St. James's Place Wealth Management Plc · DRN-6117022

The complaint Mr D complains that St. James’s Place Wealth Management Plc (SJP) failed to provide annual reviews since his previous adviser retired in 2024. He also says the early withdrawal charge attached to his plans wasn’t properly explained. What happened The background to this complaint is well known to both sides, so I’ll keep my summary of events brief. Both Mr D and his wife - Mrs D - have raised a complaint to SJP. Each held separate products with SJP so, this decision is solely in relation to Mr D’s complaint. Mr D had been a client of SJP alongside his wife for several years. Mr D had both a pension which commenced in 2016 and an ISA which commenced in 2017. Both of these investments included an ongoing advice charge (OAC) for regular reviews of his investments. Mr D says he was happy with the ongoing service he received from his SJP adviser - Mr P - until he retired in early 2024. In 2024 Mr D’s ongoing servicing was transferred to a new SJP adviser - Mr F - who met with Mrs D on 2 May 2024. Mr D says he wasn’t present at the meeting between Mr F and Mrs D. However, Mrs D says that when she met with Mr F, she raised concerns around the fees paid to SJP following recent media articles. Later that month she says she emailed Mr F to let him know she’d cancelled her direct debits for regular contributions to her and Mr D’s plans. In September 2024 a new adviser acting on Mr and Mrs D’s behalf complained to SJP. They said SJP hadn’t properly explained the early withdrawal charges that would be applied to Mr and Mrs D’s accounts if they were to transfer away from SJP. Additionally, Mr and Mrs D said SJP hadn’t provided them with an annual review following the retirement of their previous adviser. SJP didn’t respond to Mr and Mrs D’s complaint until March 2025. In its response SJP said the cost and charges, including the early withdrawal charge, were explained to Mr and Mrs D when their plans first commenced and when any subsequent investments were made. It said the early withdrawal charges were explained in the suitability letters and illustrations sent, quoting the relevant parts. SJP therefore didn’t uphold that part of Mr and Mrs D’s complaint as it thought the fees were made clear. SJP went on to say Mr and Mrs D had received reviews from Mr P in March 2023 and November 2023. It said that Mr F had carried out a ‘full review’ in May 2024. As a result, SJP wouldn’t consider refunding the OACs and didn’t uphold the complaint. In April 2025 SJP emailed Mr and Mrs D to offer to conduct a review of their investments. Mr D says SJP also attempted to call Mrs D, but she was busy and unable to talk.

-- 1 of 6 --

In May 2025 SJP wrote to Mr and Mrs D to say that, as they hadn’t been engaging with it, it was withdrawing its ongoing services from them. It said it would switch the OACs off and no longer provide any ongoing services. Mrs D brought Mr D’s complaint to our Service on his behalf. In doing so she explained that she didn’t think the meeting with Mr F in May 2024 was a review of her or Mr D’s investments. She said it was an introductory meeting between herself and Mr F only, Mr D wasn’t present. She went on to say that during the meeting she raised concerns about the fees paid to SJP and recent media articles. But Mr F wasn’t very helpful in answering her questions and simply provided a formula for Mrs D to work out the fees herself. She said the meeting lasted around 40 minutes during which time Mr F was eager to gain funds from Mr and Mrs D for a pension top-up. In summary Mrs D didn’t think SJP had delivered enough of a service to warrant the fees her and Mr D had paid and also remained of the opinion that the early withdrawal charge was very high and never explained. Our investigator looked into things. He didn’t uphold the complaint as he thought the evidence available demonstrated that SJP had acted fairly and in line with the regulator’s expectations. Our investigator’s opinion on the complaint wasn’t accepted and so, the complaint has been passed to me for a decision. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. When considering what is fair and reasonable, I take into account relevant laws and regulations as well as the regulator’s rules, guidance and standards. Where appropriate I also consider what was good industry practice at the time of the advice. In February 2025 the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) set out its findings from a recent review of whether financial advisers were delivering the ongoing advice service that consumers had paid for. Of relevance to this complaint, it said that where a firm had been ready, willing and able to provide suitability reviews, but a client had consciously declined the service in any given year, it considered it less likely that redress would be paid. However, the FCA went on to say that where a client had declined a service over a number of years, firms should discuss with the client whether continuing the service was still in the clients’ best interests. The findings went on to say that there may also be circumstances where firms have made reasonable and proportionate attempts to engage with clients to conduct suitability reviews without success. The regulator said it expected firms to have some form of engagement with clients to conduct a review. If that was the case, the regulator expected redress to be less likely. However, it said firms should still consider whether an ongoing service is in its client’s best interests if they persistently don’t engage. It’s Mr F’s testimony that on 2 May 2024 as he arrived at Mr and Mrs D’s business premises he met with Mr D briefly in the carpark. He says Mr D said he had to attend another meeting but was happy for Mrs D to act on his behalf. Mr D’s testimony is similar in that he agrees he only briefly met Mr F in the carpark. But Mr D says he thought the purpose of the meeting was merely introductory in nature and was content with only Mrs D being present for that meeting.

