Not upheld: unsuitable investment advice; lack of transparency regarding asset allocation complaint against St. James's Place Wealth Management Plc (trading as St. James's Place)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr C complained that SJP gave unsuitable investment advice by including property fund investments in his pension without his knowledge or consent, contrary to his stated wishes. SJP had assessed Mr C as medium risk and invested him in the Balanced Income Portfolio which included a 15% allocation to SJP's Property Fund. When SJP suspended the Property Fund in October 2023, it delayed Mr C's pension transfer to another provider. The ombudsman found that SJP's written recommendations and illustrations clearly disclosed the property fund inclusion, and there was no documented evidence that Mr C had instructed SJP to exclude property investments. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied a balance of probability test, weighing Mr C's testimony against documented evidence. While Mr C claimed he explicitly told his adviser he did not want property investments, no such instruction was recorded in SJP's fact find documents. The written recommendations and illustrations presented to Mr C clearly showed property fund inclusion at 15%, and there was no evidence that Mr C queried this before accepting the advice. The ombudsman concluded that SJP was not explicitly informed of any preference to exclude property, and the recommendation to include the Property Fund was suitable for Mr C's medium risk profile.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website