Not upheld: failure to advise on tax implications of investment bond withdrawals complaint against St. James's Place Wealth Management Plc (SJPWM)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr Y complained that SJPWM failed to advise him that chargeable events on his investment bonds would be treated as bond anniversary dates rather than the dates funds were received, resulting in a significant tax bill. Mr Y held two investment bonds, one of which included an illiquid property fund investment that was suspended and being wound down. When Mr Y instructed withdrawals in early 2025, he stated he was receiving advice from another financial adviser. SJPWM processed the withdrawal instructions without providing unsolicited advice about tax implications. The ombudsman found that SJPWM's ongoing advice agreement was limited to annual suitability reviews and did not extend to advising on replacing investments or their tax consequences, and that SJPWM acted reasonably in relying on Mr Y's stated receipt of external advice. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the chargeable event dates recorded were correct under standard industry practice for partial withdrawals. The ongoing advice agreement with SJPWM was limited to annual suitability reviews of existing investments and did not extend to advice about replacing investments with new bonds or the tax implications thereof. SJPWM was not obliged to provide unsolicited information about chargeable event dates, particularly as Mr Y had indicated he was receiving advice from another financial adviser and had given clear instructions to proceed with withdrawals. The ombudsman concluded that SJPWM acted fairly and reasonably in processing the instructions without second-guessing Mr Y's decision-making or the advice he was receiving elsewhere.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website