St. James's Place Wealth Management Plc · DRN-6249466

The complaint Miss W complains about the suitability of an investment bond St. James's Place Wealth Management Plc (SJP) recommended, and the transparency and charging of fees for the services it provided her. What happened The background to this complaint is well known to both parties, so I’ll keep my summary of events to date brief. Miss W first met with SJP for wealth management advice around October 2016, where she was advised to transfer her ISA to SJP’s management. The following year around May 2017 SJP advised she open a new pension and a general investment account (GIA), with an Investment Bond (IB) and further pension transfer being advised in the later parts of 2021. In the following years the IB failed to perform as she expected leading Miss W to have concerns about the suitability of the IB, wondering if she instead should’ve been advised to reduce the balance of a buy-to-let mortgage. Following discussions around the IB with SJP, she was also concerned about the fees paid to SJP for its services over the years. She raised a complaint with SJP that, in summary, the IB had been mis-sold to her, had performed poorly and that SJP hadn’t been transparent in the fees it charged for its service. As SJP weren’t able to issue a final response within the time limits permitted, Miss W referred her complaint to our service. One of our Investigators looked into the matter and upheld Miss W’s complaint in part. The latest version of his conclusions was, in summary, that: • The IB wasn’t an unsuitable recommendation for her. • It wasn’t clear to what extent reducing her mortgage balance was considered but given the IB was suitable on its own, the mortgage not being considered wouldn’t have rendered the overall advice given unsuitable. • He was more persuaded that market factors led to the performance not being what Miss W expected, rather than anything SJP had or hadn’t done. • SJP had sufficiently disclosed the fees due for its services and the products Miss W invested in. • But, SJP hadn’t provided evidence that it had always provided the annual reviews as part of the ongoing advice service Miss W had paid for. He recommended that SJP refund the ongoing advice charges Miss W paid and compare how that amount would’ve performed had they remained in the respective products, with a

-- 1 of 16 --

notional deduction for tax if the compensation relating to the pension couldn’t be paid back into it. The refunds were to cover the following reviews: • The ISA – 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022 and 2024, • The GIA – 2018 and 2019, • The Pension – 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022 and 2024 • The IB – 2022 only Miss W didn’t agree with the outcome reached. She gave a number of reasons why which can be summarised into the following themes: • SJP hadn’t provided her with the information it and our Investigator relied on, and it was unfair to assume she’d received it. • There were factual inaccuracies in our Investigator’s portrayal of the matters and by SJP in its recording of her circumstances in her meetings with it. • She wasn’t aware she could pay down her mortgage and so our Investigator saying she had a tendency to invest rather than reduce her mortgage was incorrect. Once she was aware she could do so, she withdrew a portion of her investments to do so. • The decision to transfer the IB value to her ISA was hers, not a recommendation from SJP. While she was asked to attend a review following her instruction she saw no benefit in doing so given she was disillusioned with the relationship with SJP. • Most of the meetings which took place didn’t involve the provision of what she considered would amount to ongoing advice. • Her assets under SJP’s management weren’t large enough to justify annual scrutiny of being annually reviewed in any event. • She had received no record of the fees paid and didn’t know to extent of which charges were applied. When she did query the fees, what SJP’s adviser told her didn’t correspond with the paperwork. • Compensation ought to have been awarded to reflect her time and stress caused in this matter. SJP responded disagreeing in part with our Investigator’s conclusions. It said: • It wasn’t right to say the ongoing advice fees from 2018 should be refunded, as that would be out of time, for 2020 as a review took place in February that year, 2022 on the basis a fact-find was completed and notes recording the meeting demonstrated a review had been carried out. • It agreed to refund the ongoing advice fees charged for the reviews due in 2019 and 2023. • It would prefer to pay simple interest at 8% on the refund due, rather than complete a comparison of what that amount remained in the respective products, on the basis of complexity and time to complete. Our Investigator explained to SJP that the 2018 charge would be in time given the period the fee was for, and to Miss W that her further comments hadn’t changed his view.

