When Advisers and Platforms Collide: Defending the Boundaries of Intermediary Responsibility

The loss that started after the instruction

A client misses a property completion, or sits out of the market, because a platform did not deal. The complaint is nevertheless addressed to the adviser. The allegation collapses two different jobs: the recommendation, and the custody or administration that was supposed to carry it out.

COBS 2.1.1R requires a firm to act honestly, fairly and professionally in the client’s best interests. It does not make the adviser the insurer of the platform’s backlog. SYSC draws the operational boundary around the firm that actually holds the permission and the process. PRIN 2A.2, where it applies, asks which firm in the chain could foresee and avoid the harm.

The timeline is the defence

A forensic log separates the handoff from the delay.

• When the client instructed the adviser, and when the adviser passed a clear instruction to the platform.
• What the platform’s own process promised, and what its audit trail shows it did.
• The gap, in days, and the financial consequence of that gap alone.
• Any chasing, and any point at which the adviser knew the platform had stalled and did not tell the client.

If the instruction was prompt and complete, the loss from the backlog sits with the custodian or the platform operator. Case fees and redress follow that finding. If the adviser delayed the instruction, or gave the platform an instruction that could not be dealt, that portion stays with the adviser. The letter should say which is which, in dates.

Summary

Intermediary responsibility ends where the other firm’s operation begins, provided the handoff is proved. A timeline written from both audit trails is what stops an advice firm paying for a platform’s delay.