Upheld: failure to provide ongoing advice service; inadequate documentation of reviews; charging for service not delivered complaint against St. James's Place Wealth Management Plc

Decision detail

Summary

Mr M complained that SJP failed to provide ongoing advice services he paid for, charged excessive fees, delivered poor investment performance, and failed to disclose its restricted advice model. SJP had provided advice on employer contributions to Mr M's pension in 2018 and 2019 but produced no separate review documentation beyond suitability reports referring back to previous advice. The ombudsman found that SJP failed to evidence that comprehensive reviews of Mr M's circumstances and ongoing suitability occurred in those years, with the documented evidence appearing identical to what would exist if no ongoing advice service was being provided. While the ombudsman rejected complaints about fees, performance and disclosure, it upheld the complaint regarding missing reviews and ordered SJP to refund ongoing advice charges for March 2018 to March 2021 with interest and £150 for distress and inconvenience.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that SJP failed to provide the ongoing advice service it charged for in 2018 and 2019. While SJP met with Mr M and advised on new contributions, there was insufficient evidence of comprehensive reviews of his overall circumstances, needs, objectives and attitude to risk as required by the rules and as described in SJP's own marketing materials. The fact finds showed minimal updates over years, and no separate periodic review reports were produced. Critically, the documented evidence would have looked identical if Mr M had not been paying for ongoing advice at all. The 2022 adviser's approach demonstrated a clear difference in service quality, with updated information and separate review documentation. Although Mr M later declined reviews and the new adviser provided better service from 2022 onwards, the evidence did not support that reviews occurred in 2018 and 2019 beyond advice on new contributions. The ombudsman rejected arguments that the absence of updated income/expenditure information was irrelevant, noting that the information was updated in 2022, suggesting Mr M would have provided it if asked. The ombudsman also rejected complaints about excessive fees, poor performance, and non-disclosure of restricted advice model as these were either disclosed, not guaranteed, or not supported by evidence.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website