-- 2 of 6 --

There’s no dispute that SJP’s adviser met with Mrs D at her workplace on 2 May 2024. What is in dispute is whether SJP carried out a review, or attempted to carry out a review on Mr and Mrs D’s investments at that meeting to justify its fee. It’s not entirely unusual for clients to be represented during review meetings by their spouse. When considering this complaint, I’m satisfied that Mrs D was acting on behalf of both herself and Mr D when meeting Mr F and communicating with SJP. Where evidence is missing or conflicting, as it is in this complaint, I base my decision on what I think most likely happened considering all available evidence and the wider circumstances. It’s Mrs D’s testimony that she met with SJP’s adviser, but the meeting was primarily focused on her raising concerns around SJP’s fees and services. She says she’d previously raised her concerns with SJP, and the meeting was a continuation of that. I’d like to reassure Mrs D that I’ve carefully considered her testimony. But I also have to weigh that up against other available evidence. SJP have provided various pieces of documentation from around May 2024. The documentation provided includes; • A copy of a call note from 9 April 2024 detailing a call with Mrs D. In summary it said Mrs D had concerns over recent press about SJP and adverts claiming there were excessive fees. The note from SJP’s adviser went on to say: ‘I have suggested that in the next couple of weeks that we get a date in the diary where I can go through the values with her, performance, statistics and charges which she believes would be a great idea, so we need to put this on the list to get in place. … Put on the list for a review and we can book it in.’ • A diary note from SJP’s systems recording a ‘Client review’ dated 2 May 2024. • A copy of the fund fact sheets from 31 March 2024 for the funds Mr D was invested in. • A document entitled ‘Agenda Planning & Review Meeting’ dated 2 May 2024. It had various tick box options listed under the title ‘provided client with’ and positively recorded; valuation update; portfolio review; attitude to risk reconfirmation; and suitability update letter / fund switch letter. It recorded that the next review was due in six months’ time and under ‘meeting outcome’ it said ‘not happy with SJP in the press. Looking at charges…’. • A ‘summary of current charges’ documents with a prepared date of 1 May 2024 and details of the charges on Mr D’s pension. • A copy of Mr D’s Wealth Account from April 2024 detailing the valuations of her products. • An ‘investor return’ document dated 16 April 2024 showing the difference in investment value and total investments for Mr D’s pension and ISA. • A post review suitability letter dated 18 June 2024 entitled ‘Post review meeting confirmation’. The first line of the letter said, ‘Further to your review on 2nd May 2024…’ and went on to say it had discussed Mr and Mrs D’s objectives and circumstances and that the SJP plan continued to remain suitable for them. It said the next review was due in six months’ time. The call note SJP provided seems consistent with Mrs D’s testimony that she had concerns about SJP’s fees and wanted to discuss that further face to face. I’ve seen emails to confirm the meeting on 2 May 2024 was later organised between Mrs D and SJP to be held at a

-- 3 of 6 --

business address. In order for SJP to review the investments I would expect to see evidence of preparations for that meeting such as the current valuations of the products. The evidence produced by SJP satisfies me that SJP, at least, thought the purpose of the meeting on 2 May 2024 was to review Mr and Mrs D’s investments as well as discussing concerns around SJP’s fees. The evidence demonstrates it’d made preparations to do that. The preparations also demonstrate to me that SJP were ready, willing and able to conduct a review of Mr and Mrs D’s investment in May 2024. What’s less clear, is what was actually discussed in the meeting. I wasn’t present and so I can’t say for certain whether the suitability of the investments was reviewed. SJP have produced a letter it says it sent to Mr and Mrs D following the meeting which says Mr and Mrs D’s circumstances and objectives were discussed, satisfying SJP the investments remained suitable. SJP say this helps to evidence a review took place in May 2024. Mr and Mrs D strongly deny having received the follow up letter from June 2024. I don’t doubt Mr and Mrs D’s testimony that it wasn’t received. But I’ve also got no reason to doubt it was written by SJP following the meeting. It’s possible it wasn’t sent or delivered to Mr and Mrs D but whether the letter was received doesn’t have a material effect on my findings in this complaint. I’ll explain why. Ordinarily I’d expect to see an updated fact find document to record any updates in Mr and Mrs D’s circumstances. SJP have provided various updated ‘client financial review’ (CFR) documents that had been updated in previous years during review meetings, but I’ve seen no evidence this document was updated in 2024. The absence of an updated CFR may call into question whether SJP had in fact gathered a detailed update on Mr and Mrs D’s circumstances and objectives during the meeting. And the letter itself was brief, with little specific detail about Mr and Mrs D’s current position and objectives. I appreciate Mr and Mrs D may want me to make a finding on whether their plans were reviewed during the meeting. But that’s not a finding I’m required to make here. That’s because even if I was to decide that, on balance, Mr and Mrs D’s plans weren’t reviewed during the meeting, that doesn’t automatically mean a refund of the OAC is due. I say that because the regulator has made it clear that if a firm was ready, willing and able, and made reasonable and proportionate attempts to conduct the review, a refund is unlikely to be due if a customer either consciously declined the service or didn’t engage with it. I’ve seen no evidence that Mrs D consciously declined the review during the meeting on Mr D’s behalf. But I think there’s sufficient evidence to say SJP prepared for, and attempted to deliver, a review at the meeting in May 2024. Although I think it’s likely Mrs D’s priority in that meeting was to discuss her concerns around the recent media attention on SJP and the fees of her plans. The documentation provided by SJP is consistent with Mrs D’s testimony that she was wanting to talk to SJP about its charges. SJP had clearly prepared documentation to have that discussion in addition to the review. I say that because SJP had specifically produced summaries of the charges Mr and Mrs D were paying. It’s reasonable to suggest both things could have been discussed during the meeting and as I’ve said, I’m satisfied SJP had prepared for that. I think it’s likely, based on the evidence I’ve seen, that Mrs D didn’t engage in reviewing her and Mr D’s plans during the meeting and instead spent time discussing other concerns.

