Financial Planners have been told what the regulator expects to see when dealing with so called insistent clients.
Rory Percival, FCA technical specialist, said this term does not appear in the authority's handbook but it recognises there are some circumstances where clients will want to take a different course to that recommended.

Mr Percival said that this subject had been "the one question that has been raised above all others" in recent discussions with advisers.

In some previous cases the FCA has found the adviser's advice was not sufficiently clear or there was an inadequate assessment of the client's underlying objectives.

Another problem that the FCA has encountered in the past were examples where the risks of the alternative course of action were not clearly explained.

Mr Percival, a former Financial Planner, said sometimes there had been a 'papering exercise'.

He said: "By this I mean that it wasn't really an insistent client case but it had been processed as such to avoid some of our rules – mainly the suitability rules."

A review showed instances where the end result was unsuitable for other reasons such as not being suitable for the client's risk profile.

{desktop}{/desktop}{mobile}{/mobile}

However, Mr Percival said: "We recognise there can be genuine insistent client cases. We also recognise that where people are forced to receive advice where they might otherwise not take it – ie for DB transfers over £30,000 – then there may be more insistent client cases than there have been in the past."

Mr Percival, who was a guest speaker at the Morningstar Conference earlier this week, outlined what the FCA expects to see on file:

• A clear recommendation in a suitability report to the client saying what the adviser does recommend and setting out why they think this course of action is suitable for the client
• A clear explanation of the risks of following the course of action the client is thinking about - putting the client in a position where they can make an informed decision about their options

Mr Percival said: "If, having made your recommendation clear, and clearly highlighted the risks of the alternative option, if the client still wants to go ahead against advice, then this is their right.

"Some in the sector have been saying that they will provide advice only in these scenarios – ie they will not transact the case against their advice.

"We understand the rationale for this course of action and it's the firm's right to do this if it wants. Our view is not to predict how many cases there will be but to hold firms to account and to ensure cases are genuine and are conducted appropriately."