At St. James’s Place (SJP), the ongoing review of advice cases has proven to be more extensive and time-consuming than initially anticipated. While the firm’s decision to set aside £426 million for ongoing advice compensation is still deemed appropriate, the process has been slow, leaving many customers waiting for extended periods before receiving a response. This situation raises important questions about the efficiency of handling individual claims and suggests that a broader, systemic review might yield better outcomes for all involved.
As a client of SJP, you deserve prompt and transparent service, especially when it comes to handling complaints and claims. It’s understandable that delays can be frustrating—particularly when you’ve taken the initiative to ensure that your financial interests are being looked after. Unfortunately, the high volume of complaints has significantly impacted the speed at which SJP can respond, and they have acknowledged this challenge, apologising for any delays you might be experiencing.
The Current Situation: A Strain on Resources
The situation described by a long-term SJP client, Mr. C, illustrates the difficulties many are facing. Mr. C raised a complaint on May 28th, questioning whether he was due compensation related to ongoing advice charges. Since then, he has received a series of updates, but no definitive resolution. This delay, which has now stretched over three months, highlights the strain that SJP’s client liaison team is under as they work through an unprecedented number of complaints.
In response, SJP has made efforts to manage this increased workload by recruiting more staff and providing additional training to ensure the quality of investigations is maintained. However, despite these efforts, the backlog remains significant, and many clients are still left waiting for answers.
A Potential Solution: Systemic Review
Given the scale of the issue, it’s worth considering whether a root-and-branch review of SJP’s client base might be more effective than dealing with individual claims on a case-by-case basis. A systemic approach could potentially streamline the process, reduce administrative costs, and ensure that all clients receive fair and timely resolutions. This type of comprehensive review could also help SJP identify any broader issues within their advice services and address them proactively, rather than reacting to individual complaints as they arise.
This approach isn’t just about efficiency—it’s about fairness. By conducting a thorough, across-the-board review, SJP could ensure that all clients are treated equitably and that any compensation due is identified and paid without the need for multiple complaints and lengthy investigations.
Moving Forward: What You Can Do
If you’re currently waiting for a response from SJP regarding a complaint, it’s important to stay informed and proactive. While the delays are unfortunate, SJP has committed to working through the backlog as quickly as possible, and they have assured clients that no action is required on their part—they will contact you directly with any updates or information regarding compensation.
In the meantime, if you haven’t done so already, you might consider reaching out to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) if your complaint has gone unresolved for more than eight weeks. This could provide you with additional support and ensure that your concerns are being addressed appropriately.
In Conclusion: A Call for Transparency and Action
The ongoing delays at St. James’s Place highlight the need for greater transparency and a more efficient process for handling complaints and compensation claims. A systemic review of the entire client base could be a positive step towards resolving these issues and ensuring that all clients receive the fair treatment they deserve.
At the end of the day, SJP’s commitment to resolving these issues is crucial. By continuing to improve their processes and prioritising customer satisfaction, they can rebuild trust and demonstrate their dedication to providing the highest standards of service.
If you have concerns about your own situation, don’t hesitate to seek advice or take action. Your financial wellbeing is paramount, and it’s important that you feel confident in the support and service you receive from your financial provider.
Underestimation of Redress Estimates for Ongoing Advice Reviews
Recent developments in the financial advice sector suggest that firms may be significantly underestimating the potential redress liabilities related to ongoing advice services. Richard Fox, Schroders’ head of UK public policy, has drawn a parallel between the current situation in the advice sector and the Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) scandal, highlighting the potential for large-scale compensation claims that could far exceed initial estimates.
The comparison is particularly striking given the history of the PPI scandal, where banks initially underestimated their liabilities by a factor of 24, eventually facing a total redress bill of £38.3 billion. In the ongoing advice context, similar underestimations could arise, primarily due to issues surrounding record-keeping and the ability of firms to demonstrate that ongoing advice services were actually provided.
Key Factors Leading to Potential Underestimation
- Record-Keeping Challenges:
- One of the main issues identified by Richard Fox, Schroders’ head of policy who joined the asset manager in 2022 after 15 years at the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), is the difficulty in proving that ongoing advice services were delivered, particularly where documentation is incomplete or missing. This is exacerbated when advisers have retired or moved on, making it challenging for firms to fill in gaps in the paperwork without raising suspicions with the FCA.
- In the absence of clear, documented evidence of advice being provided, firms may be unable to defend against claims, leading to potentially higher redress payments.
- Historical Overlook of Service Gaps:
- As the FCA scrutinises the sector, particularly focusing on the largest UK advice firms, there is a growing recognition that many clients may have paid for ongoing advice without actually receiving the intended services. This has already led to significant provisions, such as the £426 million set aside by St James’s Place for cases where no evidence of annual reviews exists.
- However, the true extent of these gaps in service might be far greater than initially accounted for, leading to further liabilities as more cases are uncovered.
- Comparisons to PPI Scandal:
- In particular, Fox noted that though provisions were starting to come through in the wealth management sector, banks had initially underestimated their liabilities by about 24 times. ‘At the start of PPI, the banks said, “A £1bn liability: that’s big but let’s rip the plaster off and let’s get it done”. And £24bn later was actually the bottom of that redress bill,’ said Fox. The FCA’s latest figure for the total amount paid in refunds to customers for PPI was £38.3bn.
- The analogy to the PPI scandal serves as a stark warning. Just as banks underestimated their liabilities, there is a risk that wealth management firms are doing the same with ongoing advice. If the scale of the issue is similarly widespread, initial provisions may prove woefully inadequate, resulting in a much larger financial impact on the sector.
