DRN-6250384

The complaint Mr W complains that St James’s Place Wealth Management Plc (‘SJP’) advised him to switch his investments from equity-based to a money market fund in anticipation of a market downturn. But he says the market downturn didn’t materialise, so he missed out on investment fund growth in the meantime and before he could get back into the market. Mr W is seeking compensation for the loss caused. What happened The details of this complaint are well known to both parties, so I won’t repeat everything again here. The following is a summary of the background and key events leading up to the complaint to provide some context. Where it is appropriate to do so, I will refer to specific evidence or expand on what follows in support of my findings, in the section below. In March 2012, SJP advised Mr W to make a pension contribution to a SJP personal pension plan. In line with Mr B’s assessed ‘Medium’ attitude to risk, it recommended investment in a spread of five managed equity-based investment funds. This was shortly followed by a further contribution, which was invested in a money market fund. SJP also advised Mr B to transfer two existing pension plans held with other providers to his SJP plan. It recommended investment in its ‘Managed Portfolio.’ Prior to these transfers completing, SJP says it received Mr W’s signed application where he elected to invest 100% of the transferred funds into the money market fund. SJP says that in November 2012, it carried out an instruction to switch all of Mr W’s funds from the money market fund into equity-based funds. Mr W says that in early December 2012, he received an unsolicited phone call from his SJP adviser warning him of a pending financial downturn and says they told him to move all of his funds in his pension plan to the money market fund. Mr W says he didn’t act at this time. But says that about a week later, the adviser called him again during. He says this time they were more assertive in their recommendation. So, he says he heeded the advice and switched all of his investments from equity-based funds to the money market fund. I understand switch instructions were placed on 17 December 2012 and actioned the next day. Mr B met with SJP again around March 2013. It recommended a further investment in his pension plan. The paperwork from the time recorded that while Mr W was a ‘Medium’ risk investor, he remained slightly nervous about the markets, so he elected to invest in the money market fund. It said he would switch back into the market when he feels more confident, and do so in line with his ‘Medium’ attitude to risk. In June 2013, Mr W’s investments were switched back into equity-based investment funds. Between November 2013 and June 2020, there’s evidence of several switches between the money market fund and equity-based funds – around eight or nine movements back and forth. The last switch I have evidence of in June 2020 – to the Global Managed Fund – it appears SJP advised Mr W to invest in.

-- 1 of 7 --

In 2025, Mr W complained to SJP raising a number of complaint points including the one I’m addressing here about the advice Mr W says he received to instigate the fund switch in December 2012. I haven’t set these other complaint points here because they do not form part of this decision – they have either been resolved to Mr W’s satisfaction or been put aside. SJP issued its final response to Mr W’s complaint. In relation to the pertinent complaint point, it didn’t uphold Mr W’s complaint. In summary It said it believed Mr W made the fully informed decision to move his funds to the money market fund at the time. And said that while Mr W might now regret his decision, it found no evidence to suggest that any loss incurred was due to advice provided by SJP or its adviser. Because Mr W remained dissatisfied with its response, he referred his complaint to us. One of our investigators looked at what had been provided and they concluded there was insufficient evidence to support SJP advising Mr W to make the switch of funds in December 2012. They said: • There was no payment for advice or suitability letter to support advice being given. • Mr W appeared to be comfortable giving switch instructions without advice, and the evidence created a picture of someone who appeared to be monitoring and trying to time the market. • As a business, SJP would not typically provide this kind of proactive advice as suggested, so it wouldn’t be a typical scenario. Mr W disagreed and set out some key points as to why he believed, on balance, the complaint should be found in his favour. He said: • The adviser who was the key witness in the case hadn’t been questioned. • The point about there not being an advice charge wasn’t relevant because ongoing advice fees were charged regularly rather than for each specific piece of advice • He had initiated switches of his own making, but the switch in question was not his own deliberation but the advice of the adviser. • The adviser understood he ‘d made switches according to his own reading of the market, so the adviser likely believed he would be more open than others to fund switching advice. • Referring to a copy of an email he sent to the adviser in 2023, in which he mentioned his unhappiness with the adviser’s call in December 2012, he commented that the adviser’s reply didn’t pass any comment on his accusation of advice at this time – if he wasn’t telling the truth he would’ve expected them to have taken him to task about it. • He repeated the point he made previously made about the phone calls from the adviser being out of the blue and given their unusual nature, this is why he placed weight on them and acted accordingly. Mr W then told the investigator he’d phoned the adviser, and in the call they’d admitted to making the phone calls to him in December 2012. And he provided us with both a transcript and recording of the call.

