View more on these topics

Berkeley Burke faces legal action from 77 investors

A group of nearly 80 investors has cleared the first obstacle in legal action against Berkeley Burke over allegations it was responsible for losses incurred from risky investments.

A judge’s decision published online relates to a group litigation order brought on behalf of investors who accuse Berkeley Burke Sipp Administration of “mis-selling” them self-invested personal pensions.

At a hearing in Bristol Crown Court on 15 November 2017, the claimants took their first steps towards legal action.

The claimants go on to allege that nine “relevant introducers” introduced them to Berkeley Burke with investments into Sipps ranging from £6,000 to £160,000.

The approximate value of the present claims stands at about £4m with Berkeley Burke denying it did anything wrong.

The claimants’ argue the Sipp investments were made in circumstances that trigger three distinct bases of liability as the relevant introducers “were not themselves authorised to carry on a regulated activity for the purposes of section 19 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000”.

Judge Russen QC who oversaw the case last December says the group ligation order “is desirable” but he says the making of the order in this case is subject to the consent of the president of the Queen’s Bench Division.

He also dismissed Berkeley Burke’s request that the case be transferred to the Royal Courts of Justice.

If the order is granted then even more investors could join the action against the firm as 66 others have indicated their interest in the group action.

Russen adds: “The significant number of present claimants and the number of further ones who might reasonably be anticipated.

“If a group litigation order is made and publicised it is not unreasonable to assume, on the basis of the present evidence, that there might be around 200 claimants in total, and quite possibly considerably more.”

Berkeley Burke declined to comment.

In 2014 the Financial Ombudsman Service said it would review a decision against Berkeley Burke after the firm launched judicial review proceedings against it.

Recommended

Berkeley Burke to partner with LV= robo-advice service

Berkeley Burke has signed a deal with LV= that will see it direct clients to the mutual’s online advice service Retirement Wizard. The service is aimed at private clients who either do not need, or are reluctant, to pay for full financial advice, or through workplace pension schemes. Users are charged £199 to produce a […]

1

No answers from FOS on Berkeley Burke one year on

You might have missed it, but last week was a year since the Financial Ombudsman Service agreed to review a complaint upheld against Berkeley Burke Sipp Administration. The original decision found that Berkeley Burke had failed to carry out adequate due diligence on a £29,394 unregulated collective investment scheme. But after the initiation of judicial […]

Careful-Research-Business-Finance-Paperwork-700.jpg
2

Berkeley Burke demands suitability report for client transfers

Berkeley Burke is refusing to approve instructions to transfer clients’ investments without seeing advisers’ suitability reports. In emails seen by Money Marketing, the Sipp provider says it has adopted the requirement following a recent visit from the FCA and points to a 2009 FSA thematic review into Sipp operators. But the report only says obtaining […]

Money-Notes-Currency-GBP-Pounds-700.jpg
10

FOS reviews Sipp complaint upheld against Berkeley Burke

The Financial Ombudsman Service is reviewing a complaint previously upheld against Sipp operator Berkeley Burke Sipp Administration. In July, Money Marketing reported the FOS had upheld a complaint against Berkeley Burke for failing to carry out adequate due diligence on a £29,394 unregulated collective investment scheme. The complainant transferred the money from a personal pension […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 2 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. The BBB SIPP’s were aliened to the “Pension Office” in Sheffield, the so called “Inroducers” were advising on either BBB or Poperwells SIPP, I have seen both sets of paperwork completed at the same interview, I even spoke to BBB who ran through the process with me, So this group get my backing 100%. It completely scurrilous to push aside the Regulatory accountability of these providers onto the non regulated Introducers, or Regulation it’s self is doomed.

Leave a comment