St. James's Place Wealth Management Plc · DRN-5713407

The complaint Mr N complains, with the help of a professional third party, about the advice and service he has received from St. James's Place Wealth Management Plc (‘SJPWM’). Mr N says the advice he received to open various products was unsuitable for him. He also says that SJPWM has failed to provide the ongoing service he paid for. What happened In January 2019, SJPWM recommended that Mr N transfer two existing pensions he held, with a combined value of approximately £50,000, into a new pension, provided by St James’ Place UK plc. It said it had established Mr N had a medium attitude to risk (‘ATR’) and recommended investments it said were consistent with this ATR. SJPWM also said it believed Mr N would benefit from ongoing advice, which he agreed to, at a cost of 0.5% per annum of the amount invested. In February 2019, SJPWM reviewed Mr N’s protection requirements with him. It recommended that he cancel two existing policies, based on increasing costs, and take out a new whole of life policy, which had a sum assured of £10,000 and monthly premiums of £27.82. SJPWM again also suggested that the ongoing suitability of this policy be reviewed on an ongoing basis. SJPWM then also wrote to Mr N in February 2019 separately, with recommendations about investments he held. It recommended that Mr N transfer funds he held in an investment ISA and general investment account (‘GIA’) to a new investment ISA, again provided by St James’ Place UK plc. It also made recommendations about how the funds should be invested and said this account should be reviewed on an ongoing basis, for an annual cost of 0.5% per annum. I understand from a follow up letter in March 2019 that, while Mr N had agreed with the advice to transfer his ISA to the new provider, he’d decided not to top this up with the funds from his GIA – as he’d decided to use these funds (approximately £4,000) for an unexpected expenditure, rather than dipping into his emergency fund. SJPWM wrote to Mr N in February 2020 with a summary of their recent review meeting and thanking him the discussion earlier that day. It said there had been no material changes that would affect the advice he was given previously. In July 2020, after initially withdrawing some funds from his ISA to potentially invest differently, SJPWM says Mr N changed his mind about this speculative investment. As a result, it advised him to make a top up payment of £2,000 to his ISA, from these funds. SJPWM wrote to Mr N again in February 2021, March 2022, April 2023 and June 2024 summarising annual review meetings that had taken place. Mr N’s representatives complained to SJPWM on his behalf on 13 December 2024. In short, they said Mr N had not received the annual ongoing advice he had been paying for. And they also said the initial advice SJPWM had provided Mr N was unsuitable. The

-- 1 of 7 --

representative said it didn’t believe SJPWM had correctly assessed Mr N’s ATR, which the representative believed was more cautious, and that the products recommended were unnecessary or not in his interests. SJPWM didn’t agree with the complaint. In summary SJPWM felt that the advice had been suitable, based on Mr N’s circumstances at the time, and said that annual reviews had been carried out as agreed. Mr N’s representative asked our Service to consider the complaint. One of our Investigator’s looked into it but didn’t think it should be upheld. Overall, they thought the recommendations made were suitable and that the ongoing service, in particular annual reviews, had been provided correctly. Mr N’s representative did not agree with the Investigator’s opinion, maintaining that they didn’t think SJPWM had acted correctly or fairly. As an agreement could not be reached, the complaint has been passed to me to decide. 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. I’ve taken into account relevant law and regulations, regulator’s rules, guidance and standards and codes of practice - many of these are found in the FCA’s handbook under the Principles for Businesses (‘PRIN’) and the Conduct of Business Sourcebook (‘COBS’). I’ve also thought about what I consider to have been good industry practice at the time. And where the evidence is incomplete, inconclusive or contradictory, I reach my conclusions on the balance of probabilities – that is, what I think is more likely than not to have happened based on the available evidence and the wider surrounding circumstances. And I’d like to reassure all the parties that I’ve carefully considered all of the arguments made and the evidence provided. But I’ve only summarised the events that took place. If I don’t comment on or refer to everything that has been said this isn’t meant as a discourtesy or because I haven’t thought about it. Rather it is because my decision addresses what I think are the key points in deciding the complaint, bearing in mind our role as an informal dispute resolution service and my remit of deciding what a fair and reasonable outcome is. There are essentially two parts to Mr N’s complaint – the first about the suitability of the advice he received from SJPWM (of which there were four separate instances in 2019 and 2020) and the second about the ongoing service from SJPWM, the fees incurred and whether this was provided as it should’ve been. For ease of reading this decision, I’ll address these issues separately. The suitability of the advice from SJPWM January 2019 – transferring and consolidating two pensions Mr N’s representatives have argued that there is no evidence to support some of SJPWM’s conclusions about his circumstances or to support how it concluded that he had a medium ATR. They have said that, in their experience, SJPWM assume a ‘medium risk profile’ in the vast majority of customers it advises. And so, they argue that this was not a correct conclusion in Mr N’s case, and that he had a lower ATR. SJPWM has provided a copy of a fact-find it completed prior to providing advice, recording information about Mr N’s circumstances and objectives. Mr N was 66, single and in good

