St. James's Place Wealth Management Plc · DRN-6104531

The complaint Mrs F has complained about advice she received from St. James's Place Wealth Management Plc (‘SJP’) in 2014 to invest in an ISA instead of a pension. Mrs F received advice at the same time as her husband, Mr F. Mr F’s complaint is being dealt with separately by this Service; this decision relates solely to the advice Mrs F received. What happened The background to this complaint is well known to both parties so I don’t intend to set it out in full. Instead I’ve provided a summary of what I consider key to my decision. Mrs F met an adviser from SJP in late 2014. She wanted advice on where to invest a sum of money she had acquired from having taken tax free cash from her defined benefit pension arrangement. A fact find document on file notes the following about Mrs F. • She was 60 years old, employed and a member of her employer’s defined contribution pension. • Her net yearly salary was £7,800. She was also receiving £4,200 per year from a defined benefit pension. • She had joint savings with her husband of a little over £100,000. There are two suitability letters on file. These set out the adviser’s recommendations for the ISA investment and a Unit Trust (which Mrs F has not complained about). These letters recorded Mrs F’s objectives as: • She was wishing to invest some of the large amount of capital she had which was currently earning very little interest. • She wanted to invest for growth in a tax-efficient manner over the medium term. • She didn’t require an income from her investments at this time but liked the idea that she may have the opportunity to take an income in the future to supplement her retirement. The adviser recommended that Mrs F invest £13,500 immediately in a SJP stocks and shares ISA. And from January 2015, start monthly contributions of £500 per month into the SJP ISA. The adviser recommended that the ISA was invested in SJP’s Managed Portfolio. The monthly contribution to Mrs F’s ISA came from her husband’s salary. Mrs F accepted the adviser’s recommendation and her lump sum and monthly contributions to the ISA commenced. In 2019 Mrs F moved her SJP ISA to another company. In 2024, Mrs F complained to SJP about the advice she’d received. In summary she complained that she’d subsequently learned a more tax efficient way would have been for her husband to increase his work pension contributions each month as that would have been gross of tax and a more tax efficient way to use his income.

-- 1 of 3 --

SJP reviewed the complaint but didn’t uphold it so Mrs F referred the matter to this Service for an independent review. One of our Investigators reviewed the complaint but didn’t think SJP’s advice had been unsuitable for Mrs F so she didn’t uphold the complaint. Mrs F didn’t accept the Investigator’s findings. So the complaint has been passed to me to reach 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. My role is to consider the evidence presented by Mrs F and SJP in order to reach an independent, fair and reasonable decision based on the facts of the case. In deciding what’s fair and reasonable, I must consider the relevant law, regulation and best industry practice. I’d like to assure Mrs F that although I’ve only summarised her complaint and submissions above, I’ve read and considered everything both she and SJP have provided. And having reviewed all the evidence, I’m in broad agreement with the Investigator’s view and I agree with the outcome she reached. I’ll explain why. At the time the advice was given to Mrs F, SJP was required to carry out its business in line with the Conduct of Business Rules (‘COBS’). COBS 9.2 required SJP to take reasonable steps to make sure its recommendations were suitable for Mrs F. To achieve this, COBS 9.2.2R said SJP had to obtain enough information from Mrs F to ensure its recommendation met her objectives, that she could bear the related investment risks consistent with these objectives and that she had the necessary experience and knowledge to understand the risks involved in the transaction. I also think it’s important to say that when considering this complaint, it isn’t my role to determine what would have been the best or most suitable advice for Mrs F. It’s clear that there will be many different ways of achieving a customer’s objectives and with hindsight, some strategies will appear more or less beneficial. However, the rules I’ve set out above simply say that the advice must be suitable for Mrs F. So, that is my starting point here. Mrs F now believes her husband should have been advised to contribute more to his pension rather than to an ISA for her. And I appreciate why she considers this would have been more tax efficient for her husband. However, that doesn’t mean the advice SJP provided for Mrs F to invest in an ISA was unsuitable. Mrs F was already receiving a pension and was a member of her employer’s pension scheme. And her husband was already receiving a pension and contributing to another defined contribution plan through his employer. Mr F wouldn’t be able to access funds paid into his defined contribution pension until he chose to take his pension benefits. However, the ISA provided an opportunity for a tax efficient way to save and invest. Any interest and investment growth would be free from UK income tax and capital gains tax and the ISA funds could be accessed at any time, should the need arise. And it’s not generally considered bad advice to utilise the ISA annual allowance. So overall I don’t think the advice to invest in an ISA was unsuitable for Mrs F. I’ve therefore gone on to consider the type of ISA recommended and how it was invested.

-- 2 of 3 --

SJP recommended a Stocks and Shares ISA and having assessed Mrs F has having a medium attitude to risk, it suggested she invest it in SJP’s Managed Portfolio. At the time of the advice, Mrs F’s circumstances suggest she was in a position to invest. She had joint disposable income of around £2,650 per month after expenses and although she doesn’t appear to have much investment experience, she did have a little over £100,000 in joint deposit accounts, although I appreciate this amount reduced to around £20,000 after both Mrs F and her husband’s ISA and Unit Trust investments were established. Having considered Mrs F’s circumstances, objectives and capacity for loss, I’m satisfied that the Stocks and Shares ISA was suitable for her. Mrs F wasn’t reliant on the ISA funds so she was able to tolerate any short term losses that may arise as a result of investing in line with a medium attitude to risk. And the SJP Managed Portfolio had a medium risk rating so was appropriate for her attitude to risk. Overall, I’m satisfied the recommended ISA and where it was invested met Mrs F’s (and her husband’s) objective of investing on a regular basis for capital growth in a tax efficient manner. I appreciate Mrs F has provided details of a decision published on our database to support her argument that the advice she received was unsuitable. However, each complaint is considered on the individual facts and circumstances. In some cases, subtle differences in circumstances can mean that a different outcome is reached when reviewing the suitability of advice provided. I can’t comment on the case Mrs F has referenced. However, having considered the advice Mrs F received from SJP, I don’t think it was unsuitable. I am sorry to disappoint Mrs F but having reviewed all the information on file, I’m not upholding her complaint because I don’t think it was unsuitable for her to have been advised to contribute to an ISA. My final decision I appreciate that Mrs F will be disappointed in the decision that I have reached but based on the available evidence I don’t uphold her complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs F to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. Lorna Goulding Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --