High Court Ruling to Spell Changes for ‘Execution Only’ SIPP Complaints
8 November 2018
High Court ruling to spell changes for ‘Execution Only’ SIPP complaints
In recent years many people have been advised to move their pension funds into Self Invested Personal Pensions (SIPPs) in order to make investments including overseas property, green oil and carbon credits.
A recent High Court ruling could mean that those who received advice from an unregulated introducer could now be eligible to make a claim against their SIPP provider, if that provider failed to conduct proper due diligence on the investments.
The case concerned Mr. C, a client who invested his personal pension in a Cambodian ‘green oil’ scheme via Berkeley Burke. The complaint was escalated to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) who upheld it, but Berkeley Burke appealed this by Judicial Review.
Berkeley Burke, who will be appealing the High Court’s decision, claim that as a SIPP provider they were not bound by a regulatory duty to ensure the suitability of all investments. The Judge in this case disagreed, stating that they “should have concluded the investment wasn’t acceptable for his pension scheme and thereby failed to treat Mr. C fairly or act with due skill, care and diligence when accepting the investment.”
Whilst the ruling takes into consideration particulars from this specific case only, the legacy affects could mean that SIPP providers will need to review their due diligence process when dealing with unregulated assets.
Contact TRUE today, for an initial FREE no obligation assessment, if you believe that you may have a case against your SIPP provider.