-- 2 of 16 --

As an agreement wasn’t reached, Miss W’s complaint was passed to me to decide. I reached a different conclusion to our Investigator around which charges should be compensated to Miss W, and the basis of how compensatory loss should be calculated. Because of that I issued a provisional decision to set out my conclusions. In my provisional decision I said: “I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Firstly, I’d like to assure Miss W I understand her strength of feeling about what’s happened and why she feels unfairly treated. I can also see she feels unheard through much of her complaint since she first raised it with SJP and subsequently through us. While I may not comment on every point she’s made, I’d like to assure her this isn’t because I’ve not listened to her but only because I’ll only explain the matters I think are most important. I may not then refer to every piece of evidence and argument she has raised, but I have considered everything submitted to me in reaching my determination of her complaint. Jurisdiction The rules of our service – those within DISP 2.8 of the FCA Handbook – require that I can only consider a complaint if it was made to the firm within six years of the event, or if what happened was more than six years ago then within three years of the complainant being aware of, or ought to have been reasonably aware of a problem. I can only cast aside those rules if the firm consents to us considering the complaint regardless of any time issues, or if there are exceptional reasons for the delay – which the regulator gives an example of incapacitation. Miss W complained to SJP about these matters on or around 26 April 2024. I’ve not seen the dated complaint but given she provided this date on her submission to our service and that SJP issued a regulatory 8 week holding letter to her complaint around that time afterwards, I’m satisfied 26 April 2024 is when her complaint was made to SJP. Six years before that date is 26 April 2018, events happening before this date then would be out of time unless she met the three year part of the rule, there were exceptional circumstances or the firm consented. SJP has said it doesn’t consent and I’ve not any reason to cast aside under the basis of an exceptional reason for any delay given there’s evidence on ongoing communication in that time and I’ve seen no evidence Miss W was prevented by exceptional circumstances from making her complaint sooner. Arguably given SJP advised Miss W to take out the GIA, Pension and on a further contribution to her ISA in May 2017, then by May 2018 the following review ought to have taken place. As that was after 26 April 2018, the part of her complaint about the ongoing advice review in 2018, in particular the fees charged, are in time. The only event prior to this that would be relevant is the annual review in 2017, at which point would relate only to the ISA as this was the only SJP product she was due ongoing advice for. In my view the 2017 review would be out of time as is outside the six year window. I think reasonable awareness of a cause to

-- 3 of 16 --

complain about that ought to have arisen, at the latest, from 24 February 2020. I say this because SJP sent her a letter then which explained that it was providing ongoing advice and would meet her annually. She would reasonably then have been made aware that she was due annual advice on the ISA and if she felt she hadn’t received that in prior years, then it follows she would reasonably have a cause to complain then. Given she didn’t make that complaint within six years or within three years of when I think she had a cause to complain, SJP hasn’t consented to our service being able to consider the complaint in any event and as there is no evidence of an exceptional reason for the delay, any issues relating to the provision of or charging for ongoing advice in 2017 is out of time. Mis-sale of the IB Miss W has complained about how only the IB was sold to her, I mention only the other assets she holds with SJP as they are relevant to what I’ll go into to say about fees later below. My understanding is Miss W isn’t concerned about the sale of those other products but for clarity, I’ve not considered how those were sold to her as they weren’t part of her complaint to SJP. When SJP gave advice to Miss W in November 2021 to invest £30,000 into the IB, under the rules within COBS 9A of the FCA Handbook, it needed to ensure its recommendation was suitable. Those say, in summary, that SJP needed to collect enough information about Miss W to understand her objectives, circumstances and her knowledge and experience of investing, and use that information in making a recommendation that would be suitable for her. SJP completed a fact-find with Miss W to gather that information. The pertinent information recorded in the 2021 fact-find document was, in my view, as follows: • On her personal circumstances: o she was single with no dependents. o In “good” health. o Self-employed as a delivery driver. o No expectation of her circumstances changing. • On her financial circumstances: o Monthly income of £1,300 from her work and a property let o Monthly expenditure of around £1,190, of which £790 was deemed essential. o Net monthly disposable income of £110. o Emergency savings of £10,000. o No debt • Held the following existing assets: o Pensions – £60,360.29 plus two other plans of unknown value o Investments – £138,719.76 o Cash – £30,800 o Personal Assets – £25,000 o Property – £310,000 Her objectives were recorded as being that she wanted to invest £30,000 but had used her ISA allowance for that year and had other plans that would utilise

