Partially upheld: unsuitable mortgage advice and poor customer service complaint against St James Place Wealth Management Plc

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B and Ms D complained that SJP provided unsuitable mortgage advice by booking them into a five-year fixed rate product instead of the two-year product they requested, and that they were unable to make a lump sum payment without incurring early repayment charges. The complaint arose after a two-year mortgage offer from lender NW lapsed when Mr B and Ms D did not accept it within the required 14-day window, following which a five-year product was arranged. The Ombudsman found that while SJP should have responded to the customers' inquiry about the two-year offer (warranting £150 compensation), SJP was not responsible for the offer lapsing as NW's online portal would have clearly indicated the deadline. The Ombudsman also found that the five-year product terms were clearly communicated through NW's documentation and SJP's emails, which the customers acknowledged, and that SJP properly advised that lump sum payments should be made after the existing rate expired to avoid early repayment charges. The complaint was partially upheld with only the £150 compensation awarded.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The Ombudsman found that SJP failed to respond to Mr B and Ms D's inquiry about whether further action was needed after receiving the two-year offer from NW, constituting a lapse in customer service warranting £150 compensation. However, the Ombudsman was not persuaded that SJP was responsible for the offer lapsing, as NW's online portal would have clearly indicated the acceptance deadline. Regarding the five-year product, the Ombudsman found that the mortgage documentation from NW clearly showed it was a five-year fixed rate, and SJP had confirmed this by email, which Mr B and Ms D acknowledged. The Ombudsman rejected allegations that SJP had falsified evidence, finding that the metadata showing documents created on 21 August 2025 was consistent with documents being pulled from a system on the date SJP submitted its file to the FOS. The Ombudsman concluded that it is not the role of a mortgage broker to facilitate lump sum payments, and SJP had properly advised that such payments should be made after the existing rate expired to avoid early repayment charges.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website