Copy article

SJP Exit Fees to Run Until 2036 – Advisers, What Do You Think?

ended 03. September 2025

It’s been revealed that St James’s Place (SJP) will continue charging exit fees on some of its legacy products until 2036, even though it pledged last year to scrap them for new business.

Many see this as creating a “lock-in” for clients, with charges resetting whenever extra investments are made. With Consumer Duty now in place, questions are being raised about whether this is fair to consumers.

We’d like to hear from advisers and other professionals:

Are you surprised SJP is keeping exit fees in place for so long?

Do you think this sits comfortably with the FCA’s Consumer Duty rules?

How do you talk to clients about exit fees when they crop up in old-style products?

Do you see this as an opportunity for IFAs to show the contrast with their own charging models?

4 responses from the Newspage community

Copy all

Star Quote
Copy

Editor
Scott Gallacher
Director at Rowley Turton
I’m not at all surprised SJP are clinging on to exit fees for as long as possible. Their charges — and how they were ever signed off under FCA rules — have always baffled me. What’s really shocking is that it’s taken Consumer Duty to finally bring them closer to the rest of the advice sector, and even then they’ve been given nearly two years to change.

We often pick up SJP clients and can normally significantly reduce the fees they are paying. Why clients continue to accept such high charges, and why the regulator has allowed this delay, amazes me.
Copy

Editor
Philly Ponniah
Chartered Wealth Manager and Financial Coach at Philly Financial
I’m not surprised SJP is keeping exit fees in place until 2036, but I am baffled at how the regulator is allowing it and why it’s taken so long to address issues raised over a year ago. Exit fees that reset with new contributions feels punitive and directly undermines Consumer Duty’s aim of good outcomes. When I show clients the real charges they pay versus the headline annual fee, they're always surprised. Consumer Duty was meant to bring clarity, yet SJP’s model doesn't feel very transparent.
Copy

Editor
Samuel Mather-Holgate
Managing Director & IFA at Mather and Murray Financial
If SJP are trying to rebuild their reputations after a series of bad news stories this isn’t the way to go about it. There has always been a dubious relationship between SJP, their clients and the FCA with murky bonuses being paid to advisers, exit penalties for clients, and astronomical fees and yet the regulator looked the other way. It wasn’t until this year, and threats from clients to enforce Consimer Duty, that SJP backed down and tried to rebuild its reputation by cutting ongoing fees. This just not do it, and if the FCA still have nothing to say about it, maybe client flight and share price tumbles might.
Copy

Benjamin Beck
Money Coach at Beck Money Coach
This isn't even aligned with Treating Customers Fairly, which was in place before Consumer Duty.