Not upheld: General financial advice complaint against St. James's Place Wealth Management Plc (SJP)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr and Mrs G invested £800,000 in SJP bonds in January 2007 and complained in 2012 that the investments were unsuitable; this complaint was upheld in 2013 and they received £91,500 compensation. In June 2025, they complained that SJP failed to provide ongoing advice and servicing despite paying fees since 2007, and that SJP should have made changes after the suitability complaint was upheld. The ombudsman found the complaint about failure to make changes was out of time under DISP rules. On the merits, the ombudsman concluded that Mr and Mrs G were not paying for ongoing advice because their pre-RDR investments were remunerated by commission covering only initial advice, not ongoing suitability reviews. The investment illustrations clearly explained this structure, and the ombudsman was not persuaded that Mr and Mrs G had grounds to believe they were entitled to ongoing advice services.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied DISP rules to determine that the complaint about SJP's failure to make changes after the 2013 suitability complaint was upheld was made too late (more than six years after the event and more than three years after Mr and Mrs G ought reasonably to have been aware of the cause for complaint). Regarding ongoing advice entitlement, the ombudsman found that the investments were made before RDR when commission-based remuneration was standard and covered only initial advice costs, not ongoing advice. The investment illustrations clearly stated that the AMC included commission paid to the adviser for arranging the plan and providing ongoing servicing, but this did not constitute ongoing advice about suitability. The ombudsman distinguished between 'ongoing servicing' (administrative tasks) and 'ongoing advice' (reassessment of suitability). While Mr and Mrs G received some adviser contact in 2009-2010, this was ad hoc suggestions and market updates, not a paid-for ongoing advice service. The ombudsman concluded that any advice after the bonds were established would have been charged separately and that Mr and Mrs G were not paying OACs entitling them to annual reviews.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website