DRN-6240066

The complaint Mr B complains that St James’s Place Wealth Management Plc trading as St James’s Place (“SJP”) failed to administer his self-invested personal pension properly causing him a financial loss. What happened Mr B had an AJ Bell self-invested personal pension (“SIPP”) which started in 2009. It was the Group SIPP workplace scheme for his previous employer a firm I’ll refer to as “T”, and was managed on AJ Bell’s “InvestCentre” platform. From 2014 SJP administered the scheme on behalf of the employer, and an SJP partner (Mr M) provided advice to current members of the scheme. Mr B said he had numerous meetings with Mr M over the years, during which time he gained a full understanding of Mr B’s portfolio and investment goals. When Mr B left employment with “T” in he remained a member of the “Leavers” pension scheme and retained his AJ Bell SIPP. AJ Bell wrote to Mr B in February 2017 to confirm they’d been notified Mr B no longer worked for T, but his SIPP would remain active, with SJP as the servicing advisers. Mr B joined company “C” as a director. In May 2021 Mr B met with Mr M to discuss the possibility of SJP taking on responsibility for managing C’s pension scheme, and to review Mr B’s own personal pension arrangements. Mr B was under the impression that securing C’s business would mean SJP would continue to act as his financial advisers, but without him personally paying any fees. Mr B signed a letter of authority to enable Mr M of SJP to review his various investments including his AJ Bell SIPP, which at the time was valued around £450,000. The adviser recommended C switch its workplace plan to a different provider (“S”) which had better terms, and for which it would become the servicing advisers. Mr B didn’t want to move his plan to SJP or join C’s workplace scheme, preferring instead to remain with AJ Bell. So he used his authority as a director to decide that unlike the other employees, C would pay his employer pension contributions of £1,500 per month to his AJ Bell SIPP, and in November 2021 Mr M set up the necessary direct debit for that to happen. To enable Mr B to manage his SIPP himself, Mr M suggested he open an AJ Bell Funds and Shares Services (“FSS”) execution only (“XO”) account. He sent Mr B the XO application form, without charging for the advice. He also sent Mr B information about some Venture Capital Trusts (“VCTs”) Mr B may wish to invest in and said if he did, SJP would discount their advice fee from 4.5% to 3%. For an eighteen-month period C had been paying Mr B’s employer contributions to AJ Bell, and Mr B assumed SJP was arranging to allocate them to the investments within his SIPP as it had when he was an employee of T. But the funds were actually sitting in the AJ Bell SIPP cash account and hadn’t been moved into the SIPP and invested. Mr B initially queried this with AJ Bell, which explained that since Mr B had left his previous employer’s Group SIPP, the usual movements between the cash account and the FSS had ceased. So any

-- 1 of 5 --

transactions to invest the cash account funds would’ve needed to be made by SJP, or Mr B himself. In September 2023 Mr B asked SJP to arrange some trades within his SIPP, selling three funds and using the proceeds to buy into another, plus using some cash to buy some shares to be held within his SIPP. Mr M carried out the sale and purchase of the funds but said he would “prefer” Mr B to purchase the shares himself via his XO account, pointing out Mr B wasn’t paying SJP to manage his SIPP. The adviser also said he was “disappointed” the contributions weren’t being invested and didn’t know why, as he was under the impression it could all be managed by Mr B via the XO account. Mr B responded that as his SIPP was held on an adviser-only platform he couldn’t use his XO account to manage the investments within his SIPP, only Mr M could do that. He could instruct the adviser to sell funds in the SIPP and move the proceeds to the XO to enable Mr B to purchase new funds, but this was a poor solution as it meant losing the SIPP’s tax advantages. In December 2023 Mr B complained to SJP about the lack of service he’d received. He said when he introduced C’s business to SJP, Mr M had been instructed to invest Mr B’s employer contributions from C within his SIPP, and his failure to do so meant Mr B had missed out on investment growth. To put things right he wanted SJP to analyse what each fund would be worth had the contributions been invested as they should have. And that SJP’s failure to monitor the performance of a particular Japanese fund during 2021/22 which had been falling in value caused him a financial loss. In March 2024 Mr B transferred his SIPP from AJ Bell to another provider. SJP responded to Mr B’s complaint in May 2025 but rejected it, saying they were no longer being paid to manage Mr B’s investments, so he needed to manage his SIPP himself, and they were under no obligation to offer reviews or meetings. Mr B didn’t accept SJP’s response, saying his complaint wasn’t limited to the failure to invest the contributions from the cash account and resulting investment loss, and the lack of ongoing service from SJP. He maintained his relationship with SJP continued after he left the Group SIPP, meaning the adviser had a duty of care towards him, regardless of whether he was being paid. And there was an unwritten agreement that because he introduced his new employer C to SJP, Mr M would remain his financial adviser, and all services he’d previously received would continue free of charge. He also complained about the delay in responding to his complaint. So in June 2025 Mr B referred his complaint to this service. It was considered by one of our investigators who didn’t uphold it. He wasn’t persuaded there was an agreement that SJP would continue managing Mr B’s SIPP, which is why Mr M had set up the XO account free of charge to enable Mr B to manage his own investments. And there was no obligation for SJP to provide regular review meetings, as Mr B was no longer their client, and as such had no authority over his SIPP. Mr B rejected the investigator’s view, maintaining that whether he’d been paying fees to SJP for their services was “irrelevant”, as the adviser nonetheless retained a duty of care to him. He pointed out he’d signed a letter of authority to allow SJP to deal with AJ Bell in 2021, SJP is noted as his “adviser” on his SIPP statements, and SJP’s status as his financial advisers was also confirmed in a letter from AJ Bell in February 2017. He said Mr M hadn’t understood that his solution of opening the XO account didn’t enable him to manage the investments within his SIPP, meaning he was reliant on the adviser. And Mr M telling him in 2023 to manage the investments himself was going back on the agreement reached in 2021.

