Which? has handed the FCA the findings from its probe into St James’s Place, which allegedly found advisers “failing to comply with transparency rules on the disclosure of charges”.

The investigative magazine reported that it found ‘questionable’ and ‘nonsense’ claims from some advisers.

Undercover researchers from Which? held 12 meetings with SJP advisers.

The researchers said they “were shocked that a quarter of the advisers we saw didn’t admit they weren’t IFAs”.

It found some advisers “misleading potential customers about the nature of their services, which are limited compared to those offered by independent financial advisers”.

The Which? report stated: “With several advisers not telling people what they’d charge – and in other cases providing low estimates, our investigation suggests it’s near impossible to make an informed decision when comparing your local SJP adviser to alternative options. We have shared our findings with the FCA.”

The latest Financial Planning Today magazine is out and available to read below...https://t.co/BBvoXy7IWj pic.twitter.com/wOeisaeG7P

— FP Today Magazine (@FPTodayMagazine) July 17, 2017

The report cited one exchange with an adviser as showing a ‘nonsense’ claim.

It stated: “One described SJP’s charges by saying ‘there’re no charges, there’re no fees, the only thing is, if you do anything, that’s when I would get paid.’”

The report said: “SJP told us that it ‘does not believe that being restricted is in any way inferior to being independent,’ but the paperwork provided by its advisers tells a different story, noting independent advisers have an obligation to make recommendations ‘based on a comprehensive and fair analysis of the market’ – while there’s no similar obligation for providers of restricted advice.”

The report concluded: “Many SJP customers are happy with the service they get – but our investigation raises serious questions about whether they can make an informed decision about what they get, what they pay, and what they might get elsewhere.

“Their initial charges alone are £2,500 on a £50,000. An IFA doing a similar job might charge £1,500 according to unbiased.co.uk, and the latter would be compelled to look at the whole market and consider fund charges when making recommendations.

“SJP’s expensive alternative pushes customers into a closed market where they can sell expensive funds as advisers are free to ignore cheaper or better alternatives.”

Researchers also claimed that while “if you look at what you could have earned elsewhere, SJP’s performance is nothing special”.

SJP was contacted by Financial Planning Today for comment on the findings from the Which? report and it released a statement from CEO David Bellamy, which read: “St. James’s Place offers high quality, face to face, financial advice, evidenced by 98% of clients who said our services represent reasonable, good or excellent value-for-money – with 81% good or excellent.

“Our advisers are committed to putting clients’ interests first and we will continue to provide the excellent service to clients that has underpinned our growth over the past 25 years.”

The full report is on the Which? website.