St James’s Place has apologised for any delays clients have been experiencing in relation to their complaints after one client has been waiting three months for a response.
The customer (Mr C), who wished to remain anonymous, has been a client with SJP for around 10 years and in light of the recent probe into the firm around ongoing advice fees decided to register a complaint on May 28.
Mr C asked the client liaison team to review his account and to let him know if he was due any compensation in relation to ongoing advice charges.
On June 13, Mr C received his first email from the client liaison team, seen by FT Adviser, which said they were looking into the complaint raised.
The email also said: “We would like to make you aware that as part of our process, your St. James's Place Partner has been asked not to discuss this matter with you.
“They can, however, continue to provide service and advice regarding your investments.”
The email went on to say while the team aimed to complete the investigation “as soon as possible”, considering the matter fully could “take some time”.
“If we are unable to provide a response to your concerns within four weeks of receiving your complaint, we will let you know why.
“Should we be unable to respond in full within eight weeks from receiving your complaint, we will write again to explain why and to inform you of all the options available to you,” the email added.
Following this email, Mr C received another on June 25 from client liaison, also seen by FT Adviser, which provided an update on the investigation.
It said: “We aim to deal with matters as quickly as possible, however I need a little more time to finalise my assessment of your complaint because our investigation is ongoing.
“I hope to be able to provide a full response soon, but if I am unable to conclude my investigation within a further four weeks, I will write again, explaining the steps available to you.”
On July 23, Mr C was emailed by SJP to let him know the firm was unable to write to him with the results of the investigation and said it was still ongoing.
The email also said as SJP had not replied within eight weeks of the complaint being received, Mr C was told he could refer his complaint to the Fos.
High complaint volumes
Following this on August 1, Mr C received another email apologising for the delays and said as a result of an increased number of complaints, a timescale could not be given as to when SJP would have investigated Mr C’s complaint.
According to the email, the complaint still had not been allocated to a complaint handler.