-- 2 of 7 --

health. He lived with his mother and brother, in a property owned by his mother. He had been working until December 2018, earning approximately £25,000 per year, but had recently taken the decision to stop working full time and was now unemployed. But Mr N intended to take up part time work, beginning later in 2019, to top up his income. Mr N was in receipt of state pension and had received a backdated state pension lump sum. His outgoings exceeded his income by roughly £80 per month but he was meeting this shortfall at that time, from his pension lump sum. He held £16,000 in cash savings, on top of his pensions, investment ISA and GIA. And he had an outstanding personal loan of £10,500 with payments of £285 per month. In respect of his pensions, Mr N had four policies. He had two small money purchase pensions (valued at under £1,000 each) that he didn’t wish to make changes to. He had a paid-up personal pension, with a value of £43,554.90 and a stakeholder pension, with a value of £6,587.44 to which he was making monthly contributions of just over £30. SJPWM said Mr N wanted to review his pensions, specifically the personal and stakeholder pensions, and he had been too busy previously to give much thought to his pension planning. Mr N didn’t anticipate drawing any monies from the pension for several years (prior to age 72) and wanted to have his two larger pensions managed to have the best chance of maximising growth and so he could speak regularly to an adviser about them. And SJPWM said Mr N had a medium ATR, and that he’d agreed this. The recommendation from SJPWM repeated a lot of this information about Mr N’s circumstances and objectives as well as noting that he wasn’t receiving ongoing advice from his existing providers so was concerned his pensions weren’t doing as well as they could’ve been. Mr N signed a declaration confirming the contents of the letter, which would include SJPWM’s understanding of his circumstances, objectives and ATR, had been explained to him and he’d fully considered the relevant information. And so, had any of the information been incorrect, I’m satisfied he had the opportunity to raise this at the time. I don’t agree therefore that there isn’t evidence to support SJPWM’s conclusions about Mr N’s circumstances and objectives. I’m satisfied that the information that was recorded at the time, which I’d ascribe greater weight to and incidentally I haven’t been provided any evidence to dispute, was an accurate reflection of what was discussed. And I think the objectives noted, which again Mr N didn’t disagree with, likely reflected what Mr N thought and wanted at the time. As he was coming towards using his pension I think it is reasonable that he’d want advice (initially and ongoing) and to take steps to maximise his pension provisions prior to them being utilised. On the subject of ATR, I have considered the information from the time and whether it was a reasonable conclusion for SJPWM to reach that Mr N had a medium ATR. On the one hand, he’d recently stopped working, albeit with the intention of taking up part time work (which later fact finds indicate that he did). So, his regular income had reduced to just his state pension, and there was a shortfall between this and his outgoings at the time. This could’ve meant Mr N may have found himself in the situation of needing to use his pensions to top up his income, meaning he had less capacity for loss and so taking less risk may have been in his interests. At the same time though, as I’ve mentioned, Mr N intended to, and did, return to work. He said he didn’t foresee taking benefits from his pensions until aged 72 – which again he

