An independent financial adviser (IFA) can choose from the whole of the market, across investments, protection, and pensions, and recommend whatever is genuinely suitable for the client. A restricted (or tied) adviser is limited to a narrower range, sometimes a single firm’s products, sometimes a limited panel. For deputies, the distinction matters because many Court of Protection orders now specifically require that a deputy takes independent financial advice, not just financial advice generally.
Independent versus restricted: the core difference
When instructing an independent adviser, there is a shift in responsibility for suitability onto the adviser, across the full range of options available.
An independent adviser is expected to look across the whole planning spectrum, not just investments:
- Investments: access to the whole investment universe
- Protection: access to the whole protection universe, where needed
- Pensions: the full range of pension options, where relevant
A restricted adviser, by contrast, works within limits set by their business, whether that’s using only one or two firms, or choosing not to offer certain products even within their own panel. Why the deputyship order wording matters
Court orders increasingly specify that a deputy must take independent financial advice, but older orders sometimes don’t. This ambiguity creates real difficulty for deputies working under older or less specific orders:
- If the order simply says “financial advice” without specifying independent advice, a deputy has no clear steer on whether restricted, directed discretionary fund management (DFM), or independent advice is required
- Historically, deputies were sometimes directed toward investment managers with no independence requirement at all
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]