- Fox’s warning underscores the possibility that the final compensation bill could be many times greater than current estimates, potentially catching the industry off guard.
Implications for Financial Advice Firms
Given these risks, financial advice firms are likely to face increasing pressure to thoroughly review their historical service records and ensure that all instances of ongoing advice are fully documented. Failure to do so could result in significant redress liabilities that might mirror the PPI experience, both in scale and financial impact.
The FCA’s active investigations and the anticipation of further inquiries mean that firms cannot afford to be complacent. The potential for massive underestimation of liabilities should prompt firms to take a proactive approach, ensuring they have robust processes in place to validate the provision of ongoing advice services and mitigate future compensation claims.
Q&A: Understanding the Ongoing Review at St. James’s Place
Q: Why is there a delay in handling complaints at St. James’s Place?
A: The delays are primarily due to an unexpected increase in the number of complaints SJP has received. The firm is doing everything possible to manage this workload, including recruiting more staff and providing additional training. While these delays are frustrating, SJP is committed to ensuring that every complaint is handled thoroughly and fairly.
Q: I’ve been waiting a long time for a response to my complaint. What should I do?
A: If you’ve been waiting for more than eight weeks without a resolution, you have the option to refer your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). SJP is working hard to address all complaints as quickly as possible, but if you feel your issue needs urgent attention, contacting the FOS can provide you with additional support.
Q: What is SJP doing to address these delays?
A: SJP has acknowledged the delays and is actively working to improve the situation. They have increased recruitment and provided additional training to ensure that more complaints can be processed without compromising the quality of investigations. SJP is committed to treating all clients fairly and is putting measures in place to manage the high volume of complaints efficiently.
Q: Will the compensation I’m due be affected by these delays?
A: The compensation you’re entitled to will not be affected by the delays. SJP is committed to ensuring that every client receives any compensation they are due, regardless of the time it takes to process your complaint. The firm is conducting a thorough review to ensure that all claims are handled appropriately and fairly.
Q: I’ve heard SJP might seek to recover some compensation payments from individual partners. What does this mean for me?
A: SJP has stated that in some cases, they may seek to recover compensation payments from individual partners if failings are identified. This approach is designed to protect shareholders and ensure that compensation is fair and justified. For you as a client, it means that SJP is taking steps to address any issues at the source, ensuring that those responsible for failings are held accountable.
Q: Should I expect more delays in the future?
A: While SJP is working hard to resolve the current backlog, it’s possible that some delays may continue due to the high volume of complaints. However, the firm is committed to improving its processes and reducing these delays as much as possible. If you have concerns, staying in touch with SJP and seeking advice from the Financial Ombudsman Service can help you stay informed.
Q: Would a systemic review of SJP’s advice services benefit clients?
A: A systemic review could potentially offer a more efficient and fair resolution for all clients. By conducting a thorough review across the entire client base, SJP might be able to address issues more comprehensively, rather than dealing with complaints on a case-by-case basis. This could lead to faster resolutions and a more transparent process overall.
Q: What can I do if I’m unhappy with how my complaint is being handled?
A: If you’re not satisfied with how your complaint is being managed, you can escalate your concerns to the Financial Ombudsman Service after eight weeks. Additionally, you can continue to communicate with SJP’s client liaison team to ensure your voice is heard. Your financial wellbeing is important, and you deserve clear and timely communication throughout this process.
These Q&As aim to provide clarity and reassurance, empowering you to take the necessary steps while trusting that SJP is committed to resolving these issues in your best interest.
MiFID II, or the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II, is a comprehensive regulatory framework introduced by the European Union to enhance transparency, strengthen investor protection, and improve the functioning of financial markets. It came into effect on 3 January 2018, building on the original MiFID I framework established in 2007.
Impact on Ongoing Advice Charges
Under MiFID II, the regulations surrounding ongoing advice charges for financial advisers have become stricter, with a clear emphasis on transparency and client protection. Here’s how the directive impacted ongoing advice charges:
- Transparency and Disclosure:
- MiFID II requires financial advisers to provide more detailed disclosures to clients regarding the costs of their services. This includes disclosing the total cost of advice, breaking down ongoing charges, and showing how these costs impact investment returns over time.
- Clients must be informed annually of all costs and charges related to their investments, including both explicit charges (e.g., advice fees) and implicit costs (e.g., product costs).
- Client Consent and Periodic Assessment:
- Advisers must obtain explicit consent from clients before applying ongoing advice charges. This ensures that clients are fully aware of the costs they are incurring.
- There is also a requirement for advisers to periodically assess the suitability of the advice provided. This assessment ensures that the advice remains appropriate for the client’s circumstances, and that the client is still receiving value for money from ongoing advice services.
- Enhanced Client Reporting:
- Advisers are obligated to provide periodic reports to clients, detailing the performance of their investments and the ongoing charges applied. This includes a clear breakdown of costs, ensuring that clients can see the impact of these charges on their portfolio’s performance.
- Unbundling of Costs:
- MiFID II promotes the unbundling of research and advice costs from trading commissions. This unbundling allows clients to see precisely what they are paying for each service, promoting greater price competition and transparency.
Implementation and Compliance
The MiFID II requirements took effect on 3 January 2018. Financial advisers and firms had to ensure they were fully compliant with the new rules from this date. This involved reviewing and, in many cases, overhauling their fee structures, client communications, and reporting processes.
The directive’s impact on ongoing advice charges has been significant, leading to greater transparency, more informed clients, and a push towards ensuring that advice charges are justified by the value provided. For financial advisers, MiFID II has necessitated a more rigorous approach to charging practices, client engagement, and regulatory compliance.
Academy of Life Planning 