-- 4 of 16 --

capital gains tax allowances, which appears to relate to property. This investment was intended to be invested to support her medium to long term needs. I’m satisfied from reviewing the evidence available that SJP carried out a reasonable fact-find with Miss W given I’m satisfied it covers the information the rules ask SJP to gather. I know Miss W disputes the accuracy of some of the information SJP took about her. I’ve considered her submissions around that, but I think it’s fair to rely on the information SJP says it recorded given the rules entitle it to rely on the information it is told and where I’ve not seen evidence she challenged the summary of those its advice documentation set out. It follows I’m satisfied the above would broadly reflect her position. I know Miss W has objected to us deeming her to have received those letters when she says she hasn’t, but given any postal issues are outside of SJP’s control and its letters were addressed to the same address she resides now, I can’t fairly say it is responsible for her not receiving those if she didn’t. I’ve not seen the detail, but the suitability letter refers to a conversation taking place about the level of risk Miss W wanted to take. SJP considered from its assessment of her risk tolerance to have a “medium” tolerance. It says in that letter this meant, “You want your capital to keep pace with inflation and are investing for at least five years. You want to potential to achieve better long- term returns and are comfortable with your capital being invested in equities, some of it overseas, bonds and in some cases property. You realise there may be significant falls in the value of your investments.”. I’ve thought carefully about the information SJP had about Miss W’s attitude to risk. And having done so, I’m satisfied this level of risk wouldn’t have been unsuitable given her objectives and the information SJP had about her previous investment history. I understand Miss W considers it unfair that SJP considered her to be “experienced” given she held investments before. But it isn’t unreasonable for firms to include the type of investments held before when determining what it considers a suitable level of risk exposure. In my view her previous investment experience is relevant and how it was advising her to invest her IB was similar in implementation to her ISA, which was already in place at the time. It follows I don’t consider it unreasonable SJP used that information when advising Miss W to take the level of risk it did nor that it reached an unfair conclusion about how much risk it advised Miss W was willing and able to take. It follows then I’m satisfied SJP fairly assessed Miss W’s circumstances and objectives, including the level of risk to take. To meet those, it recommended she invest in its “Managed Fund” portfolio, which is a collection of diversified funds, and hold those within an Investment Bond wrapper. I’ve considered the asset mix of what SJP recommended and in my view they were in line with the sort of strategy that could meet Miss W’s objectives in line with the level of risk she wanted to take. I say this because it was spreading her money across around 11 diversified funds which exposed her to a variety of assets in a manner consistent with someone wanting to take the level of risk I think SJP’s records show Miss W did at the time, with a higher proportion of equities but with bond and other assets to balance the risk exposure within her level of suitability.

-- 5 of 16 --

Miss W has in particular raised concerns that SJP didn’t consider as an alternative reducing her mortgage balance. She says she wasn’t aware this would be an option until a chance conversation with a friend, and that SJP hadn’t discussed this with her when it advised her in 2021. I’ve thought carefully about this, and it is unclear exactly what was or wasn’t said about this. The fact- find format suggests SJP would’ve asked her about her mortgage, but it has recorded that she had no debts and no other indirect mention of the mortgage. I can see from the 2016 advice it did know about her mortgage and commented on reducing it as an alternative to the advice to invest, discounting that as a suitable option at the time. The 2021 suitability letter instead in a similar section says there was no debt. I can’t be sure what SJP asked or what Miss W told it about her buy-to-let mortgage. But in any event, I think it’s unlikely at the time it would’ve been a suitable recommendation to pay towards the mortgage rather than invest in the manner SJP did. I say this because Miss W’s objectives were to grow her capital for use in the medium to long term and wanted to seek returns above the low savings rates on offer at the time. When thinking about this I’ve considered the economic context at the time. In November 2021, when Miss W received this advice, the Bank of England Base Rate – which is a factor when firms decide savings and mortgage rates – was 0.1%. It’s likely at that time then mortgages were much cheaper and savings rates much lower than they have been in more recent years. As SJP has said, potentially with hindsight, it thinks it would’ve at the time advised paying the mortgage down to be unsuitable as the returns would likely be much improved invested rather than paying down the mortgage. As it turns the market volatility, interest rates and inflation increased in the years following this investment, which has likely affected the IB’s performance. But that happened after SJP gave its advice in 2021 and wouldn’t have been reasonably foreseeable to it at the time. Whether it did think about paying down the mortgage in the manner it did as an alternative option isn’t clear, but had it included paying down the mortgage in its advice, in my view I think it would’ve discounted it on the basis that Miss W’s objectives would be better met by investing in the markets to outgrow the low rates and would likely benefit her more than reducing her mortgage. I say this because reducing the capital wouldn’t meet the objectives she was looking for and replacing the mortgage with another product would come with its own risks and unlikely free up the additional income that would be needed to meet her objectives at the time, taken with the overall economic context I mentioned above. I accept in hindsight it’s possible she may have benefited from reducing her mortgage, but that isn’t the determination I need to make here. I need to decide at the time with all the information SJP had about her, whether it gave suitable advice to invest in the IB. Importantly it doesn’t need to have advised the most suitable product or course of action, only one that was suitable. And for the reasons given above, I’m satisfied the advice it gave was suitable. Transparency of fees I’ve carefully considered what SJP told Miss W about the fees she would be paying for its advice services.

