Editorial policy and how we review

Editorial ownership and independence

This site is run by a small independent editorial team, separate from Tide and any other provider we write about. Editorial judgements — what to publish, what drawbacks to highlight, how a product is scored against alternatives — are made independently of any commercial relationship. Where a commercial relationship exists (see our commercial disclosure page), it is disclosed, not hidden and not allowed to override an honest assessment.

One person is accountable for the accuracy of a given page at any point in time. That person is responsible for the initial research, for the monthly recheck, and for responding to any correction raised against that page. We think naming an accountable owner internally, even without publishing an individual byline externally, produces materially better upkeep than treating a page as a shared, ownerless asset that nobody is specifically responsible for.

Sourcing

Volatile facts — prices, rates, protection limits, offer terms — are taken from the provider's own current pages, recorded with a source URL and a check date, and stored as data rather than typed freely into prose. That is why a plan price appears with a source link next to it and why changing one record updates the whole site rather than requiring us to hunt down every mention.

We never state a figure that is set externally and can change — such as an FSCS protection limit, a specific fee, or a reward amount — from memory. If we have not checked it recently enough to be confident, the page says so and points you to the primary source instead. Where our source and a reader's own experience appear to disagree, we treat that as a signal to recheck immediately rather than to dismiss the report.

Verification method and cadence

1. Read the campaign terms on the exact page a reader would apply through, not a summary or a third-party description.
2. Record the reward amounts, qualifying windows and eligibility conditions exactly as stated.
3. Record the date the terms were checked.
4. Recheck monthly at minimum, and immediately if we have reason to believe something has changed.
5. Update the page and log the change when a recheck finds a difference, rather than silently editing the figure.

What triggers an off-cycle recheck

• A reader reports a reward amount, deadline or condition that does not match what we have published.
• A visible change to Tide's own campaign or pricing pages, spotted during unrelated research.
• A pattern of similar support queries suggesting a mechanic has changed even though no formal announcement has been made.
• A change to Tide's public Refer a Friend programme that could be confused with the REFER200 partner campaign.

What we refuse to publish

• Testimonials we cannot verify, and any invented customer quote.
• Star ratings or aggregate scores, because we do not operate a verified review panel.
• Copied Trustpilot scores or customer counts presented as current fact.
• Guaranteed-cashback wording, or any promise about a decision the provider makes.
• Unsupported superlatives — no 'best account' claim without stated criteria.
• Near-duplicate pages created to occupy a keyword rather than answer a question.
• Invented staff names, credentials or awards that do not exist.
• A recommendation that omits a drawback we know to be true because it would soften the page's persuasiveness.

How we review a product

1. Read the provider's own product, pricing and protection pages in full before writing anything.
2. Model the cost for realistic usage patterns rather than quoting headline fees in isolation.
3. Identify who the product is genuinely wrong for, and say so on the same page as the call to action.
4. Separate the offer from the product — a good promotion does not make a bad fit, and we say so where it applies.
5. Re-check monthly, and log what changed since the previous check.

Offer verification status

An offer is only marked live and verified once we have read the campaign terms on the exact page readers will apply through and confirmed the reward amounts, windows and eligibility for ourselves. Until then it carries an awaiting-verification status, and the interactive tools on this site state clearly that they are illustrative and do not present themselves as active or guaranteed.

Correction handling, step by step

1. A correction report is logged as soon as it arrives, whatever channel it comes through.
2. The accountable owner for that page rechecks the primary source directly, rather than taking the reporter's word or our own memory as sufficient.
3. If the report is correct, the page is updated and the change is dated on the page.
4. If the report is incorrect — for example, based on a different Tide programme or an out-of-date screenshot — we reply explaining why, rather than leaving the reporter without an answer.
5. Discrepancies against the provider's own current terms are always resolved in favour of the provider's terms, since Tide is the only party that ultimately determines eligibility, reward amounts and payment dates.

How to raise an issue

Send the page, the specific claim, and — ideally — the primary source that contradicts us, through the contact route linked from our commercial disclosure and about pages. We aim to review correction reports promptly and update the page rather than leaving an error live while we deliberate. We would rather receive ten reports a year that turn out to be based on a misunderstanding than miss one genuine error because nobody felt able to flag it.

Review and update cadence

Pages covering offer mechanics, fees and protection status are rechecked at least monthly. Pages covering general product features are reviewed less frequently but are updated as soon as we become aware of a material change. Every page that carries a checked figure states, or links to, the date it was last verified.