-- 2 of 7 --

The investigator shared the new evidence with SJP and having listened to the call themselves, they disagreed the evidence was conclusive – they didn’t think the adviser clearly admitted advising Mr W to make the fund switches complained about. So, their opinion on the complaint didn’t change. Because Mr W maintained his disappointment with the outcome and believes the call recording is conclusive evidence that advice was given, the complaint was passed to me to decide. Mr W provided a further submission for my consideration. He broadly repeated the key points he’d previously made. He asked for his complaint to be reconsidered in light of the adviser’s corroboration of events, the absence of suitability documentation, and the regulatory inappropriateness of the advice he received. 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. I’ve taken into account relevant law and regulations, regulatory rules, guidance and standards, codes of practice – many of these are found in the FCA’s handbook under the Principles for Businesses (‘PRIN’) and the Conduct of Business Sourcebook (‘COBS’) – and (where appropriate) what I consider to have been good industry practice at the relevant time. And where the evidence is incomplete or inconclusive I’ve reached my decision based on the balance of probabilities – in other words, on what I think is more likely than not to have happened, given the available evidence and wider circumstances. I also want to stress here that we are set up to be an informal, and free, alternative to the courts. So, unlike a court there’s no “cross-examination” where both sides ask each other questions. As I’ve said, my role is to consider the evidence presented and reach a fair and reasonable conclusion in the specific circumstances of the case. I understand Mr W feels strongly about things and I want to assure him that I have carefully considered the evidence presented by both parties. And having done so, and taken the above considerations into account, I’ve decided not to uphold this complaint. I’m not persuaded there is sufficient evidence to show that, more likely than not, SJP gave Mr W regulated advice to switch his fund from equity-based to a money market fund resulting in the investment loss Mr W describes. I’ll explain why. The best evidence in a case like this would be a call recording of the conversation had by the parties at the time(s) in question. But I understand that no recording is available. Which is unsurprising given the event in question was many years ago. It’s not really in dispute that the SJP adviser contacted Mr W around the time in question. When SJP asked for the adviser’s recollections of the events complained about, they said they had many phone calls with Mr W over the years to discuss strategy as well as fund switches, referring to what was recorded on Mr W’s file. And given the nature of the ongoing relationship, this is what I would expect. But there is no record from the time of the specific calls in question being made. Or anything to show how long they lasted for example, to help determine whether regulated advice could likely have been given during the calls. If regulated advice had been given, I would typically expect to see some form of documentary evidence or record as confirmation – whether in the form of a more formal suitability letter or a file note / fact-find note documenting and summarising the advice given and actions taken. But no such evidence is available here. Because the advice was alleged to have been given over the phone and in light of the ongoing relationship, I accept in