-- 6 of 16 --

The documentation Miss W was given around the time of the advice, in my view, explains its charges in a sufficiently clear manner. This information was provided by SJP to Miss W in a number of documents, which I’m satisfied on balance SJP had given her given its letters say it did and is a standard part of its onboarding procedures. I understand Miss W disputes she was provided with that documentation and she herself wasn’t aware of the charges she was paying until more recently. But for the reasons given above I can’t fairly conclude this information wasn’t given to her. Looking at what Miss W was told when she first received services from SJP, the suitability letter and ISA product illustration documents include the following information about charges: • That a disadvantage of replacing her existing ISA with SJPs included higher charges. • An initial charge would be due, which SJP discounted. • The following charge categories were set out as a percentage of the value invested: o Initial advice o Ongoing advice o Additional contributions o Fund management charges o Annual management charge o Early withdrawal – which wasn’t applicable to the ISA o Plan charge – which wasn’t applicable to the ISA o Withdrawals – which wasn’t applicable to the ISA This information was also given to Miss W by SJP in the following years in a similar manner. Again, the presentation of its charging information from the evidence provided I think is set out in a clear, fair and not misleading manner. As in my view SJP provided fair information throughout and during its relationship with Miss W and I’m satisfied it was provided in a clear, fair and not misleading way, I can’t fairly say it didn’t disclose how it would charge Miss W for its services. Miss W is also unhappy with how SJP provided the information about its charges in the statements it sent her. From those I’ve seen, I’m satisfied SJP provided details of the charges for her ISA and GIA, but not the pension or IB, which she’s in the course of her complaint asked SJP for but I’ve not seen was provided. While I’ve not seen evidence of SJP providing the “pounds and pence” for what she paid for ongoing advice overall, as well as breakdowns of the individual charges within the IB and pension, that doesn’t mean in my view that SJP would be unfairly charging her for its services. But given Miss W has asked for this information, which I don’t consider to be unreasonable, and SJP hasn’t provided it to her in a clear and simple manner, I intend to direct it to provide Miss W with the detail she’s already asked for. To be clear that is, as is available, the individual charges applied to her investments and pensions each year in a clear and simple format. I also think SJP has caused her a degree of frustration by not providing that and so, I intend to make an additional award to reflect the trouble caused. It follows then I’m satisfied SJP fairly disclosed the charges Miss W was due to pay for her products with SJP, but that SJP hasn’t provided the information Miss

-- 7 of 16 --

W has asked for about what she said, which I don’t consider to be an unreasonable request. The application of the ongoing advice fees As I’ve said above SJP fairly disclosed to Miss W both what and how it charges for its ongoing advice. But for it to apply those charges fairly I would expect to see that it provided her with the service she was paying for, which includes an annual review to assess the suitability of the products being covered under that service. In Miss W’s case, she held an ISA, GIA, Pension and IB which all included ongoing advice arrangements. From the evidence provided I’ve only seen that meetings between Miss W and SJP took place on: • 20 October 2016 – the initial advice to transfer her ISA from another provider to SJP and invest in the portfolio of funds it recommended. • 17 May 2017 – new advice given to start a new pension with SJP and to open a GIA to feed her existing ISA transferred into SJP the year prior. Existing ISA arrangements reviewed. • January/February 2020 – ISA further contribution • 9 September 2021 – Further ISA and Pension contribution. • 10 November 2021 – IB advice was given • 5 October 2022 – meeting recorded as being about performance of investments and concerns about rising mortgage costs. • 24 November 2023 – meeting recorded as being about a tax issue Broadly in carrying out an annual review for each product, I would expect that to be carried out around the same time each year. That means the reviews ought to have broadly taken place generally around May for the Pension, ISA and GIA, and around November for the IB. SJP in these circumstances could fairly review all the products at the same time rather than at each’s specific anniversary where there was differing start dates for them. Having considered everything that’s been provided and said, in my view SJP can only fairly apply the ongoing advice charge in 2022 and 2024. I say this because while there’s evidence of some meetings and discussions relating to Miss W’s assets, I’ve not seen enough evidence to show SJP provided her with the services she was paying for outside of 2022 and 2024. For 2022, SJP has provided evidence Miss W was invited to a meeting along with information of what that might entail, such as reviewing finances, savings and tax mitigation. A record has also been provided showing this invite was accepted and was attended by both Miss W and her adviser on 5 October 2022. A note recorded afterwards says:

