St James's Place Wealth Management Plc · DRN-5783582

The complaint Mr E complains that St James’s Place Wealth Management Plc (‘SJP’) didn’t disclose its fees, didn’t adequately provide the ongoing advice reviews it charged him for, and that its letters to him were not accurate. What happened In April 2018, Mr E became a client of a financial adviser firm which was and remains an appointed representative of SJP. I’ll refer to SJP going forward. SJP’s April 2018 suitability letter recommended that he open an SJP Retirement Account (‘RA’, a type of personal pension) and contribute a single lump sum of £10,000 gross to it, as well as regular monthly contributions of £625 gross. The letter also recorded that SJP would provide Mr E with ongoing annual reviews, and that it had provided Mr E with various documents including its product illustration. As well as separate annual reviews, over the following years SJP provided Mr E with further suitability letters in March 2019, September 2019, March 2022 and April 2023 setting out that it had reviewed his circumstances and arrangements and recommended that he make a series of single lump sum contributions and/or increases to his regular contributions to his SJP RA. And its suitability letter of January 2022 recommended he transfer his group personal pension (‘GPP’) of £46,810 to his SJP RA. In November 2023, SJP wrote to Mr E to say it had discussed his circumstances and portfolio with him and these were still aligned with his attitude to risk. So they agreed to leave things as they were at that time. In March 2024 they had a discussion and SJP provided Mr E with its suitability letter in which it said that his objectives and circumstances (including his attitude to risk) hadn’t changed, and it recommended that he make a single lump sum contribution of £10,000 to his SJP RA. In September 2024, Mr E contacted SJP with concerns about the service it had provided; it appears that this was in response to a historic review that SJP was carrying out. On 12 November 2024, SJP messaged Mr E to say that it would “still welcome the chance to speak” to Mr E; Mr E replied that he’d call in due course. On 9 January 2025, SJP again messaged Mr E to ask if he was “up to grabbing a coffee at some point”; Mr E replied that he’d no problem with that but was struggling for time at the moment. On 9 January 2025, SJP wrote to Mr E to say it had tried to arrange an appointment with him to review the ongoing suitability of his financial plan but that Mr E preferred not to meet yet, was considering his options regarding his investments, and had suspended contributions to his SJP RA. SJP said it recommended carrying out an annual review and that Mr E should let it know if he no longer wanted ongoing advice, as this was something he was paying for. Soon after, Mr E messaged SJP to say this letter bore “little resemblance to reality” as SJP’s messages hadn’t been about reviewing any aspect of his investments. He added that SJP

-- 1 of 6 --

hadn’t yet responded to his complaint and he didn’t want the adviser to contact him until the complaint had run its course. In February 2025 SJP cancelled the ongoing advice charge (‘OAC’) Mr E was paying. Around the same time, Mr E brought his complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service. He said SJP’s communications about the ongoing reviews didn’t adequately cover pension performance, the costs, his attitude to risk and capacity for loss, and the continued suitability of the products he held. That SJP hadn’t disclosed the early withdrawal charges (‘EWC’) applicable to each contribution. That it hadn’t provided an annual review every year. And when they did meet, he’d initiated the reviews, SJP had couched them as social events, and the letters he received afterwards didn’t accurately reflect what had been discussed but he’d previously let this go as he’d trusted the adviser. Our Service contacted SJP about Mr E’s complaint. Its June 2025 final response letter said it had set out all the charges to Mr E at the start and on an ongoing basis. It had correctly assessed his attitude to risk and provided him with suitable advice. Mr E hadn’t previously told it that its letters were inaccurate. And that annual advice reviews took place in almost all years from 2018 to 2024, except for 2020. So it offered to refund the OACs Mr E paid for the 2020 annual review, plus interest at 8% simple, less tax of 20%. This amounted to £219.56. It also offered Mr E a further £150 as compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. Mr E didn’t accept SJP’s offer and asked our Service to investigate. But our Investigator thought SJP had disclosed its charges to Mr E, that it was fair and reasonable to rely on what was written in SJP’s letters, that Mr E had received the ongoing advice service except for in 2020, and SJP had been right to stop charging Mr E its OAC in February 2025 when it realised it wasn’t able to deliver the annual reviews. And she thought that what SJP had already offered to put right the missed annual review in 2020 was fair and reasonable. But Mr E didn’t accept the Investigator’s view. He reiterated some of his previous points and added in summary that: • The information SJP gave to him verbally bore no resemblance to its more formal letters. SJP’s letters were to cover its back, and it relied on clients like him trusting it was unnecessary to analyse the letters in detail. In particular, the January 2022 transfer advice given verbally in no way resembled the written advice, as he was advised against leaving the GPP as it was and to transfer it to the SJP RA, but this wasn’t in the suitability letter. And Mr E thought that suitability letter might not have been sent to him within the times allowed following the verbal advice. • He’d trusted the SJP adviser, as he’d previously been Mr E’s bank manager. But once he realised the verbal and written information was different, he stopped his pension contributions. • There were some months between his messages with SJP and it stopping the OAC charge in February 2025, so he’d still been paying OACs after withdrawing from this service. As agreement couldn’t be reached, this complaint has been passed to me for a decision. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint.

-- 2 of 6 --

I’d like to start by acknowledging that I’ve been provided with a great deal of comments and evidence in relation to this complaint. And I’d like to reassure both parties that I’ve carefully considered everything provided. But my decision, either in the background or in my findings, won’t set out or address every point made or every piece of evidence. That’s deliberate; while I mean no discourtesy, my decision will instead only set out and address what I see to be relevant in reaching a fair and reasonable outcome to this complaint against SJP. I’ve taken into account relevant law and regulations, regulator’s rules, guidance and standards and codes of practice - many of these are found in the Financial Conduct Authority’s (‘FCA’) handbook under the Principles for Businesses (‘PRIN’) and the Conduct of Business Sourcebook (‘COBS’). I’ve also thought about what I consider to have been good industry practice at the time. Disclosure of charges Having considered the documents that SJP provided to Mr E over the years, I’m satisfied that, both initially and on an ongoing basis, SJP clearly disclosed the costs of its service to him. I say that because its suitability letter of April 2018 said that the EWC will apply and referred Mr E to the illustration it had provided him with for full details. This illustration set out the costs, including how the initial advice charge was calculated and collected across the first five years and how this was recouped if the pension was withdrawn early via the EWC, and how charges can reduce the growth of his investment and affect the value of his investment. And I’ve seen that the suitability letters SJP later provided to Mr E over the years also recorded that it had given him an illustration, and that these illustrations again set out the details of the costs, including the EWC. Further, I’m also satisfied that SJP’s January 2022 suitability letter, in which it recommended that he transfer his GPP to his SJP RA, made clear that what was being recommended was more expensive than his GPP. Because it explained how much more the SJP pension would cost compared with his GPP and by how much it would need to grow by to outperform it. Ongoing advice reviews Mr E has made submissions about the adequacy of SJP’s ongoing advice reviews. He believes SJP’s communications around the ongoing reviews didn’t adequately cover pension performance, the costs, his attitude to risk and capacity for loss, and the continued suitability of the products he held. So, I think it is firstly important to establish what service SJP agreed to provide Mr E with. The FCA issued a factsheet in 2014 called ‘For investment advisers - Setting out what we require from advisers on how they charge their clients’. This said: 'Ongoing adviser charges Ongoing charges should only be levied where a consumer is paying for ongoing service, such as a performance review of their investments, or where the product is a regular payment one. If you are providing an ongoing service, you should clearly confirm the details of the ongoing service, any associated charges and how the client can cancel it. This can be written or orally disclosed. You must ensure you have robust systems and controls in place to make sure your clients receive the ongoing service you have committed to.' This did not set out what a review in return for an OAC should include. Instead, it makes it clear that if a consumer is paying for an ongoing service, the business had to clearly confirm the details of the service being provided for that fee.

-- 3 of 6 --

From 3 January 2018, following the introduction of MiFID II, the Conduct of Business Sourcebook (‘COBS’) included further obligations on investment firms: “COBS 9A.3.8EU Investments firms providing a periodic assessment of the suitability of the recommendations provided pursuant to Article 54(12) shall disclose all of the following: a) the frequency and extent of the periodic suitability assessment and where relevant, the conditions that trigger that assessment; b) the extent to which the information previously collected will be subject to reassessment; and c) the way in which an updated recommendation will be communicated to the client. COBS 9A.3.9EU Investment firms providing a periodic suitability assessment shall review, in order to enhance the service, the suitability of the recommendations given at least annually. The frequency of this assessment shall be increased depending on the risk profile of the client and the type of financial instruments recommended.” While this added extra requirements, it did not set out what a review should look like or include. Again, it was left to the business providing the service to set out what service it would provide in return for an ongoing fee, although this had to be provided at least annually. In light of this, it is appropriate to look towards the documents provided by SJP to Mr E which explained the service being provided in return for the OAC. In the suitability letter sent to Mr E in April 2018 relating to his SJP RA, SJP said: “Ongoing Advice A key element of financial planning is conducting regular reviews of your financial arrangements to ensure the course of action taken today remains appropriate to your personal circumstances in the future as it is likely your objectives and circumstances will change over time. As part of my ongoing service I will contact you on a regular basis to arrange a review, which we have agreed at present should be held annually. In addition, you will receive an annual statement in respect of your investments.” So, overall, I think that in return for the OAC SJP would review, on an annual basis, whether the investments in his SJP RA remained suitable for Mr E based on his objectives and attitude to risk. I acknowledge that in his submissions, Mr E says that when he did have ongoing annual reviews, he’d initiated these and SJP had couched them as social events. But regardless of who initiated them or how they were couched, I’m satisfied that the ongoing advice service would’ve been fulfilled as long as SJP had undertaken a review of Mr E’s circumstances, and been satisfied that the arrangements in place still met with his objectives. And for clarity, I think advising Mr E to keep his arrangements as they are would satisfy this. And having considered the reviews and suitability letters SJP provided to Mr E over the years, I’m satisfied that annual reviews took place in all years except for 2020 and 2025. SJP itself accepts it didn’t provide an annual review service in 2020 and has itself already

