A paraplanner I work with sent me a message a few weeks ago that just said, “have you seen CP26/10 yet?” I hadn’t, not properly. I’d seen it mentioned in passing and filed it under things @Paul and the team would probably be all over. By the end of that conversation, I understood why she’d flagged it.
CP26/10: Simplifying the pensions and investment advice rules
The FCA is proposing to change part of the wording underpinning suitability assessments. Right now, firms have to gather the information “necessary” to assess suitability. Under the new proposal, that becomes information that’s “sufficient” to reasonably demonstrate a recommendation is suitable.
Two words. Both sound perfectly reasonable on their own.
But swap one for the other and the question the file has to answer shifts. “Necessary” can easily be interpreted defensively, with firms gathering everything they might conceivably need. “Sufficient” appears to give more room for proportionality, but it also introduces a judgement firms will need to apply consistently: have we gathered enough, for this client, in this situation, to justify the recommendation we’ve made? That’s a harder question, and a much more interesting one.
Why this isn’t really a compliance question
I know you’ve heard me say this a few times before: I’m not a paraplanner, and I wouldn’t try to explain COBS 9 to anyone who actually writes suitability reports for a living. But I speak to a lot of people who do, along with advisers, business owners and heads of paraplanning, most days of the week, and the same concern keeps surfacing in slightly different words.
If “sufficient” becomes the standard, who decides what’s sufficient for a particular client? Is it the adviser, using years of experience to judge in the moment? Is it a template, built once and used for everyone regardless of the case in front of them? Is it whoever happens to be writing the report that day, using their own sense of what good enough looks like?
Because if the answer is all three, depending on who’s involved, a firm doesn’t really have one suitability standard. It has as many standards as it has people writing reports.
What we’d suggest doing now
The Policy Statement isn’t expected until Q4, so there’s no need to panic. But a few of the firms we work with have already started having this conversation internally, and a handful of things have come up as genuinely useful starting points:
- Read the actual wording on “sufficient” in the consultation paper itself, not just a summary of it. It’s short, and worth reading in full rather than relying on someone else’s interpretation.
- Pull a handful of recent files and ask honestly: would we be comfortable calling this file “sufficient” if we had to justify it, rather than “necessary” because we ticked the boxes on a template?
- Decide, as a team, who owns that judgement call, not file by file, but as a process for setting the standard everyone works to.
- Build in time to revisit this once the Policy Statement is actually published. Near-final proposals have a habit of shifting slightly at the last hurdle, and this one touches the language behind almost every recommendation a firm makes.
None of that needs to happen overnight. But a file standard that’s decided by habit rather than by design is exactly the kind of thing that gets harder to unpick the longer it’s left.
Where we fit into that conversation
This is genuinely the kind of conversation we end up having with firms anyway, usually not because anyone’s asked us to interpret the rules, but because we’re looking at the same files week in, week out, across different advisers and different cases. Consistency is often easier to spot from the outside than from inside a single desk.
We’d love to hear how you think “sufficient” will play out in practice for your files, and whether your firm has already started defining what that looks like.
If you’d like to learn more about how we support financial planning firms with suitability consulting, annual reviews and operational support, you’ll find more information here:
Suitability Report Writing Services for Financial Advisers
