Partially upheld: failure to process pension contribution; poor advice; failure to manage expectations complaint against St. James's Place Wealth Management Plc

Decision detail

Summary

Mr O complained that SJP failed to process a pension contribution he wished to make before the end of the tax year on 5 April 2025. Mr O had discussed making a contribution in March 2025 and received an illustration showing a £70,000 contribution example. However, Mr O left his decision very late, emailing on 4 April, and the email exchanges on 5 April were ambiguous about whether he had definitively committed to proceeding. The ombudsman found that discussions had not progressed sufficiently to constitute an agreed contribution, particularly given that Mr O's actual income (£32,000) was significantly lower than the previous year and limited his contribution allowance to approximately £36,000, which Mr O had not disclosed to SJP. Additionally, payment restrictions on personal bank accounts on a Saturday would have further limited the amount he could transfer. While the ombudsman concluded SJP did not prevent Mr O from making a contribution, it found SJP failed to provide tailored advice and properly manage Mr O's expectations, awarding £400 compensation for inconvenience and distress.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman concluded that while SJP indicated it could accommodate Mr O's late request, the discussions had not progressed sufficiently to constitute an agreed contribution. Key factors included: (1) Mr O's late decision-making and expressed concerns about market volatility; (2) the generic nature of discussions without tailored advice; (3) Mr O's failure to disclose his significantly reduced income (£32,000 vs £70,000), which limited his actual contribution allowance to approximately £36,000; (4) the absence of clarity about the specific contribution amount; (5) payment restrictions on personal bank accounts on a Saturday; and (6) the ambiguous final communication from Mr O on 5 April. The ombudsman found that neither party was reasonably in a position to move forward with a contribution at that time. However, SJP failed in its duty to manage Mr O's information needs and expectations and provide tailored advice given its ongoing advisory relationship.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website