-- 3 of 7 --

signed to confirm. He also had savings of £16,000 in addition to his investment ISA and GIA. So, he had a good portion of emergency savings and alternative means. I don’t therefore think what he said about not expecting to take benefits for several years was as unrealistic as his representative now thinks. Mr N was already 66, so could take retirement benefits. But at the same time, I don’t think it was unreasonable, given he intended to continue working, for him to want to think about maximising his pension growth, so that when he did take benefits, they’d potentially last longer. Mr N’s representatives argued that he didn’t have a great deal of experience. That wouldn’t preclude him from having a medium attitude to risk. But in any event, he held several pensions as well as an investment ISA and GIA. So, I don’t think he was entirely inexperienced. I think SJPWM could’ve done a better job of recording the considerations around ATR. The fact find and suitability report refer to this as having been agreed but there is little in respect of the discussion that informed any such agreement. But, in the specific circumstances of this case, given Mr N’s noted objectives – which again he signed agreeing to – I don’t think it was unreasonable for SJPWM to have concluded that he had a medium ATR. So, as I think the information that SJPWM held about Mr N’s circumstances was on balance correct, I’ve thought about whether its recommendation was in turn suitable. SJPWM recorded that Mr N was interested in achieving good growth of his pension funds and benefitting from ongoing management. Mr N’s representative argue that he didn’t need to transfer his pensions and incur the charges for doing so (upfront and ongoing) and that SJPWM, which only offered restricted advice, should have referred him to an independent adviser, who could have assisted with his existing pensions, and potentially have made changes to how these were invested. Notwithstanding that an independent adviser would also have likely charged for their advice services, SJPWM’s service costs and disclosure document was clear that it only offered restricted advice. The recommendation letter said this had been shared with Mr N and he signed the declaration that accompanied the letter. So, I’m satisfied on balance that SJPWM made Mr N aware of the limitations on the services it could provide. Mr N’s existing personal pension was subject to an annual management fee of 1%. His stakeholder pension was subject to an ongoing fee of 0.8%. The ongoing product fee for the pension SJPWM recommended was 0.98%. But Mr N was also going to pay the 0.5% ongoing advice fee to SJPWM. So, the ongoing cost of the policy which SJPWM recommended was higher than that of Mr N’s existing policy. And this was before even accounting for the upfront fees. So, from purely a cost perspective, transferring doesn’t appear to have been in Mr N’s best interests. But SJPWM did make it clear that the new policy had a greater cost and that a level of ‘outperformance’ would be required (outperformance meaning the new policy would have to grow by a greater amount than the existing policies to achieve the same value in order to account for the greater charges). So, I think SJPWM provided relevant information in order for Mr N to make an informed choice. I also don’t think the level of outperformance needed was unachievable, based on how the existing policies were invested. The stakeholder pension was invested partly in cash and the rest in a lower / cautious risk investments. The personal pension was partially invested in a fund closer to a medium risk profile. But there was also a significant portion in a with profits fund. The declared bonus rate was 4% but there was limited opportunity to achieve greater growth on this portion of the pension. The alternative that SJPWM recommended was to be

-- 4 of 7 --

invested more in line with Mr N’s recorded medium attitude to risk. And this had the potential for greater returns (albeit with the additional risk). So, achieving the growth needed to outperform the existing policies sufficiently was plausible. And SJPWM made Mr N aware that outperformance was required, so he could make an informed decision. And I think Mr N’s aims of trying to achieve greater growth and wanting to take ongoing advice and have his pensions managed, which given his proximity to retirement I think would’ve been reasonable, meant that transferring was still potentially in his interests despite the higher cost of the new arrangement. And taking all of this into account, I think the recommendation made by SJPWM that Mr N take out the new pension it proposed was suitable. February 2019 – protection advice Mr N had two existing whole of life policies when he met with SJPWM. They provided cover of £9,200 and £5,280 respectively. Mr N was paying combined regular premiums of £65.06 per month but this was regularly increasing, as the premiums were variable rather than fixed. SJPWM recorded that Mr N wanted to review and replace these policies, as he felt they were potentially too expensive. It said he’d concluded that he needed cover of £10,000 to address his needs (cover funeral expenses and leave a small sum for his children). SJPWM recommended that Mr N cancel his existing policies and take out a new whole of life policy, providing £10,000 of cover with fixed premiums of £27.82 per month. This provided Mr N the cover level that he’d identified he required while also reducing his monthly cost by over £37 (which in turn reduced the shortfall between his income and outgoings that had been identified). And I think this saving meant the advice was in Mr N’s interests. In the recommendation, SJPWM also provided details of the monthly cost (£37) of a replacement policy providing the same level of cover as his two previous policies combined (£14,480). So, Mr N was able to make an informed choice about whether to decrease his level of cover or not. Considering all of the above, I think SJPWM’s recommendation regarding Mr N’s protection needs was suitable for him. February 2019 – transferring Mr N’s ISA and GIA SJPWM recorded that Mr N’s objectives in respect of his investments were to achieve growth, save in a tax efficient way and have active ongoing management and reviews from a professional adviser. It was noted that Mr N didn’t anticipate needing to access his investments in the short term and his ATR was again medium. Again, Mr N had cash savings at the time of the advice that exceeded the value of his ISA and GIA which he could draw on. This was sufficient to cover his monthly income shortfall, after receiving his state pension, for a significant period of time, even if he didn’t return to part time work. So, I think him believing at the time he was unlikely to need to access his invested money for several years was reasonable, given he had other means to address expenditure needs. It is correct that Mr N’s existing ISA already enabled him to save in a tax efficient way. And it would have been possible to top this up with the money from his GIA. But this didn’t address his stated aim of receiving ongoing advice about his investments – which again I’m satisfied from the information at the time, which Mr N agreed with, he was interested in. Whereas the transfer and consolidation recommended by SJPWM achieved this, as well as continuing to save in a tax efficient way and providing the opportunity for growth.

-- 5 of 7 --

The costs of the new ISA were greater than those applicable to Mr N’s existing investments. But this was clearly explained in the recommendation letter so that Mr N could make an informed decision. And I don’t think the additional growth required to address this, which was also explained in the recommendation, was unrealistic given the ISA was to be invested in line with Mr N’s medium ATR. So, taking everything into account, in the circumstances I think the recommendation SJPWM made was suitable. I do note that Mr N elected not to consolidate the funds from his GIA when it was surrendered, instead preferring to use these for some unexpected expenditure. But I don’t think that makes the transfer of the ISA unsuitable, as it still enabled Mr N to receive ongoing advice and management, which he wasn’t receiving from his existing provider and which was recorded as an objective of his. I also don’t think, as Mr N’s representative has suggested, that his decision to draw some funds from the ISA the following year made this recommendation unsuitable, as that was not something that could reasonably be foreseen at the time. July 2020 – lump sum top up into Mr N’s ISA In the last week of June 2020, Mr N requested a partial withdrawal of £3,000 from his ISA. It was recorded that Mr N was considering using this money to invest in crypto-currency. SJPWM could not advise on this investment. The following week, at the beginning of July 2020, Mr N told SJPWM he had changed his mind about using those funds for investing. And he wanted advice on what to do with £2,000 of the funds. SJPWM recommended that Mr N re-invest the £2,000 back into his ISA with St James’ Place UK plc. It also waived upfront fees for making this contribution. Investing back into the ISA meant Mr N was saving in a tax efficient way. And Mr N still had his full ISA allowance for that tax year. There was no indication, in the information from the time, that Mr N’s attitude to risk had changed or that there was any purpose for which he needed to retain this amount in cash savings. So, taking everything into account, I think SJPWM acted fairly by waiving its fee and the recommendation was suitable. Ongoing advice All three of the recommendation letters SJPWM sent to Mr N in 2019 mentioned ongoing advice and that SJPWM considered this a key element of financial planning. The letters in relation to the ISA and protection recommendations both said that, as part of its ongoing service SJPWM would contact Mr N “on a regular basis to arrange a review”. The recommendation in respect of the pension went further however and set expectations about what ‘regular’ meant by saying the adviser “…will provide you with face to face reviews at least annually and offer you the opportunity to discuss your overall financial arrangements…” I’m satisfied that these annual reviews of Mr N’s pensions and investments formed the core part of the ongoing services which he was paying for. SJPWM has provided copies of letters sent to Mr N in February 2020, February 2021, March 2022, April 2023 and June 2024. The letters were all addressed correctly to Mr N, so I think its likely they were received. The heading of all of these letters referred to ‘recent’ or ‘annual’ review meetings. They all referenced recent contact between the adviser and the consumer (with the February 2021 letter noting this had been via telephone due to the COVID pandemic). The letters summarised the opinion Mr N had expressed to SJPWM each

-- 6 of 7 --

year on the performance of his investments and the position in respect of his objectives and attitude to risk – which didn’t change across the relevant years. And they said, because of that SJPWM didn’t recommend any changes to Mr N’s investments. SJPWM has also provided evidence of the notes recorded by the adviser at the time of some of the meetings these letters referred to. These further supported that performance of investments had been discussed, as well as Mr N’s circumstances having been considered – for example details of his part time job and income were established. As I’ve mentioned the summary letters in respect of the annual reviews were likely received by Mr N. And I can’t see he raised any queries at the time. So, I’m satisfied on balance the reviews took place. I do acknowledge that the time between reviews was sometimes greater than 12 months. But this was usually by no more than a few weeks. I don’t think these slight delays or the reviews not occurring on the specific anniversary date of the advice is unreasonable. Nor do I think this is enough to say that SJPWM has failed to provide the service it said it would. Therefore, based on the available information, I’m satisfied that SJPWM provided Mr N with the agreed ongoing service – annual reviews - from the point it gave advice up until the point that his representative lodged a complaint. So, I don’t think it has made an error in charging for the provision of these ongoing services, as per the agreement between the parties, or that it can fairly be required, for any reason, to refund the relevant fees. My final decision For the reasons I’ve explained, I think the advice St. James's Place Wealth Management Plc provided Mr N was suitable based on his circumstances at the time. And I’m satisfied it has provided the agreed ongoing services. So, I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr N to accept or reject my decision before 2 April 2026. Ben Stoker Ombudsman

-- 7 of 7 --