Insights from the February 2025 AF5 Exam: What Candidates Can Learn

The CII AF5 exam continues to test not just technical knowledge but the ability to apply it in a way that’s tailored to clients’ real-world circumstances. The February 2025 sitting offered several clear lessons on where candidates gained or lost marks – lessons that can help future students sharpen their approach and avoid common pitfalls.

This article is correct as at 21 October 2025.

The February 2025 sitting of the AF5 exam highlighted the need to apply technical knowledge directly to the fact-find scenario. While overall performance was strong, examiner comments revealed recurring weaknesses. Below is a summary of common areas where marks were lost, along with training insights to support future preparation.

1 – Planning for Sylvia’s Long-Term Financial Security

One question required candidates to identify suitable actions to improve Sylvia’s long-term financial security should Martin die before her. Only a small number of candidates recognised that Sylvia could continue to make pension contributions to build additional retirement funds in her own name.

Training insight: Candidates must remember that it isn’t just about protecting the surviving spouse immediately but also about building independent financial security. It’s worth also bearing in mind that pension contributions for a lower or non-earning spouse, or for those clients already retired, can still be an important option that shouldn’t be overlooked.

2 – Misunderstanding the ‘Small Pots’ Rules

Candidates were asked to explain the ‘small pots’ rules, Most understood the concept, but some failed to state that these pots must be taken as lump sums with no residual benefits remaining in the pension.

Training insight: Niche technical rules like ‘small pots’ are often tested in AF5. They are usually signposted in the case study (as they were), so it’s crucial to revise not just the high-level benefits but also the specific rules and limitations and then tie them back to how they apply to the client’s situation.

3 – Pension Contributions and Relevant Earnings

Candidates were asked to recommend and justify why Sylvia should consider making further pension contributions. While many gave generic answers, the examiner was disappointed to note that some ignored the information in the fact-find that Sylvia had only recently retired. This meant she likely still had relevant earnings this tax year, allowing higher pension contributions based on those earnings.

Training insight: This is a classic AF5 pitfall – giving generic advice instead of using the client-specific information provided in the fact-find. Candidates should notice the small details like this in the fact-find and always tailor their responses to the clients concerned. If relevant earnings are mentioned, they should form part of the pension contribution justification.

4 – Drawbacks of Retaining the Inherited Property

Candidates were asked to explain the key drawbacks of retaining and renting out an inherited property to generate additional income in retirement. While overall performance was good, surprisingly few identified that:

• The rental income would be taxable, and
• Martin would need to complete annual self-assessment tax returns.

Training insight: Taxation and administration are core considerations in property ownership. As a level 6 exam, AF5 candidates are expected to demonstrate a thorough understanding of  these practical issues, not just higher-level concerns such as void periods or maintenance costs.

5 – Lasting Powers of Attorney (LPAs)

The exam also tested candidates on why Martin and Sylvia’s current LPAs may be unsuitable and what actions should be taken. While many recognised that the LPAs could be inappropriate, only a limited number understood that registered LPAs cannot be amended but need to be revoked and new LPAs registered.

Training insight:  In this case, both Martin and Sylvia were acting as sole attorneys, making it highly likely that the exam would test the drawbacks of having only one attorney. For AF5, candidates are expected to go beyond simply identifying benefits and drawbacks. They should also demonstrate a clear understanding of the practical implications for the clients and how the issue could be addressed.

Final Thoughts: The Power of Client-Specific Application

One of the key differences between R06 and AF5 is that AF5 requires a deeper analysis of both technical knowledge and the real-world impact on the client. Examiner comments show that while candidates could state the features, benefits, and drawbacks of the clients’ financial arrangements, marks were often lost for not tailoring their answers to the clients’ specific circumstances or addressing the implications and practical steps involved in the recommended actions.

Grab the resources you need!

AF5 can feel overwhelming, especially when it comes to applying technical knowledge to a fact-find. Our free taster analysis shows you exactly how to bridge that gap, giving you a clearer idea of what examiners are looking for and how to structure your answers with confidence.