that ordinary trading losses or poor investment performance are compensated; FSCS says they are not.[1][2]

Why the protection limit must be tied to the precise legal claim

The £50,000, £85,000 and £120,000 numbers are not an interchangeable menu of cover limits from which a retail trader can select the largest. Deposit protection depends on the institution holding the deposit and the eligibility of that deposit; investment compensation concerns the specified failure of a regulated investment firm and eligible protected claims. A broker’s segregated client-money balance, an eligible bank deposit and an investor’s adverse market position can arise inside the same customer relationship while carrying very different legal classifications. A published percentage or sterling ceiling without the applicable claim type can therefore misinform even when the number was correct on the page when written.[1][2]

The evidence required to adjudicate a specific customer claim is the legal entity named in the client agreement, the location and status of the money or asset, the relevant provider’s insolvency, the compensation scheme’s effective-date rules and applicable exclusions. None of the scheme limits is an insurance policy against ordinary leveraged trading losses. An older guide can accurately state the limit in force on its original publication date and still become unsafe for present-day use if it is not updated or labelled historical.[1][2]

For Tickmill, that would mean removing £120,000 from descriptions of Tickmill UK’s own default unless the firm can identify a different legally applicable deposit claim and explain it. For OANDA, it would mean replacing £50,000 with the post-April-2019 investment limit and £85,000 with the post-December-2025 deposit limit, while preserving the caveats about eligibility and other balances.[1][2][3][4]

The wider lesson is that compensation pages can become wrong without any change to a broker’s underlying safeguarding arrangements. Limits move, old documents remain indexed and website modules update unevenly. That makes version control a consumer-protection control, not a cosmetic publishing task. On 8 November 2026, the official scheme and the broker pages do not line up: £85,000 is the current investment limit, £120,000 is the current deposit limit, and £50,000 belongs to an older investment-failure window.[1][2][3][4][5]

Report an error or submit an update