-- 2 of 5 --

He also said SJP hadn’t investigated a complaint he’d previously raised in 2021 about the incorrect charges on the Jupiter fund totalling around £13,000. As agreement couldn’t be reached, the case has come to me for a 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. Mr B clearly feels strongly about this complaint, and I acknowledge his detailed response to the investigator’s view. I assure him I’ve read everything he’s sent us and listened to the calls with the investigator. But I don’t agree with him that SJP was obliged to continue to service his SIPP after he left T. I can see there was a lack of clarity about how Mr B’s relationship with SJP changed when he left T’s employment. While AJ Bell did confirm in February 2017 that Mr B’s SIPP remained open, with SJP continuing as his servicing advisers, I think that was simply a reflection of the information it was aware of. The SIPP apparently required an adviser, and AJ Bell hadn’t been notified that Mr B’s advisers had changed. But that didn’t oblige SJP to continue to provide the same level of financial advice and support to Mr B that he’d been used to as an employee of T, which had been paid for by his employer. SJP has clarified that as servicing agents for T’s workplace scheme, they were not responsible for monitoring the performance of an individual member’s holdings. Their role was to set up the plans and arrange for the contributions to be invested in the correct default funds in line with the individual’s attitude to risk. There was no contractual relationship between SJP and Mr B, the relationship was with T, his former employers, and while the adviser would assist where he could, there was no obligation or contract. Financial advice and administration are professional services and are not free. If there was an arrangement whereby the fees paid by C to SJP for servicing the workplace scheme also entitled C’s directors or employees to financial advice, I’d expect the terms and limitations of that to be explicitly set out in an agreement, rather than just mentioned verbally during a Teams call. So in the absence of an actual agreement, I’m not persuaded Mr B should’ve expected the same level of service he’d been entitled to as an employee of T, as the service wasn’t being paid for, and I disagree that this was irrelevant. I’ve not seen the SIPP terms and conditions, but I think it’s likely the requirement to keep 2% of the value in cash is to cover the SIPP provider’s charges, rather than these being for the benefit of SJP. SJP’s error isn’t in failing to ensure the contributions from C were appropriately invested in Mr B’s SIPP or failing to alert him when a particular fund was underperforming. It was that they didn’t set clear boundaries and expectations about their obligations towards Mr B once he left T. I think if things had gone as they should, in 2017 when Mr B left T and was no longer an active member of the workplace Group SIPP, SJP should have explained he was no longer entitled to the ongoing support he’d been used to. And if he wished to continue being advised by Mr M, or any SJP partner in relation to his SIPP, he would need to sign a personal client agreement and be prepared to pay SJP’s ongoing advice fees. The adviser would then be responsible for investing the employer pension contributions in Mr B’s SIPP, monitoring his portfolio, and carrying out annual reviews of his financial objectives and circumstances and so on.

