St. James's Place · DRN-6161022

The complaint Mr G complains that life and critical illness policies recommended to him in 2005 were mis- sold. He says he believed the policies would repay his interest-only mortgage and that the critical illness policy would return money if he did not make a claim. What happened Mr G met with an adviser from St. James’s Place (SJP) in December 2004 to review his financial arrangements. A Confidential Financial Review (CFR) was completed which recorded his personal and financial circumstances. The CFR shows Mr G was self-employed and the main earner in his household. At the time he had three dependent children and an interest-only mortgage of around £81,000. The review also recorded two existing third-party endowment policies with a combined sum assured of £81,000. The documentation shows the adviser assessed Mr G’s financial protection needs and identified that in the event of Mr G’s death his family would face a significant income shortfall. The adviser estimated that around £420,000 of protection would be required to provide ongoing financial support for the family. However, the records show Mr G did not wish to take protection for the full amount due to affordability. Instead, he chose a lower level of cover of £146,000 through a St. James’s Place Flexible Protection Plan. This was arranged as a decreasing life policy with a term of 21 years. A separate critical illness policy providing cover of £91,000 was also arranged. In 2023 Mr G complained to SJP. He said the policies had been mis-sold because he believed they would repay his mortgage and because he thought the critical illness policy would return money if he did not make a claim. SJP issued their final response on 28 February 2024. They did not uphold the complaint but offered £100 to recognise the delay in responding. Mr G remained unhappy and referred his complaint to this service. One of our investigators looked into the complaint and explained that, based on the available evidence, they did not think SJP needed to take further action. Mr G’s representative disagreed and raised concerns about the accuracy and authenticity of the CFR and the information recorded about existing endowment policies. As agreement could not be reached, the complaint has been passed to me to make a final 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. In deciding this complaint, I have considered whether the adviser gathered enough information about Mr G’s circumstances and needs at the time, whether the recommendation made was suitable in light of that information, and whether the policies were explained

-- 1 of 3 --

clearly so that Mr G could understand what they were intended to do. Where there are differences between Mr G’s recollection and the contemporaneous documentation, I have placed greater weight on the records created at the time. These documents were produced as part of the advice process and are therefore likely to provide the most reliable account of what was discussed. The CFR records Mr G’s financial circumstances in some detail. It shows he had an interest- only mortgage of around £81,000 and that two endowment policies were in place with a combined sum assured of £81,000. And so, it follows that the adviser reasonably understood that arrangements were already in place to repay the mortgage capital. I have also thought carefully about Mr G’s recollection that he believed the recommended policy would repay the mortgage. However, the documentation from the time records that the mortgage was interest-only and that the existing endowment policies were expected to address the repayment of the capital. In my opinion it would therefore have been reasonable for the adviser to proceed on that basis and focus the new recommendation on addressing Mr G’s family protection needs. The records also show the adviser calculated that around £420,000 of protection would be required to support Mr G’s family if he were to die. However, the documentation clearly records that Mr G chose not to take cover for the full amount due to affordability and instead agreed to a reduced level of cover of £146,000. In my opinion this indicates that the adviser discussed the protection need with Mr G and that Mr G made a decision about the level of cover he wished to take. The policy term of 21 years broadly matched the period during which Mr G’s children were expected to remain financially dependent. And so the recommendation appears consistent with the objective of providing family protection. I have also considered Mr G’s concern that the critical illness policy was sold as something that would return money if no claim was made. Critical illness policies are designed to provide a lump sum if the policyholder suffers one of the specified illnesses during the policy term. They do not normally provide a maturity value or return premiums if no claim is made. I have not seen persuasive evidence that the policy was presented as anything other than protection cover. Mr G’s representative has raised concerns about the reliability of the CFR, including missing pages, formatting differences and the absence of a signature. I have considered those concerns carefully. However, I have not seen persuasive evidence that the document has been altered or that the key information recorded within it is unreliable. SJP has explained that different sections of the form carried different reference numbers depending on the section used, and this explanation appears consistent with the blank version of the document provided. Importantly, the key information recorded in the CFR – including Mr G’s circumstances, the protection shortfall and the existence of the endowment policies – is also reflected in the suitability letter prepared at the time. In my opinion this consistency across contemporaneous documents supports the view that the records reasonably reflect the discussions that took place. I have also noted that Mr G now disputes the information recorded about the endowment policies. However, advisers are generally entitled to rely on the information provided during the advice process unless there is reason to believe it is inaccurate. I have not seen evidence that would reasonably have led the adviser to question the information recorded at

-- 2 of 3 --

the time. I appreciate that Mr G now feels the policies did not meet his expectations, particularly given the position he later found himself in with his mortgage. However, my role is to consider whether the advice provided at the time was fair and reasonable based on the information available then. Taking everything into account, I am satisfied that the adviser gathered relevant information about Mr G’s circumstances, identified his protection needs and recommended policies that were consistent with those recorded needs. My final decision For the reasons I’ve explained, I do not uphold Mr G’s complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr G to accept or reject my decision before 7 April 2026. Farzana Miah Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --