In recent years, one of the most striking stories in UK wealth management has centred on SJP. What started as the promise of ongoing advice, review and service has instead, for many clients, become a worrying case-study of paying for something not delivered.
The SJP story: When “ongoing advice” became a contested charge
SJP has long charged clients an ongoing advice fee (commonly around 0.5 % of assets under management) for what it described as the ongoing service of annual reviews, portfolio suitability checks and adviser-client relationship maintenance.
However, multiple investigations and commentary reveal a different reality. The firm was unable to produce consistent evidence that in many cases the service had been delivered — in particular according to the Financial Times, records are weak prior to a 2021 CRM upgrade.
In February 2024 SJP announced a £426 million provision to compensate clients who may have paid the ongoing fee but not received the corresponding service. More openly, it acknowledged that for some portion of its client-base the ongoing advice charge had been “switched off”.
What emerges from this narrative are several key issues:
- Misalignment of fee & service: Charging an annual ongoing advice fee while being unable to prove annual reviews or meaningful adviser-client contact means clients cannot be certain they’re getting value.
- Disengaged clients / “orphaned” portfolios: Some clients remained on the database paying the ongoing charge without active adviser interaction — raising serious questions of fairness.
- Opaque charging and complexity: Observers argue that SJP’s fee structure was confusing and costly, with exit charges and upfront advice fees embedded in a platform/adviser model.
- Regulatory focus on value & transparency: As the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) rolled out its Consumer Duty and greater focus on fair value, SJP found itself under intensifying scrutiny.
The direct consequence: erosion of trust. If clients discover they’ve been paying for an ongoing adviser service which in reality they did not receive, the client firm relationship is damaged. The promise of ongoing advice becomes hollow.
SJP Contacts 20,000 Clients About Restarting Ongoing Advice Fees
In an exclusive report by Citywire New Model Adviser (October 2025), St James’s Place (SJP) has confirmed that it is contacting around 20,000 clients whose ongoing advice fees (OAFs) were previously switched off under its earlier policy.
According to an internal memo from Wealth CEO James Rainbow, this outreach is part of a “refreshed approach” to SJP’s ongoing advice process. Advisers and partners were told that, beginning 20 October, they will receive a Salesforce report identifying which clients SJP intends to contact. These clients will be asked whether they wish to resume their ongoing advice service and the associated fee.
What This Means
This announcement follows months of scrutiny surrounding SJP’s “fee-for-no-service” controversy — where advisers collected ongoing advice fees despite providing little or no evidence of ongoing service delivery. Under regulatory and public pressure, SJP halted such fees for “disengaged” clients — including those without an active adviser, those deemed “orphaned,” and even deceased clients.
Now, the firm is attempting to re-engage these clients and reinstate the fees, reportedly at a higher rate of up to 0.8% per annum (up from 0.5%), as part of its new fee structure. For clients with significant portfolios, this could mean thousands of pounds a year for a service that, in many cases, previously amounted to little more than a cursory annual review.
The Risk to Trust
While SJP may view this as a legitimate effort to re-establish client relationships, the communication itself must be handled with extreme care. Any attempt to “switch the fees back on” without addressing past failings or offering transparent value could exacerbate distrust among clients who already question whether their advisers earned the fees in the first place.
This development reignites uncomfortable questions:
- Were clients who paid for undelivered services ever refunded?
- How will SJP ensure that reinstated advice fees now correspond to measurable, documented service?
- And how can the public trust that this “refreshed approach” represents genuine reform rather than financial recovery?
The optics are troubling. It risks appearing as though the firm is asking disengaged clients to consent to renewed charges — possibly without full understanding of what they paid for previously, or what they will truly receive now.
A Defining Moment for the Industry
The SJP case is more than a corporate embarrassment — it is a mirror held up to the entire advice profession. It asks whether ongoing advice models are built on client empowerment or client inertia, on service or extraction.
For ethical planners and educators, this is the line in the sand. Ongoing advice should never be a passive income stream; it must be earned, evidenced, and re-consented to each year.
From Extraction to Empowerment: The AoLP Ethical Framework
The SJP episode exposes a systemic flaw — an advice culture that too often prioritises revenue continuity over relationship continuity. When “ongoing advice” becomes a default charge rather than a deliberate, consent-based service, the model shifts from partnership to extraction.
At the Academy of Life Planning (AoLP), we believe the industry must now evolve beyond this model — from fees sustained by inertia to fees justified by intention and impact. True professionalism demands that the client, not the company, determines when advice is needed, what value it delivers, and whether it should continue.
Our framework replaces passive dependency with active empowerment:
- Planning My Life (PML) empowers clients to manage their own finances freely and confidently — without ongoing fees.
- Financial Life Coach (FLC) offers ongoing advice only when there is clear, measurable value, renewed annually with explicit client consent.
- Both models uphold a simple truth: advice is valuable only when it is timely, transparent, and transformative.
