Personal PensionAug 22 2016

SJP told to improve customer service and administration

twitter-iconfacebook-iconlinkedin-iconmail-iconprint-icon
Search supported by
SJP told to improve customer service and administration

The Financial Ombudsman Service has ruled St James’s Place Wealth Management could have done better by a a client “in terms of customer service and administration.”

Ms B complained she did not understand she was being sold a pension plan when what she wanted to do was transfer her share of her ex-husband’s pension into her name.

Application forms were completed both to start a new pension plan and to transfer her share into it.

But between the initial meeting in August 2014 and the completion of the transfer in December 2014, there were a number of procedural complications.

Ms B’s main concern was not receiving a suitability report, however it appeared there had also been an incomplete discussion with the adviser about her NHS pension.

SJP argued that although it appeared Ms B’s NHS pension had not been fully discussed at the time of the sale, she would not have been able to transfer her NHS pension anyway.

This meant whether or not Ms B’s NHS pension status was properly discussed at the point of sale was ultimately not relevant, SJP stated.

Ombudsman Terry Connor said while he understood Ms B said she did not realise she was being sold a pension plan, the document signed in December 2014 was headed ‘Investment and Client Details for Transfers into a St James Place Retirement Plan’.

In Mr Connor’s view, this should reasonably have alerted Ms B that she was opening a new pension plan, adding the documents about the cost of advice were correctly addressed and dated.

While Ms B may not have received them, Mr Connor said this not compelling evidence they were not sent.

“There may have been a third party service failure – for example by Royal Mail – but it would not be fair or reasonable to hold SJP to account for such a third party failure,” read the decision notice.

“Ms B completed the application and transfer form to open her plan on 1 December 2014. Above the signature box is a declaration, amongst other things it says ‘I have read the latest relevant key features documents and the ‘key facts about our services and costs’ document’.”

The declaration stated: “Our advice is not free. Details of the charges we make for our advice and how it is paid for are set out in the ‘Key facts about our services and costs’ document’.”

However, Mr Connor concluded SJP could have done things better in terms of customer service and administration.

He ruled SJP should therefore pay Ms B £250 compensation for distress and inconvenience.