-- 4 of 6 --

But the regulator’s recent findings are clear on its expectation that if a client doesn’t engage in a review, that doesn’t automatically mean a refund is due. In order for SJP to retain the fee, it needed to make reasonable and proportionate attempts to deliver its service. And I think it did. It prepared several pieces of documentation to review the plans and arranged to meet with Mrs D face to face to deliver the review. I’ve considered that the regulator also said firms should consider if the service remains in the clients’ best interests if they persistently don’t engage. But this was seemingly the first time Mr D hadn’t engaged with the service, and while Mrs D had raised concerns, SJP had provided information about those concerns. So, Mr D hadn’t ‘persistently’ disengaged from the service and SJP didn’t need to do anything more. SJP’s adviser reached out to Mr and Mrs D via email in October 2024 which was in line with the six-month period in which its previous documentation suggested another review might be due. In the email SJP’s adviser recognised that Mr and Mrs D were still considering their options but offered to discuss things further in a meeting. But Mr D didn’t accept SJP’s offer of a meeting as he and Mrs D recently raised a complaint to SJP. Here, Mr D had consciously declined to meet with SJP, knowing it wanted to meet. When SJP reached out to Mr and Mrs D via email in April 2025. It told Mr and Mrs D their reviews were due, noting it could be arranged face to face, via the telephone or virtually. But I’ve seen no evidence that Mr and Mrs D engaged with that offer. By that point it had been a year since SJP last met with Mr and Mrs D who hadn’t engaged with the review service for around 18 months (since the last undisputed review in November 2023). I don’t find it unreasonable for SJP to have considered stopping the ongoing service at that point given Mr and Mrs D weren’t making use of it. Turning the fees off at that point is consistent with the regulators view that firms should consider whether the ongoing service is in its client’s best interests if they’ve persistently not engaged. So, I think SJP acted fairly in switching the fees off when it did. SJP’s email also shows that it was ready, willing and able to conduct the review that was due but for Mr and Mrs D’s lack of engagement. As I’ve found that SJP acted fairly, I can’t reasonably ask it to refund the OAC’s Mr D paid it. Part of Mr D’s complaint relates to the early withdrawal charge that applied to his plans. He says it wasn’t explained to him. But I disagree. SJP have provided the illustration document Mr D was given when the pension was opened in 2016. The illustration says: ‘When you invest with us you pay us charges for our advice and charges for the products we recommend. Details of these charges are set out below. The total of these charges is equivalent to an Annual Management Charge of 1.25% each year coupled with an early withdrawal charge of 6% in the first year reducing to nil after 6 years for each contribution you make. The charges for our advice are 4.5% of the amount you invest and an annual charge of 0.25% a year. The charges for the product are 1.5% of the amount you invest and an annual charge of 1% a year which will in effect be waived for the first six years that each contribution is invested. If you make a withdrawal within six years of a contribution being made an early withdrawal charge of 1% will apply to the funds accumulated from that contribution.’

-- 5 of 6 --

I think the information quite clearly explained the early withdrawal charge. Over the years Mr D made several further contributions into his plans. Similar information about the early withdrawal charges was repeated in each illustration that Mr D was sent over the years. SJP also provided suitability letters relating to the further contributions into the plans. Information about the early withdrawal charges were also included in many of these reports including the most recent suitability letter Mr D had been given in March 2023 regarding a pension contribution. It explained: Early Withdrawal Charges On Your St. James's Place Retirement Account The St. James's Place Retirement Account which I have recommended is subject to Early Withdrawal Charges. Full details of these are set out in the illustration which I have provided. If benefits are taken from the plan, then drawings of up to 7.50% of the value of the investment on the day after the investment was made can be taken without any charge being made. This is referred to as the Annual Withdrawal Allowance (AWA) and it is cumulative in each year that an Early Withdrawal Charge applies. If you choose to withdraw funds in excess of your available AWA an Early Withdrawal Charge (EWC) will apply to the excess. Having reviewed the documentation, I’m satisfied the early withdrawal charge was disclosed and explained at the outset. Furthermore, it was also explained in subsequent years when Mr D sought advice on further contributions into his plans. Therefore, I don’t uphold this part of Mr D’s complaint either. My final decision For the reasons I’ve given, my final decision is that I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr D to accept or reject my decision before 23 April 2026. Timothy Wilkes Ombudsman

-- 6 of 6 --