St. James's Place Wealth Management Plc · DRN-6104664

The complaint Mr F has complained about advice he received from St. James's Place Wealth Management Plc (‘SJP’) in 2014 to invest in an ISA instead of a pension. Mr F received advice at the same time as his wife, Mrs F. Mrs F’s complaint is being dealt with separately by this Service; this decision relates solely to the advice Mr 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. Mr F met an adviser from SJP in late 2014. He wanted advice on where to invest a sum of money he had acquired from having recently received a redundancy payment and accessed tax free cash from his defined benefit pension arrangement. A fact find document on file notes the following about Mr F: • He was 55 years old, employed and a member of his employer’s defined contribution pension. • His yearly salary was £43,400. He was also receiving £22,000 per year from a defined benefit pension. • He had joint savings with his wife 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 Mr F has not complained about). These letters recorded Mr F’s objectives as: • He was wishing to invest some of the large amount of capital he had which was currently earning very little interest. • He wanted to invest for growth in a tax-efficient manner over the medium term. • He didn’t require an income from his investments at this time but liked the idea that he may have the opportunity to take an income in the future to supplement his retirement. The adviser recommended that Mr 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. Mr F accepted the adviser’s recommendation and his lump sum and monthly contributions to the ISA commenced. In 2019 Mr F moved his SJP ISA to another company. In 2024, Mr F complained to SJP about the advice he’d received. In summary he complained that he’d subsequently learned a more tax efficient way would have been 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 Mr 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 Mr F so she didn’t uphold the complaint. Mr 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 Mr 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 Mr F that although I’ve only summarised his complaint and submissions above, I’ve read and considered everything both he 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 Mr 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 Mr F. To achieve this, COBS 9.2.2R said SJP had to obtain enough information from Mr F to ensure its recommendation met his objectives, that he could bear the related investment risks consistent with these objectives and that he 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 Mr 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 Mr F. So, that is my starting point here. Mr F now believes he should have been advised to contribute more to his pension rather than to an ISA. And I appreciate why he considers this would have been more tax efficient for him. However, that doesn’t mean the advice SJP provided him to invest in an ISA was unsuitable. Mr F was already receiving a pension and was contributing to another defined contribution plan through his employer. He 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. I’ve therefore gone on to consider the type of ISA recommended and how it was invested. SJP recommended a stocks and shares ISA and having assessed Mr F has having a medium attitude to risk, it suggested he invest it in SJP’s Managed Portfolio.

-- 2 of 3 --

At the time of the advice, Mr F’s circumstances suggest he was in a position to invest. He had joint disposable income of around £2,650 per month after expenses and although he doesn’t appear to have much investment experience, he did have an existing ISA with £4,600 in it, and a little over £100,000 in joint deposit accounts, although I appreciate this amount reduced to around £20,000 after both his and his wife’s ISA and Unit Trust investments were established. Having considered Mr F’s circumstances, objectives and capacity for loss, I’m satisfied that the Stocks and Shares ISA was suitable for him. Mr F wasn’t reliant on the ISA funds so he 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 his attitude to risk. Overall, I’m satisfied the recommended ISA and where it was invested met Mr F’s objective of investing on a regular basis for capital growth in a tax efficient manner. I appreciate Mr F has provided details of a decision published on our database to support his argument that the advice he 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 Mr F has referenced. However, having considered the advice Mr F received from SJP, I don’t think it was unsuitable. I am sorry to disappoint Mr F but having reviewed all the information on file, I’m not upholding his complaint because I don’t think it was unsuitable for him to have been advised to contribute to an ISA. My final decision I appreciate that Mr F will be disappointed in the decision that I have reached but based on the available evidence I don’t uphold his complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr F to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. Lorna Goulding Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --