FEE REFUND CLAIMS - ST JAMES PLACE (SJP) and QUILTER

Fatinvestor

Hi, we have had managed portfolio manaaged investments with SJP and a Quilter brand called Quilter Cheviot for about 10 years. Total sum invested about £200K with each firm. We do not have an IFA jand ust deal with the firms direct. In the past 5 years we have only had one proper annual review with each firm which is we understand in breach of FCA ruues. The FCA referred us to the rules as shown to the bottom of this thread below. Even when we have had a review they came across as the investment firm trying to ensure that we change as little as possible (if anything). 

Last week we were approached by two law firms c/o a friend in Bristol who state that for a no win no fee deduction of about 40% the law firms are confident that they can recover annual fees for several years off SJP and Quilter due to a lack of service, a sum that may run into many thousands of pounds. The firms are TLM (Leicester) and AMK (Bolton) . They seem to be handling hundred of claims. We are wary of such firms, They seem to make it all sound so easy. 

Have any MSE members used such law firms/ claims companies. and had a suxessdul outcome? Are any members aware of any other l(ideally trustworthy) law firms offering such claims services? 

We look forward to hearing back from any knowledgeable members. 

" Periodic assessments: MiFID business

COBS 9A.3.8 UK 20/09/2023

52(5) Investments firms providing a periodic assessment of the suitability of the recommendations provided pursuant to Article 54(12) shall disclose all of the following:

1. (a) the frequency and extent of the periodic suitability assessment and where relevant, the conditions that trigger that assessment;

2. (b) the extent to which the information previously collected will be subject to reassessment; and

3. (c) the way in which an updated recommendation will be communicated to the client.

[Note: article 52(5) of the MiFID Org Regulation]

COBS 9A.3.9 UK 01/01/2021

54(13) Investment firms providing a periodic suitability assessment shall review, in order to enhance the service, the suitability of the recommendations given at least annually. The frequency of this assessment shall be increased depending on the risk profile of the client and the type of financial instruments recommended."

masonic

I think you are right to be wary. It seems unlikely either of these two firms would make an error that would allow their punters to claim a refund of their exorbitant fees with such ease.

There should certainly be no need to give up 40% of any compensation. You can complain direct to the firm and if you don't reach an agreement within 8 weeks, you can use the Financial Ombudsman Service for free. This would not prevent you from taking legal action in the future if you didn't achieve the desired outcome.

ColdIron

Fatinvestor said:

Last week we were approached by two law firms c/o a friend in Bristol who state that for a no win no fee deduction of about 40% the law firms are confident that they can recover annual fees for several years off SJP and Quilter due to a lack of service, a sum that may run into many thousands of pounds. The firms are TLM (Leicester) and AMK (Bolton) . They seem to be handling hundred of claims. We are wary of such firms, They seem to make it all sound so easy.

Don't use such 'law firms'. They can't do anything that you can't do yourself

Deal with SJP directly. There is a link in the Historic servicing review section

https://www.sjp.co.uk/individuals/help-centre/make-complaint

• You do not have to use a Claims Management Company or law firm if you have a complaint about SJP – you can contact us direct and receive the total amount of any payment due to you without any of it being deducted by a Claims Company. While Claims Management Companies (CMC) and law firms can raise a complaint on your behalf – they often simply take your information and pass it to SJP to investigate. They might not charge up front, but they may take up to 50% in fees from any refund or compensation that you are offered.

DrSyn

What steps have you taken to check these two law firms (a) actually exist (b) are not scammers claiming to be from these law firms?
 If you believe that the companies looking after your money have breached the FCA rules I think you should approach both companies stating why you think that and ask for reasonable compensation. If their answer is unsatisfactory could you not take your complaint to the FCA direct.
The 40% of any compensation is a large amount to loose.

 Why did you not use an IFA, who you can expect to act as your agent but a FA?
The latter can only advise you on the products that their company deals with, so they are agents for the company.

Fatinvestor

DrSyn said:

What steps have you taken to check these two law firms (a) actually exist (b) are not scammers claiming to be from these law firms?
 If you believe that the companies looking after your money have breached the FCA rules I think you should approach both companies stating why you think that and ask for reasonable compensation. If their answer is unsatisfactory could you not take your complaint to the FCA direct.
The 40% of any compensation is a large amount to lose.

Both law firms do exist and as with all firms these days they either get a 1 star (maybe bogus reviews by SJP or Quilter), or 5 star reviews. We did complain to both investment  firms, but got nowhere. Ombudsman also looked it, but as a friend who is an IFA who e play golf with said to us - you will get nowhere with the Omdudsman. The IFA was rigjht. All seems like a closed shop. That's why we are condidering a law firm. We don't need the money. It's more about the principle. 

ColdIron

Fatinvestor said:

DrSyn said:

What steps have you taken to check these two law firms (a) actually exist (b) are not scammers claiming to be from these law firms?
 If you believe that the companies looking after your money have breached the FCA rules I think you should approach both companies stating why you think that and ask for reasonable compensation. If their answer is unsatisfactory could you not take your complaint to the FCA direct.
The 40% of any compensation is a large amount to lose.

We did complain to both investment  firms, but got nowhere.

Is it possible that you had no grounds for complaint?

dunstonh

 We do not have an IFA jand ust deal with the firms direct.

So, the at least annually rule doesn't apply in your case.  It applies to advised cases. Not selt selected/directed.

In the past 5 years we have only had one proper annual review with each firm which is we understand in breach of FCA ruues

Its not.   DFMs are not advisers and are not subject to rules regarding advisers.

Have any MSE members used such law firms/ claims companies. and had a suxessdul outcome? Are any members aware of any other l(ideally trustworthy) law firms offering such claims services? 

You don't need an ambulance chaser to put in a complaint.  The complaints process is free of charge.  In the case of SJP, they are an adviser distribution firm and if you have been paying an adviser charge, then they should provide the service. If you haven't paid an adviser charge, then they should not.      SJP are pro-actively reviewing cases but that will take some time.  You can speed it up by going direct to them but if you haven't been paying an adviser charge, then don't bother as this does not apply to you.

We did complain to both investment  firms, but got nowhere. Ombudsman also looked it, but as a friend who is an IFA who e play golf with said to us - you will get nowhere with the Omdudsman. The IFA was rigjht. All seems like a closed shop. 

The IFA is probably humouring you rather than telling you the truth.  As you have complained to the firms and gone to the FOS, then it is game over for you.   You could use the courts but the courts would consider the FOS decision. Plus, as you are not using an adviser, the issue doesn't apply to you (unless you are still paying for an adviser).  

The bottom line is that is the IFA or FA that is responsible for the suitability reviews.  Not the DFM or product provider.

That's why we are condidering a law firm. We don't need the money. It's more about the principle. 

In addition to it not applying to DFMs, it doesn't apply to pre 1st January 2013 sold cases in pension or life assurance wrappers (some caveats apply).

Bigwheels1111

I'm sur there is an advert on greatest hits radio for this sort of claim.

No win no fee.

DrSyn

You say you do not need the money. Annual reports seems to be important to you.
So, why are you not now using your IFA friend but still using these two FA's you think have broken FCA rules? 

dunstonh

So, why are you not now using your IFA friend but still using these two FA's you think have broken FCA rules? 

It's a good question, but the OP says he is not using an adviser.  He is using them directly.   Both SJP and Quilter Cheviot allow this and do not make an adviser charge when that is the case.    This means that in the case of SJP, they are just in their funds like any other orphaned/transactional client and in the case of Quilter Cheviot, it would be their DFM service (which is non-advised).

If the OP was using an adviser, it is the adviser that is responsible for ongoing suitability when there is an ongoing adviser charge being paid.   Where there is no ongoing adviser charge being paid, then no assessment of ongoing suitability is required.  The FCA bit in the first post refers to firms providing ongoing suitability checks, and the OP is mistakenly thinking that the providers or DFM do this when they do not.

The IFA friend could wipe the floor with both SJP and Quilter Cheviot if they wanted to.   

DrSyn

So, the OP is not using the FA's to advise them but is DIY.
If he did not need advise & was happy to DIY, I would have thought a  little research would have  pointed him in the direction of low cost passive index funds or ETF's. He would at least be paying less in fees & charges than I expect he is currently paying. May be the performance would also be better.