-- 8 of 16 --

“[Adviser] met [Miss W] for an annual review. She is very concerned about the reduction in investment value and she also has a rental property that she is concerned about increasing mortgage costs. Agreed that [Miss W] will contact mortgage provider to see if penalty to repay mortgage or if there are better rates and also get property valued so we can have a further discussion about options.” Emails following that meeting continued the discussion around her mortgage options. Those discussions with her lender didn’t reach a result Miss W wanted with her deciding to leave things as they were to see how the ISA performed and how mortgage rates changed over the following months. She explained that to SJP which in response acknowledged that was a “sensible move” and its brief thoughts on how mortgage and investments markets might move in the short term. It’s unclear the extent of what was discussed in this meeting but in my view there’s enough evidence to demonstrate it’s likely SJP provided a review. I say this because I’m satisfied it updated her circumstances, reviewed the performance of her investments and there was discussion about the mortgage, which Miss W went about finding out more and made her own decision to leave things as they were for now. While this meeting didn’t lead to any changes being made, given there’s evidence of detailed discussions taking place around investment performance and mortgage options, as evidenced in the note, fact- find and follow up emails. It’s finely balanced but given the above, overall I think it’s more likely than not SJP provided a review under its ongoing advice service for 2022 with Miss W. I don’t intend then to direct SJP to refund that fee. For 2024, I also intend to say SJP can fairly charge its fee for its ongoing advice service. Having reviewed the evidence provided, I can see the relationship between Miss W and SJP fracturing, largely due to the performance of her IB and requests to encash it she felt SJP wasn’t acting quickly enough on – the subject of a separate complaint outside of this decision. The evidence does support despite those issues that SJP invited Miss W to a review as a letter dated 19 March 2024 demonstrates. But, in response Miss W declined to attend a meeting and told SJP she saw no point in doing so. In my view where SJP was willing and able to arrange a review, which I think was more likely to have taken the correct format, given the issues publicised around this and the more formal nature of SJP’s invite, than I think previous years did, which I’ll come onto. In my view Miss W consciously declined that invite and while I understand her reasons why given the relationship had broken down that wouldn’t, in my view, fairly render SJP charging its ongoing advice charge for the 2024 review to be unfair. However, when considering the service provided between 2018 to 2021, inclusive, and then 2023, for all products under SJP’s management, I’ve not seen sufficient evidence to persuade me that SJP can fairly charge for its ongoing advice in those years. Each year has different circumstances and so I’ll explain each in turn. For 2018, the only evidence provided is a record that shows SJP attempted to contact Miss W to arrange a review. This says, “Follow up t/c offering annual review - VM left”, which I interpret as meaning SJP tried to contact Miss W by phone and left a voicemail when she didn’t answer. I’ve not seen SJP carried out any further attempts or tried another method afterwards. As it didn’t and there’s no evidence of any ongoing advice being given, I’m not satisfied SJP