-- 3 of 7 --

practice it might have been given orally without more formal supporting documentation. But I would still expect to see some record or note of it having been made. For example, in the adviser’s statement to SJP of their recollections from the time, they referred to advising Mr W to switch his funds back into equity-based funds in 2020. And there is an email exchange referencing this to support advice having been given. It’s not disputed that the instruction to affect the switch was given by the adviser on 17 December 2012. But there is no written record or other such evidence, which shows or implies advice and a recommendation was, more likely than not, given to Mr W to carry out the switch at this time. Against this, there is clear evidence and a documented history – both prior to the switch in question and subsequent to – of Mr W making his own decisions to switch in and out of the equity markets in an attempt to time the market, over the course of his relationship with the adviser / SJP. Mr W has acknowledged this – but he disputes the switch in December 2012 was of his own making. I can see he’s said this decision making came with experience, so implied it came later on. But as early as 2012, and with the transferred funds from his existing pensions to SJP, Mr W demonstrated he was willing to make his own investment decisions and choices and not follow the adviser’s recommendation. And there are various documented examples to support Mr W being an experienced investor who followed the market and would be the one to make investment decisions and give the necessary switch or fund instructions to his adviser. These include file notes from 2014 which record: • ‘His email instructed me to invest everything into the Global Managed Fund 100%.’ • ‘Mr W is an experienced investor who follows the markets and trends, he wished to invest everything into the Global Managed Fund as this was the fund he felt would perform the best given his attitude to risk. In relation to an ISA investment also in 2014, a file note records: • ‘He will actively switch the funds himself and will email me when he wishes this to happen as he does with his current SJP Pension Funds…’ And from 2019: • client still invested in Money Market and he informed me that HE would watch the markets and tell me when he wished to switch.’ I’m also mindful that in March 2013 and only a short time after the switch in December 2012, Mr W made a further investment into his pension. And the adviser’s file note from the time recorded: ‘Client slightly nervous about the markets so elected for Money Market fund and will switch back into markets when more confident but normally Medium Risk investor.’ The advice paperwork from the time also reflects this statement. In my view, if the adviser had advised Mr W a few months earlier to make the switch to the money market fund, I would’ve expected to see this referenced here for continuity sake and why the money market fund was also being used at this time. Instead, based on what’s recorded here, I think it supports the view that it was Mr W driving the investment decisions based on his own views and feelings about the market and not those of the adviser. So, in light of this history of Mr W making his own decisions to move in and out of the market at various times, the switch in December 2012 isn’t a transaction that stands out as being

-- 4 of 7 --

odd, out of character, or out of line with the pattern of investment choices Mr W was making. I think the evidence points to someone who was both confident and happy to carry out regular fund switches in an attempt to time the market. This is not supportive evidence of SJP advising Mr W to make the fund switch in December 2012. Turning to more recent evidence – Mr W has referred to an email he sent to the adviser in 2023, copying him into a complaint he was making, in which he referred to the alleged advice in 2012. And how as a result of acting upon their recommendation, he calculated he lost around £38,000 because the expected market downturn didn’t happen. Mr W says that the adviser’s reply to this email in which they were silent on this particular matter, is particularly telling. He says if he’d been making things up, then surely the adviser would have reacted and called him out. But I don’t think I can reasonably take the adviser’s silence here as evidence that they agreed with what Mr W said and advised him to make the switch. It doesn’t surprise me that Mr W’s reference to this matter didn’t prompt a response from the adviser. I don’t think it needed one. This is because at the beginning of the following paragraph of Mr W’s email, he also said: ‘Anyway, I’m not going to go over old ground, as there are other incidents that l am not happy about…’ So, in light of what Mr W went on to say, it doesn’t appear Mr W was seeking a response because he had other matters of concern. And I think the adviser reasonably interpreted things the same way. I’m not persuaded the adviser’s silence therefore is an acceptance that they did recommend the fund switch in question. In response to the investigator’s view, I note that Mr W said that it was clear neither SJP nor the adviser were going to admit to advising him to switch his funds, and so the outcome of his complaint was going to be based on the other available evidence. But Mr W nevertheless took it upon himself to phone the now retired adviser, anyway, seeking an admission about things. Mr W recorded the call and has provided us with both a copy of the recording and a transcript. Mr W has placed great weight on this evidence and says it corroborates his version of events. He says in the call the adviser confirms they contacted him, they acknowledge what he describes as the ‘financial cliff’ context, they don’t deny recommending exiting the market, and while describing their recollections as ‘vague’ they don’t dispute the substance of the advice. While I’m not entirely comfortable with the way in which Mr W went about things, I have considered the evidence he’s provided. And having done so, I’m not persuaded it is compelling evidence and demonstrates or supports the view that, more likely than not, the adviser did recommend Mr W make the fund switch in question. The essence of the pertinent parts of the phone conversation are as follows: Mr W: Do you remember the whole situation around the financial cliff situation at the end of 2012? Adviser: Vaguely, I don’t… Mr W: If you remember, there was a lot of media coverage at the time saying there was going to be a huge downturn in the markets in early January 2013. And you kindly rang me in December 2012 to warn me about that. Do you remember that phone call? Adviser: Yeah, vaguely, vaguely Mr W: And obviously, your recommendation was to get out of the market, so we weren’t exposed anymore and then get back into the market later on, when the market had recovered or about to recover. Do you remember that?

