Not upheld: suitability of investment advice, appropriateness of charges, failure to advise on tax planning opportunities complaint against St. James's Place Wealth Management Plc

Decision detail

Summary

Mr W complained to the FOS about advice and service from SJP relating to investment products, alleging that recommendations to transfer ISAs and other assets were motivated by increasing SJP's assets under management rather than serving his financial interests, that he was not advised to reinvest VCTs for additional tax relief, that IHT mitigation was inadequately addressed, and that charges were opaque and excessive. The ombudsman found the ISA transfer advice was suitable given Mr W's preference for SJP's investment management and willingness to pay higher charges, that Mr W was informed of VCT reinvestment opportunities in 2016 but chose not to pursue them, that IHT mitigation was discussed throughout the relationship but Mr W deferred implementation, and that the evidence did not support that advice was driven by fee generation. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the ISA transfers were suitable because Mr W was prepared to pay higher charges to benefit from SJP's investment management approach and ongoing advice, which he valued and could not receive from external providers. The fact that SJP waived transfer fees and did not recommend transferring all external investments demonstrated the advice was not solely motivated by increasing assets under management. Regarding VCTs, Mr W was explicitly informed in 2016 that he could reinvest for further tax relief and chose not to do so; therefore, SJP was not obligated to provide ongoing advice on these products as they did not attract ongoing advice charges. On IHT mitigation, SJP made various recommendations throughout the relationship, but Mr W chose not to pursue them at the time due to his intention to make gifts to his children; this was a reasonable outcome given Mr W's stated preferences.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website