-- 9 of 16 --

carried out reasonable and proportional attempts to provide Miss W with the ongoing advice service she paid for. It follows then my current thinking is that it wouldn’t in my view be fair and reasonable for SJP to charge Miss W for that service in 2018. For 2019, I’ve not seen any evidence of any ongoing advice being provided to Miss W for any of her products held with SJP. Nor have I seen any evidence of attempts to arrange any meetings, or refusals by Miss W to attend one, for her products to be reviewed. SJP hasn’t challenged this further in response to our Investigator’s views and so I think it’s unlikely any such evidence can now be provided. It follows then as SJP can’t evidence that it provided Miss W with a review, I intend to say it can’t fairly charge her for the ongoing advice charges she paid for 2019’s review. For 2020, the pertinent evidence available is a suitability letter. This was sent to Miss W on 24 February 2020 and while it demonstrates a meeting with SJP went ahead, it isn’t on its own in my view enough to say that SJP carried out an ongoing review. I say this because this letter evidences that Miss W was being advised on a further contribution to her ISA, to bring it up to the allowance levels for that year. The only reference to the ongoing suitability of this arrangement is SJP saying the current advice is a continuation of the original advice it gave, which it included for reference, and that Miss W’s circumstances hadn’t changed since. Miss W likely paid for that advice for the further investment with a deduction being made from the sum being invested, SJP would then in my view need to provide two distinct services as it is charging for each, the new investment and the ongoing arrangements. In my view SJP hasn’t demonstrated that it has provided separate advice about her ongoing arrangements, which at this time would’ve also included her pension. Given the predominant focus was on the further investment and SJP hasn’t been able to provide evidence of the ongoing suitability of the pension being advised, I’m not persuaded it can fairly charge its ongoing advice service paid for the 2020 review. For 2021, SJP sent Miss W an email in March 2021 asking her to arrange a suitable date with it to attend a review meeting. Miss W wasn’t able to attend at the time for personal reasons, but a meeting was later scheduled and attended in September 2021. The evidence provided around that time show SJP sent separate suitability letters covering; a £20,000 contribution to her ISA, a pension transfer from another provider, the new investment into the IB. In a similar manner to 2020, the ISA recommendation refers back to the original advice, enclosed a copy and commented that nothing had changed materially from when that advice was given. The remainder of that letter then focuses on the further investment but different to 2020 says the usual 5% initial advice fee would be reduced to 0%. But overall, I’m not persuaded that while advice was given, the further contribution, I can’t fairly conclude what was given could be said to amount to an annual review of the ISA itself. I say this because it refers back to the original advice for the reasons and the rationale for the fund selection. In my view the evidence doesn’t demonstrate SJP revaluated the advice it gave nor the assets Miss W was to invest in, rather it simply continues what was already in place without the detailed reassessment I would expect to see from an annual suitability review. As far as the pension, this suitability letter makes no substantial finding or recommendation on the ongoing suitability of the pension advice. Instead focusing on the pension being transferred from a third party to SJP. With the evidence before me, it follows I intend to say I’m not

-- 10 of 16 --

persuaded SJP provide the annual review service Miss W had paid for. Given the IB was a new investment, it wasn’t a requirement that the suitability of it was reviewed. For 2023, SJP has evidenced that a meeting took place with Miss W on 24 January 2023. The summary notes of that meeting say: “[Adviser] met [Miss W] to discuss a tax issue that has arisen. [Adviser] agreed to look into his understanding of the position and get back to [Miss W]. depending on the outcome we will discuss releasing funds from investments” From the email evidence I’ve seen around this time, the tax issue appears to relate to a property Miss W had rented out. And read with the above, that some liquidity may need to be released from her investments to settle any liability arising from those further investigations. There appears to be no follow up or further work carried out by SJP following that meeting. And neither have I seen any evidence demonstrating SJP made any recommendations of suitability about her investments and pension, which the ongoing advice fee is paying for. Some aspects here could be seen as similar to 2022 where SJP has given its time and carried out some work which might have later affected what advice it would give about encashing some investments. But given the discussion appears specific to a tax issue outside of her assets under SJP’s ongoing advice arrangement, in my view the evidence of the discussions taking place in 2023 wouldn’t amount to the service its ongoing advice charge is due to provide. It follows then I also intend to say the ongoing advice charges for the 2023 review need to be refunded. Shortly afterwards in May 2024, Miss W’s ongoing advice service was cancelled and no further charges taken. It follows then I intend to say SJP can only fairly apply its ongoing advice charge due for the 2022 and 2024 reviews. For all other years referred to above, I intend to direct it to refund the ongoing advice charges it applied to Miss W. Our Investigator said SJP needed to, in effect, simulate the lost growth had the charges remained invested in the respective products. SJP has since suggested 8% simple interest instead on any refund it would need to make. In my view I find SJP’s suggestion to use 8% simple interest here to be fair. I say this because calculating the comparative loss for each and every charge against each product at the point of each charge being taken, which I understand to be monthly, will involve complexity and be, as SJP has said, time intensive to do so. Given the relative simplicity of calculating interest, that 8% simple is what our service typically award when we don’t know what someone would’ve done had they not been deprived of those funds and that it likely isn’t to Miss W’s detriment, I intend to direct SJP to pay 8% simple interest from the point each charge was taken until the date of acceptance of my final decision. I am open to hearing alternative views to that and if, in particular, Miss W has a particular view on that she should provide that in response to this provisional decision. Summary

-- 11 of 16 --

For the reasons given above I intend to say I’m satisfied SJP’s advice for Miss W to invest in the IB as it did was suitable and that it had sufficiently disclosed the fees and charges for its services overall in a fair manner. But that SJP hadn’t always fairly applied the charges for its ongoing advice service. I also find that Miss W has been caused some degree of frustration and upset by the way SJP carried out its reviews. I also then intend to direct SJP pay her an additional £200 which in my view fairly reflects the distress and inconvenience caused. Putting things right For the reasons given above, I intend to direct St. James's Place Wealth Management Plc to: • Refund the ongoing advice charges applied for the reviews due for: o 2018 o 2019 o 2020 o 2021 o 2023 • Pay 8% simple interest on each charge from the point it was taken until the date of acceptance of my final decision. • Provide a breakdown of the charges Miss W has paid for SJP’s services in a clear and simple format. • Pay £200 to reflect the inconvenience caused, which includes not providing the charges breakdown in such a manner when Miss W requested it. If SJP is unable to pay the compensation affecting the pension into Miss W’s pension plan, the amount should be paid directly to her. But had it been possible to pay into the plan, it would have provided a taxable income. Therefore, the compensation should be reduced to notionally allow for any income tax that would otherwise have been paid. This is an adjustment to ensure the compensation is a fair amount – it isn’t a payment of tax to HMRC, so Miss W won’t be able to reclaim any of the reduction after compensation is paid. The notional allowance should be calculated using Miss W’s actual or expected marginal rate of tax at her selected retirement age. It’s reasonable to assume that Miss W is likely to be a basic rate taxpayer at the selected retirement age, so the reduction would equal 20%. However, if Miss W would have been able to take a tax-free lump sum, the reduction should be applied to 75% of the compensation, resulting in an overall reduction of 15%. If either SJP or Miss W dispute that this is a reasonable assumption, they must let us know as soon as possible so that the assumption can be clarified and Miss W receives appropriate compensation. It won’t be possible for us to

-- 12 of 16 --

amend this assumption once any final decision has been issued on the complaint. The same reduction doesn’t need to be applied to the ISA, GIA or IB given they aren’t subject to the same taxation as pensions.” Both parties responded to my provisional decision to make further submissions. Miss W, along with reiterating earlier concerns raised, said: • She didn’t think the suitability report from 2021 I relied on was from the time, suspecting it being produced following her complaint. In particular when it’s existence hadn’t been made known to her earlier. • The suitability reports would’ve been sent by email as that was the method her SJP partner used to disseminate such information. Had it been by post her good relations with her postman means it would’ve been received by her. As in both events she hadn’t received those documents, that evidenced she hadn’t received them. • She also hadn’t received SJP’s new client documentation, some of which would’ve required the advice to have been given first. • There was no records of her agreeing to the advice, which the documentation language implies would’ve been required. • There were inaccuracies in the 2021 fact-find which didn’t represent her circumstances at the time – in particular the value of her personal assets and some listed savings accounts. • Issues involving pension advice she’d received, but weren’t part of the original complaint. SJP said: • It accepted what I’d said about the ongoing advice fees charged for 2018, 2019 and 2023 being refunded. • It didn’t agree with the conclusions I reached for the ongoing advice charges being refunded for 2020 and 2021. As both parties had provided their response, the complaint was passed back 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. Having reflected on the matter again and taking account of the submissions in response to my provisional decision, I’ve not seen to depart from the conclusions I reached in my provisional decision. I’ll explain why. I’ll turn first to what Miss W has said about the 2021 advice and the clarity of fees charged to her.

-- 13 of 16 --

Miss W has challenged the authenticity of the 2021 suitability report and the accuracy of the fact-finds that have been completed. I don’t by any means dismiss Miss W’s concerns, but I need to balance those with the overall evidence available and from that what I can fairly determine most likely happened. I can’t also hold SJP responsible for actions of third parties, such as here the postal service. In my view it is fair for me to rely on the evidence provided as it is. I say this because the suitability letter is dated 10 November 2021 and refers to “enclosing” other documentation rather than “attaching” which would be more commonly seen in email communications. It also specially includes that the documentation I set out in my provisional decision had been sent. On balance then I can’t fairly conclude that SJP didn’t attempt to send the detail about its recommendation to Miss W. I appreciate her good relations with her local postmen but that doesn’t in my view demonstrate problems in Miss W receiving this letter couldn’t occur elsewhere in the postal network if the letter wasn’t received. I’m also not of the view that if SJP didn’t for whatever reason send the suitability letter that this would render the advice unsuitable given what I’ve said about in the overall circumstances I considered that recommendation to have been suitable – of which my view remains unchanged. While I’ve not seen specific evidence of Miss W agreeing to the advice, the investment went ahead using her funds on deposit. In any event then I’m satisfied it is fair to conclude it likely Miss W accepted the recommendation SJP gave her. As I’ve not seen sufficient evidence to persuade me I can’t accept the evidence Miss W has concerns over, I haven’t changed my view on the basis of information SJP appears to have based its advice on. My reasons therefore haven’t changed from what I’ve said earlier in my provisional decision about this. Miss W also reiterated her concerns about SJP’s pricing structure and what she had and hadn’t paid for its services. But I remain satisfied for the reasons set out in my provisional decision that it had likely sufficiently presented that information to her. I accept she at times has found that confusing but that alone isn’t grounds for me, against the other evidence available, to say that SJP hadn’t fairly presented that information to her. I said in my provisional decision SJP needed to provide some information she’d asked for about the fees she’d paid, and I stand by what I said in my provisional decision about the overall clarity being sufficient, but that SJP needed to provide the information Miss W had previously asked for. I understand Miss W is deeply dissatisfied with aspects of her dealings with SJP, but for the reasons I’ve given above I’m satisfied the conclusions I reached in my provisional decision about her complaint are on balance fair and reasonable ones. Turning now to SJP’s submissions relating to the 2020 and 2021 ongoing advice charges. For 2020, SJP argues that a review meeting was held which led to an additional ISA contribution and that a suitability letter sent and fact-find updated. This along with the existing plans being suitable meant that no further comment was needed and so it would be reasonable to conclude that a review had taken place. I’ve considered that along with the overall evidence from 2020, but I remain of the view I reached in my provisional decision that SJP hasn’t demonstrated it provided the ongoing advice service paid Miss W had paid for relating to her existing holdings. I don’t have anything to add to what I’ve already said about that and would refer the parties to my reasoning in my provisional decision on this point.

-- 14 of 16 --

For 2021, SJP has provided further comment about what it considers took place. But again, like what I’ve said about 2020 the evidence provided largely shows detail around the further contributions and pension transfer rather than a re-evaluation of the suitability of advice. As I said in my provisional decision about 2020 and 2021, the evidence on balance demonstrates to me that the focus was on new recommendations relating to further contributions and a pension transfer, rather than an evaluation of the overall advice of the already invested money. It follows then I’ve not seen to depart from the conclusions I reached in my provisional decision despite the further submissions provided to me. That being that SJP hadn’t always fairly charged its ongoing advice fee and didn’t provide Miss W with the information she asked for about the fees she’d paid to SJP. Putting things right I’ve not seen to change how I earlier said SJP should put this matter right, and no specific objections were raised to the methodology, outside of the refund years in dispute, I set out in my provisional decision. It follows then for the reasons given above I direct St. James's Place Wealth Management Plc to: • Refund the ongoing advice charges applied for the reviews due for: o 2018 o 2019 o 2020 o 2021 o 2023 • Pay 8% simple interest on each charge from the point it was taken until the date of acceptance of my final decision. • Provide a breakdown of the charges Miss W has paid for SJP’s services in a clear and simple format. • Pay £200 to reflect the inconvenience caused, which includes not providing the charges breakdown in such a manner when Miss W requested it. If SJP is unable to pay the compensation affecting the pension into Miss W’s pension plan, the amount should be paid directly to her. But had it been possible to pay into the plan, it would have provided a taxable income. Therefore, the compensation should be reduced to notionally allow for any income tax that would otherwise have been paid. This is an adjustment to ensure the compensation is a fair amount – it isn’t a payment of tax to HMRC, so Miss W won’t be able to reclaim any of the reduction after compensation is paid. The notional allowance should be calculated using Miss W’s actual or expected marginal rate of tax at her selected retirement age. It’s reasonable to assume that Miss W is likely to be a basic rate taxpayer at the selected retirement age, so the reduction would equal 20%. However, if Miss W would have been able to take a tax-free lump sum, the reduction should be applied to 75% of the compensation, resulting in an overall reduction of 15%.

-- 15 of 16 --

The same reduction doesn’t need to be applied to the ISA, GIA or IB given they aren’t subject to the same taxation as pensions. My final decision I uphold Miss W’s complaint in part and direct St. James's Place Wealth Management Plc to settle this complaint as I’ve set out above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss W to accept or reject my decision before 22 April 2026. Ken Roberts Ombudsman

-- 16 of 16 --