Not upheld: charges and fees disclosure; alleged mis-selling of charges complaint against St. James's Place Wealth Management Plc

Decision detail

Summary

Mr R complained that an SJP adviser led him to believe that charges for investment advice on a £2,000,000 investment would be waived, with payment instead through ongoing 0.5% annual charges. In 2025, he discovered a 4.5% initial advice charge had been applied to investment bonds. SJP explained that the initial charge was waived for unit trusts as agreed, but investment bonds had a different charging structure. The ombudsman found no documentary evidence supporting Mr R's recollection of an agreement that all advice would be free or paid only through ongoing charges. The product illustrations clearly disclosed the different charging structures, and the ombudsman concluded it was unlikely SJP would provide free advice on such a large investment beyond the concession already granted by waiving unit trust charges.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman distinguished between 'no initial charges' (meaning no upfront costs) and 'free advice'. The evidence showed that what was agreed was a charging structure with no upfront costs, achieved by waiving the unit trust initial charge. The investment bonds had a different structure without upfront charges, so there was nothing to waive. The product illustrations clearly disclosed the 4.5% initial advice charge for bonds. While Mr R may have misunderstood the arrangement, the documentary evidence did not support his recollection of an agreement that all advice would be free or paid only through ongoing charges. The ombudsman found it unlikely that SJP would provide free advice on a £2,000,000 investment beyond the concession already granted.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website