Partially upheld: failure to provide ongoing advice service for charges taken; inadequate service documentation and delivery complaint against St. James's Place Wealth Management Plc
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6290698 of 2026-05-19T00:00:00+00:00. failure to provide ongoing advice service for charges taken; inadequate service documentation and delivery complaint against St. James's Place Wealth Management Plc. Outcome: Partially upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6290698 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-19T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | St. James's Place Wealth Management Plc |
| Product | pension |
| Claim type | failure to provide ongoing advice service for charges taken; inadequate service documentation and delivery |
| Outcome | Partially upheld |
| Remedy | SJPWM must refund the ongoing advice charges taken from Mrs E's RA in 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020, plus investment growth those sums would have experienced if invested. Lost investment growth calculated using RA performance until transfer date, then new pension scheme performance until final decision date (or FTSE UK Private Investors Income Total Return Index if fund performance unavailable). Compensation to be paid into pension plan if possible with allowance for charges and tax relief, or as lump sum with 15% notional tax reduction if pension payment not possible. Additionally, £150 compensation for distress and inconvenience. Payment within 28 days with 8% simple interest if late. |
Summary
Mrs E complained to SJPWM about failing to provide ongoing advice service for which she was paying charges, inadequate explanation of early withdrawal charges, unauthorized portfolio changes in 2020/21, and poor fund performance. SJPWM rejected the complaint. The ombudsman found that while SJPWM was in regular contact with Mrs E between 2017-2020 regarding employer contribution increases, there was insufficient evidence of meaningful annual reviews of her existing investments for which ongoing charges were being taken. The Suitability Letters focused only on new contributions and made no reference to existing funds. The ombudsman upheld the complaint for 2017-2020, finding the service inadequate for the charges taken, but rejected complaints about investment performance, portfolio changes, and charge explanations. SJPWM was ordered to refund the ongoing advice charges for those four years plus investment growth, and pay £150 compensation.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that while SJPWM was in contact with Mrs E during 2017-2020, there was insufficient evidence of meaningful annual reviews of her existing investments for which charges were being taken. The Suitability Letters focused only on increased employer contributions and made no reference to existing funds. The CFR documents contained only cursory annual entries that did not constitute compelling evidence of meaningful reviews. Although the service proposition became clearer from August 2021 onwards, the ombudsman concluded that Mrs E was not given sufficiently clear information about what service to expect in earlier years to have reasonably complained before 2021. However, where charges are taken over a year, a corresponding service within that year is reasonable to expect. The evidence from 2021-2024 showed sufficient contact and engagement to evidence proper reviews in those years.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| St. James's Place Wealth Management Plc, all decisions | 683 | 26% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website