-- 3 of 5 --

Alternatively Mr B could have joined C’s new workplace scheme which Mr M had recommended be set up with provider S. Had C paid Mr B’s contributions to the workplace scheme for which Mr M was the servicing adviser, he would be responsible for arranging to appropriately allocate the contributions for Mr B and the other employees. But as Mr B wanted to retain the ability to manage his investments himself, the adviser should have appreciated he would need to move to another SIPP, which wasn’t held on an adviser-only platform. The XO account enables individuals to make their own investment choices, without being limited to the default AJ Bell range of funds. But I think Mr M did misunderstand the functionality of the XO account in relation to Mr B’s SIPP, and the limitations of it being held on an adviser-only platform Mr B couldn’t access. I’m satisfied the adviser genuinely assumed opening an XO account would’ve enabled Mr B to manage the investments within his SIPP as well as make general investment decisions. And he didn’t appreciate its limitations, even when Mr B explained he couldn’t access or even view the investments held within his SIPP. SJP explained that prior to the May 2021 meeting it had asked Mr B to sign a letter of authority, as he’d asked for a full financial review, and the adviser anticipated future business would arise from this, involving investments in VCTs, ISAs and potentially pension transfers. But while the adviser sent Mr B details of some options, he never got agreement to proceed so didn’t get as far as providing a formal recommendation. He wasn’t sure Mr B actually wanted financial advice, he didn’t want to transfer his pension funds to SJP, and the adviser felt he was confident making his own decisions. He just wanted Mr M to continue as the servicing adviser for his SIPP as Mr B couldn’t manage it himself. But I think by continuing to carry out Mr B’s instructions on an ad hoc basis for a few years after he left T, outside any formal arrangement, the adviser reinforced Mr B’s impression of a “duty of care” and an entitlement to services, which didn’t actually exist. This continued until September 2023, so I can understand why Mr B was surprised when the adviser pushed back. And I think SJP could’ve been clearer that they were no longer prepared to act for Mr B on this basis, rather than Mr M saying he would “prefer” if Mr B managed his investments himself. I’m sorry to hear Mr B suffered a financial loss due to the poor performance of a particular Japanese fund, which he would’ve switched out of sooner had he realised. But as there was no actual obligation for SJP to monitor Mr B’s portfolio or that of other members, I can’t say the adviser should’ve alerted Mr B to the fund’s fall in value, or recommend he switch funds. Nor do I think he was obliged to investigate further into the £13,000 charging query when Mr B was dissatisfied with AJ Bell’s explanation. But while I appreciate the adviser’s instinct to be helpful, I do think he should have been clearer from the outset about what he was prepared or obliged to do for Mr B once he left T. Mr B says he was under the impression that because he’d introduced C to SJP with a view to them becoming advisers for C’s workplace pension scheme, there was a similar “quid pro quo” arrangement as he’d enjoyed with T, whereby SJP would provide him with free financial advice. He says nothing was written down about this arrangement, but it was discussed in the meeting with another director of C present. I asked SJP about this, and the adviser said that C hadn’t paid a fee for the advice, but he’d been hoping to build a long-term relationship with the firm and its employees, and if individuals required financial planning services, then terms would be agreed individually. Also C had expressed interest in corporate protection and group life policies, but these were never taken up, and SJP received no remuneration. So I’m satisfied the same relationship didn’t exist between SJP and C as there had been with T, which through its fees as servicing agents for the workplace pension scheme,

-- 4 of 5 --

employees benefitted from financial advice without charge. This should’ve been made clear to Mr B earlier than 2023, and if it had been, Mr B would either have had to pay for ongoing advice from SJP, or move to a different SIPP sooner. So while I understand Mr B feels he has received a poor service from SJP, I don’t think it was a service he was entitled to. And so I’m not going to ask SJP to do anything to put things right. Finally Mr B was understandably dissatisfied that his complaint, which he raised with SJP in December 2023, wasn’t responded to until May 2025. SJP explained they were receiving a higher than usual volume of complaints around that time, but that didn’t really help Mr B. I’ve not seen SJP’s formal acknowledgement, but firms are required to let consumers know that if they don’t receive a response within the usual eight-week timeframe, they can refer their complaint to this service without waiting for the final response letter. Of course, Mr B may have preferred to wait for SJP’s response before deciding to come to us. But while I appreciate Mr B’s frustration, I’m afraid our powers only allow me to consider complaints about what are known as “regulated activities” as set out in legislation. Complaint handling isn’t a regulated activity, so I can’t comment on that aspect of Mr B’s complaint further. My final decision I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr B to accept or reject my decision before 22 May 2026. Sarah Milne Ombudsman

-- 5 of 5 --