View more on these topics

Malcolm McLean: Beware the gathering Sipp storm

The news that Sipp provider GPC Sipp is facing around 150 legal claims for compensation in relation to losses incurred from unregulated investments in the Harlequin property fund will be ringing alarm bells in many offices.

The case is expected to enter the courts early next year and follows a number of other yet-to-be-concluded court cases against Sipp providers, which also centre on failed unregulated investments, often facilitated in concentrations via unregulated introducers.

In one of the cases, a Sipp provider is challenging a Financial Ombudsman Service decision from 2014 that it had to compensate a client after it failed to carry out adviser-style due diligence on his investment.

In another case along similar lines, a provider is arguing it was not responsible for the client’s failed investments as the client had invested on an execution-only basis and signed a contract saying it was his choice to do so.

The FCA has participated in both of these cases, expressing the view that a Sipp firm cannot escape its duty of care towards its clients, regardless of whether the business was written on an advised or non-advised basis.

FCA draws red lines against Sipp providers in judicial review

The outcome of these cases could have profound implications for the Sipp industry. According to some insiders, if it goes the wrong way, it could lead to a large-scale winding up of Sipps, leaving significantly fewer full Sipp providers in the marketplace than there are today.

And for those that continue in business, many will probably need to fundamentally review the way their Sipps are set up and run – in particular, if all unregulated investments into Sipps are banned and/or no investments are permitted via unregulated introducers.

The FCA is arguing that acquiring assets in a Sipp forms part of operating the Sipp and this gives providers a duty to vet all the investments made. This duty and the responsibility it conveys would be classified as a regulated activity under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, with all that means for both the provider and the client.

Money Marketing’s in-depth coverage of the Sipp market

In the meantime, advisers and providers dealing with self-invested pensions must be on their guard. Claims management companies appear to be shifting their attention to the space as the deadline for PPI claims approaches.

According to some reports, the claims management industry is visibly trawling for prospective clients in the self-invested market, although the extent to which a Sipp is actually self-invested and where the boundaries lie should serve to limit the extent of their success.

That said, both FOS and Financial Services Compensation Scheme complaints linked to Sipps are on the rise.

This is all part of the gathering storm currently afflicting the Sipp market and it could yet get worse before it gets better. Let’s hope for calmer days to come, with a clearer picture emerging as to the way ahead for this important, but currently beleaguered, part of our industry.

Malcolm McLean is senior consultant at Barnett Waddingham



Aegon apologises to advisers over Cofunds replatforming

Aegon has issued an apology to advisers in response to problems with the Cofunds replatforming. The firm is also increasing headcount in its operations team by redeploying 200 employees to help deal with any further issues. Advisers using the Aegon platform have reported numerous problems with it since it was integrated with the Cofunds business […]

Quilter lists with £2.7bn valuation

Quilter has listed on the London Stock Exchange valued at £2.76bn. The business, formerly Old Mutual Wealth, has separated from parent Old Mutual Plc with an offer price of 145 pence per share. Quilter chief executive Paul Feeney says: “We are delighted to be in a position to list as a standalone business and are […]

Accidents will happen

Sarah Scott – Marketing Consultant  “Yesterday I witnessed an accident between a small family car and a huge lorry making deliveries in the city centre.” Luckily everyone walked away, shaken but physically uninjured and I’m sure thanking their lucky stars that the outcome wasn’t considerably worse.  Certainly, when you saw the comparative size of the two […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 3 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. It’ll be a painful few years as levies will surely just keep increasing to fund the FSCS. A lot of customers didn’t need a SIPP and were negligently and sometimes fraudulently advised and it’s right they’re compensated, but it’s an endless source of frustration that those responsible can pass on the liability to the honest advisers.

    As a number of providers fall by the wayside (because there’s only one way these Court cases will go to be honest) the bigger firms will hoover up the profitable SIPPs and leave the dodgy ones for the FSCS to deal with.

    We’ve already seen Burkeley Burke split their SIPPs client book into those with and those without unregulated investments. The “good” ones will inevitably get sold on, the “bad” ones will be chucked in the bin for the FSCS to deal with.

    The FCA should clamp down hard on this and the age old problem of phoenixing but I won’t hold my breath!

  2. So for those where there was ‘advice’ in the regulated sense, then it should not fall on the SIPP provider, it should fall on the advisory firm, with the ongoing consequences thereof.

    For those where no ‘advice’ was given then to make the SIPP provider liable is to ban such investments from SIPPS by the back door. Surely if that is the regulatory direction of travel a more honest ‘nothing unregulated except for immovable property with a land registry title’ regulation would be a better answer. Let’s not ‘pretend’ that SIPPs are wide investment powers products if they are not going to be in reality. The coming fudge will do little to deter the dodgy (who will simply register their own SIPP for a short while), whilst closing the door to the legitimate.

    That is not what regulation is intended to achieve.

  3. Julian Stevens 2nd July 2018 at 9:36 am

    Surely this is a direct consequence of the FCA’s abject failure to practise proportionate and appropriately targeted regulation in the form of identifying, homing in on and taking action against the small minority of rogue firms flogging totally unsuitable toxic junk, almost certainly without relevant PII cover. It only takes one claim to break them and then their liabilities fall on the rest of us by way of the FSCS. But only up to £50,000 per claim, which is shamefully cold comfort for a victim who, thanks to manifest dereliction of duty on the part of the regulator, has seen their CETV of £500,000 go down the drain.

    But no one at the FCA is ever held to account. What is needed is a formal parliamentary enquiry and a class action against the FCA. See How can the FCA possibly argue that it remotely lives up to these claims? It’s a disgrace.

Leave a comment


Why register with Money Marketing ?

Providing trusted insight for professional advisers.  Since 1985 Money Marketing has helped promote and analyse the financial adviser community in the UK and continues to be the trusted industry brand for independent insight and advice.

News & analysis delivered directly to your inbox
Register today to receive our range of news alerts including daily and weekly briefings

Money Marketing Events
Be the first to hear about our industry leading conferences, awards, roundtables and more.

Research and insight
Take part in and see the results of Money Marketing's flagship investigations into industry trends.

Have your say
Only registered users can post comments. As the voice of the adviser community, our content generates robust debate. Sign up today and make your voice heard.

Register now

Having problems?

Contact us on +44 (0)20 7292 3712

Lines are open Monday to Friday 9:00am -5.00pm