-- 4 of 6 --

offered to refund the OACs charged for 2020, plus simple interest at 8% per year, less tax. It’s also offered Mr E £150 for any distress and inconvenience this may have caused. But I think that to put things right, SJP should also refund to Mr E any OACs he paid towards the 2025 annual review. Because my understanding is that Mr E would have paid the OACs monthly in advance of each annual review, yet he clearly did not receive an annual review in 2025. I know SJP stopped Mr E’s OACs in February 2025 but, as Mr E has pointed out, this means there were still at least several months in which he’d paid OACs for a 2025 annual review he didn’t ultimately receive. So I think SJP should also refund any OACs Mr E paid towards the 2025 annual review, on the same basis it has already offered to refund the OACs for the 2020 annual review. And SJP has agreed to do so. Taking everything into consideration, I’m satisfied all this is a fair and reasonable way to put things right in the circumstances. As I say, SJP stopped charging Mr E an OAC in February 2025, once it became clear to SJP that it could no longer meet its obligation to provide ongoing advice to Mr E. I don’t think SJP was wrong to stop this charge because, as the FCA’s 2014 factsheet reflects, SJP was required to provide the service that was being paid for, not just to offer it. Accuracy and timeliness of SJP’s communications Mr E says the information SJP gave to him verbally during advice and reviews bore no resemblance to the letters it sent him, and believes the letters were simply to cover its back and it relied on him not analysing the letters. And he’s particularly pointed to the January 2022 transfer advice and to the invitations for ‘coffee’ as examples of this. He’s also explained that he’d let these inaccuracies go at those times because he’d trusted the adviser. Mr E says the January 2022 transfer advice given to him verbally did not resemble the written advice that followed, because he says SJP advised him against leaving his monies in the GPP and to transfer them the SJP RA, but this wasn’t in the suitability letter. However, I’ve seen that the suitability letter in question said “I recommend you replace the [GPP] existing arrangements with a St James’s Place Retirement Account.” I think this does resemble what Mr E says SJP advised him verbally, albeit worded differently. In any case, SJP’s first suitability letter to Mr E in April 2018 ended by inviting him to contact SJP if there was anything in the report that was incorrect or if he had any questions about its contents or the other documents it had provided him with. And it repeated this invitation at later points in other letters. Taking all of this into account, there’s not enough evidence for me to conclude that SJP did something wrong here. Given SJP’s letters were about the important matter of his pension provision, it’s reasonable to expect Mr E to have read SJP’s letters and to have contacted it if they contained inaccuracies as it invited him to, even if he trusted his adviser. And ultimately, I’m persuaded by the contemporaneous documentary evidence. I know Mr E has questioned whether after its verbal advice, SJP then sent its resulting January 2022 suitability letter to him within the time allowed. I note that suitability letter says they had their discussion on 10 December 2021, and the letter was issued on 7 January 2022. Allowing for the Christmas season when many firms close for a time or have staff on leave, I don’t think SJP took an unreasonably long time to issue this letter. Summary

-- 5 of 6 --

Mr E didn’t receive the ongoing advice review in 2020 and 2025 that he had paid for. As such, I think it is fair and reasonable for SJP to compensate Mr E for the ongoing advice review he paid for but didn't receive in these years, and to pay him £150 as compensation for any distress and inconvenience this caused him. My final decision For the reasons set out above, my decision is that I partly uphold Mr E’s complaint. To put things right, St. James's Place Wealth Management Plc should refund to Mr E the OACs charged for the 2020 and 2025 annual reviews, on the basis set out in its June 2025 final response letter. St. James's Place Wealth Management Plc should also pay Mr E the further £150 it offered in its June 2025 final response letter as compensation for his distress and inconvenience. St. James's Place Wealth Management Plc should also recalculate the interest offered on the refund of the OACs for 2020 and 2025 so as to bring that interest up to the date of my final decision. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr E to accept or reject my decision before 22 April 2026. Ailsa Wiltshire Ombudsman

-- 6 of 6 --