Partially upheld: Investment mis-selling complaint against St. James's Place Wealth Management Plc

Decision detail

Summary

Mr and Mrs T complained that SJP gave unsuitable advice to invest over £200,000 in an offshore investment bond and failed to provide the ongoing advice service they paid for. The ombudsman found the investment advice was suitable given their circumstances, objectives for capital growth and tax-efficiency, substantial financial resources, and appropriate risk capacity, and that SJP had properly considered alternatives. However, the complaint was partially upheld because SJP failed to conduct a documented annual review in 2023 despite charging for the service. SJP was ordered to refund the 2023 review fees with interest and pay £250 for distress and inconvenience, but was not required to refund other charges or costs associated with the early surrender of the bond.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found the investment advice suitable because: (1) the IIB met Mr and Mrs T's primary objective of capital growth and was tax-efficient; (2) it was an appropriate vehicle for future IHT planning even though not immediately placed in trust, as IHT planning was a potential future objective not a primary concern at the time; (3) the investment amount was affordable given their substantial cash reserves and disposable income; (4) their Upper-Medium risk assessment was appropriate given their capacity for risk, prior investment experience with property, and medium to long-term time horizon; (5) the fund allocation was well-diversified across different risk levels; (6) SJP had considered and documented reasons for discounting alternative solutions; (7) the information provided was clear and allowed informed decision-making. However, the ombudsman upheld the complaint regarding the missed 2023 annual review, as SJP failed to provide the ongoing advice service paid for in that year.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website