The lesson is clear — the future of financial planning lies not in selling products or maintaining fees, but in building autonomy, trust, and purpose. Clients deserve more than oversight; they deserve ownership.
By embedding annual consent, clear deliverables, and a human-first philosophy, AoLP’s ethical framework demonstrates how the profession can regain public trust and redefine the meaning of advice itself — not as a product, but as a partnership.
What must change: From exploitation to empowerment
At the Academy of Life Planning we believe this episode is a pivotal moment for the advice industry. It highlights a systemic shift that must occur if ongoing advice models are to align with integrity, transparency and real client value.
Here are the core principles of change:
1. Clear linkage between fee and distinct, documented service
Every ongoing advice fee should correspond to a defined set of services (e.g., annual review, goal-adjustment meeting, portfolio check, life-change scenario session). The service must be delivered and evidenced. If the adviser cannot demonstrate the service, the fee must be switched off or refunded.
This principle was precisely what SJP failed to uphold in many cases.
2. Empowering client control and consent
Rather than automatic renewal of ongoing advice fee arrangements (where clients may drift into paying by default), the model should require annual reaffirmation of value and consent from clients. This ensures the client actively chooses to remain in an ongoing advice relationship, not passively pay by inertia.
Your model at PML and FLC — switching off auto-renewal and requiring annual discussion — is a textbook example of this shift.
3. Tiered, transparent fee structures aligned with value delivered
Fees should reflect the complexity, size and level of service required, not simply blanket percentage of assets. Transparency means clients can see exactly what they are paying for, what advice they are receiving, and what outcomes they might reasonably expect. The industry commentary on SJP’s opaque charging structure underscores how failure in this area leads to mistrust.
4. A client-first, holistic definition of ongoing service
Ongoing advice must go beyond portfolio monitoring. It should align with the client’s broader life goals — financial, emotional, intellectual and spiritual. Ongoing service adds value when it anticipates, supports and responds to life transitions, not just ticks the box of “annual meeting”.
In your model, where if a major life event arises you dial up advice and otherwise empower clients to manage themselves — this aligns with the kind of modern, ethical approach we advocate.
5. Robust evidencing of service and outcomes
If you cannot demonstrate you delivered the service (notes, client engagement, outcomes), you cannot justify the fee. The SJP episode highlights the danger when record-keeping fails and clients paying ongoing fees cannot verify they were served.
6. Exit pathways & fairness for disengaged clients
For clients who no longer require (or never really needed) ongoing advice, there must be simple, transparent options to switch off the service/charge, or migrate to a cheaper model. Where a firm charges an ongoing fee but has not delivered service, refunds or fee suspension must be swift and clear — fairness must prevail. SJP’s £426m provision was a major red-flag.
How the Academy of Life Planning model leads the way
At AoLP (via Planning My Life and Financial Life Coach services) we adopt exactly this paradigm:
- PML (Done-by-you): Free access, self-directed planning. No ongoing adviser fee. When clients are comfortable managing their own finances, they stay in control and pay nothing for advice they don’t need.
- FLC (Done-with-you): Ongoing advice only when it adds real incremental value (major life event, complexity, transition). Annual consent required. Auto-renewal → off. If no service is required we signpost back to PML.
- Empowering, not exploiting: Our philosophy is that ‘90% of people, 90% of the time’ can manage their own finances with the right support. We are there when the change/occasion demands it.
- Metrics & transparency: We document service, present the value to clients, and make the choice whether to continue or pause.
- Holistic service model: Advice is not just about investments or assets. It aligns with the whole person’s life plan — financial, emotional, intellectual, spiritual.
Looking ahead: The future of ongoing advice
The industry is now entering a phase of realignment. The SJP case serves as a warning: continued credibility depends on firms genuinely delivering and evidencing service for ongoing fees. The regulatory spotlight (Consumer Duty, value-for-money) ensures this isn’t optional.
For advisers/planners and clients alike, key questions will increasingly be:
- What am I paying for?
- Did I receive it?
- Did it make a difference to my life goals?
- Do I still need it?
If the answer to “Did I receive it?” or “Did it make a difference?” is “No”, then the model must adapt — client empowerment must win over fee extraction.
At the Academy of Life Planning, we believe ongoing advice models must evolve from inertia-based fees (you pay until you ask to stop) to consent-based services (you pay only when there is meaningful value, and you choose each year whether to continue). That shift isn’t just ethical — it’s essential for the future viability and trustworthiness of the advice profession.
Join the Movement
If you’ve worked with me or the Academy, your voice matters. Please share your experience — your story inspires others to find theirs.
Leave a Google Review
If you’re new here, let’s explore how we can help you build your own freedom-based future.
Book a Free Call
Contact: steve.conley@aolp.co.uk
Website: www.aolp.info
Follow: Steve Conley on LinkedIn
Academy of Life Planning 