-- 5 of 7 --

Adviser: Vaguely, yeah, vaguely remember that, yeah yeah… Mr W then asked the adviser if they would be willing to confirm they gave advice to him in December 2012. The adviser said they would have to speak to SJP about that, before deciding they didn’t want to get involved and they terminated the conversation. While it is apparent the adviser had some recollection of the event in question, I’m not persuaded they clearly admitted to giving advice to Mr W to switch out of the market. It’s evidence that a conversation likely took place at the time – but I’ve already said this isn’t really disputed. The adviser had already provided evidence that they had many phone conversations over the years with Mr W discussing strategy and fund switches. I’m also mindful of the context of the phone call and the way in which Mr W asked the adviser about the event in question. Mr W began the phone conversation under the guise of wanting some advice. The conversation then briefly turned to a discussion about ongoing advice fees before he segued straight into asking about the events from 2012. Mr W didn’t provide any context upfront as to why he was asking the adviser about an event that took place more than 10 years ago – he only explained this later on. So, I think it was raised somewhat out of the blue. In my view, this is why the adviser likely responded in the way they did to try and understand from Mr W where the conversation was going and why he was asking them about this at this time. I also think Mr W was leading the adviser in the way he approached matters and the manner in which he posed the questions. So, taking into account both what the adviser said in the call, the context and the manner in which the evidence was obtained, unlike Mr W, I’m not persuaded this is compelling evidence that he was advised to make the switch at the time in question. I think it is important to consider the evidence as a whole and test the evidence to identify where, on balance, it supports a version of events. And in my view, collectively, the evidence does not support regulated advice being given to Mr W to make the fund switch in December 2012. As I’ve said, there’s no written evidence that advice was given – whether in the form of a more formal suitability letter or a file note – which is what I would expect to see. There are several examples of Mr W making his own decisions to move into and out of the market using the money market fund both before and after the fund switch in question. So, the transaction in question doesn’t stand out as being odd or not in line with how Mr W was investing his funds. The adviser documented on several occasions Mr W’s investment experience and interest in watching the market and that he would be the one giving investment switch instructions. And I’m not persuaded the adviser clearly said they advised Mr W to make the fund switch in the call recording provided. I would also add here that I find it surprising Mr W waited more than ten years to raise his concerns about this matter – the first time it appears he referred to things was in the email to the adviser in 2023, I mentioned earlier on. Mr W would have understood he’d lost out as he describes in 2013, when he says the expected market downturn didn’t materialise and when he re-entered the market. So, if as Mr W has said he was advised to make the fund switch in question, which resulted in his loss, then I would have expected him to have raised his concerns much sooner. Waiting more than ten years to do so, in my view, doesn’t add weight to his argument. So, taking all of the above into account and having carefully weighed up all of the available evidence, I’m not persuaded SJP, more likely than not, advised Mr W and gave him a personal recommendation to switch funds in December 2012, which led to the loss he says he’s incurred. So, it follows that I don’t uphold this complaint.

-- 6 of 7 --

My final decision For the reasons above, I’ve decided to not uphold this complaint, so I make no award in Mr W’s favour. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr W to accept or reject my decision before 22 May 2026. Paul Featherstone Ombudsman

-- 7 of 7 --