Not upheld: unsuitable investment advice and lack of disclosure regarding property fund inclusion complaint against St. James's Place Wealth Management Plc (trading as St. James's Place)

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs C complained that SJP gave unsuitable investment advice by including property fund investments in her pension without her consent, and that she was not informed of the risk that the fund could become inaccessible. SJP suspended withdrawals from its Property Fund in October 2023, which delayed Mrs C's pension transfer to another provider in November 2024. Mrs C claimed she had explicitly told her adviser she did not want property investments. The ombudsman found that SJP's recommendation letters and illustrations clearly disclosed the property fund inclusion (15% allocation) and that Mrs C accepted the advice without objection. No documentation supported Mrs C's claim that she had instructed the adviser to exclude property. The ombudsman concluded that SJP was transparent about the property investment and that the suspension was permitted under the terms and conditions, and therefore did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied a balance of probability test, weighing Mrs C's testimony against documented evidence. While Mrs C claimed she explicitly told the adviser she did not want property investments, this was not recorded in any fact find documents or suitability letters. The recommendation letters and illustrations clearly showed property fund inclusion at 15%, and Mrs C accepted the advice without querying this. The ombudsman found that if Mrs C had genuinely expressed a preference to avoid property, this would have been documented and she would likely have queried the illustrations before accepting. The inclusion of the Property Fund was suitable for her medium risk profile.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website