View more on these topics

Football star Shearer reaches settlement with ‘dishonest’ financial adviser

Ex-England star claims adviser gave negligent advice and took advantage of his lack of investment knowledge.


Former England football star Alan Shearer has won a multi-million-pound settlement after accusing his financial adviser of “careless” and “dishonest” advice.

Shearer launched the negligence claims against IFA Kevin Neal and provider Suffolk Life, which he also claimed had failed to uphold its regulatory duties, amid accusations that he had been “effectively swindled” over his pension funds.

Shearer’s legal team had cited his “limited knowledge or experience” of investing, but Neal maintained he had “acted in good faith at all times” and Shearer’s claims stemmed from “pure greed and ego.”

Neal had previously had a complaint against his firm regarding the sale of unregulated collective investments upheld at the Financial Ombudsman Service, and is no longer working as an adviser according to the FCA register.

The Match of the Day pundit was due to give evidence on Thursday 15 June, but the trio has now reached a confidential settlement over the claims, the Daily Mail reports.

While Shearer was originally suing for around £9m in damages, it is likely he will receive far less than this in the deal because part of his claim was against two now-defunct companies: Kevin Neal Associates and Kevin Neal Associates Wealth Management.

The two companies had claims against them settled for “an undisputed figure around £5m”, the head of Shearer’s legal team said, according to the Mail, but will only pay a fraction of that figure.

A Suffolk Life spokeswoman said in a statement: “Suffolk Life confirms that the case between it and Mr and Mrs Shearer has been settled on mutually satisfactory terms and with no admission of liability.”



Fever pitch: The real story on DB transfers and insistent clients

Demand for pension transfers has reached fever pitch amid growing concerns about how advisers are approaching pension transfer business and how clients are being charged. The insistent client debate has focused attention on a lack of appetite to carry out pension transfers from defined benefit to defined contribution schemes. But on the advice frontline specialist pension […]


How much are advisers charging for pension transfers?

Defined benefit pension transfer charges are being put under the microscope again as the regulator turns over more potential conflicts of interest. With the British Steel Pension Scheme the latest to dominate headlines and the FCA ready to interrogate further as it extends its review to include all firms authorised to give pension transfer advice, […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 14 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. I’m ashamed that Kevin Neal was once an IFA, albeit probably back in the old salesman days.

    Still, our profession has some a long way since then but continues to be tarnished by idiots that were driven by greed.

  2. I know nothing about this case, apart from what I am reading from Money Marketing, but I do wonder if comments should be published when this is an ongoing case.

  3. Ricky C you are correct with your statement regarding Kevin Neal. This salesman has tarnished our reputation through greed. One of the many unfortunately.

  4. UCIS in a SIPP going sour? Quelle surprise! That this will be tested in a court of law does make this interesting though.

  5. Hands up if you didn’t see this coming!

  6. I may sue Alan Shearer for not winning the World Cup or Euro Champinship when he was paid to score enough goals to ensure that we did. He mislead us, failed to give us the returns that we expected with our ‘limited knowledge’ of international football

  7. 9mil in damages from someone who is no longer trading. Good luck with that. If Mr Shearer thinks Suffolk Life and his ex IFA have swindled him wouldn’t this need to go before the FOS first? It will be interesting to see what was actually afoot here because something isn’t right.

  8. Lindsay Lockett 15th June 2017 at 1:55 pm

    I wonder if his “adviser” will use the defence that he was just trying to reduce his clients pension fund so the cuts the LTA wouldn’t affect him ?

  9. Julian Stevens 15th June 2017 at 2:27 pm

    I guess the crunch questions are:-

    1. relative to its latest valuation of £4m, how much money was invested in this SIPP,

    2. In what were those monies invested,

    3. over what period and

    4. How often did Mr Neal meet with his client to discuss strategy and progress?

    Without knowing those things, it’s rather difficult to comment.

  10. Sick to death of reading about UCIS being sold by advisers from previous years.

    There have never been any instances where they provide a good client outcome and only serve 1) The UCIS provider 2) The adviser getting a hit of commission.

    Anyone who thinks that it is a good idea client holding a UCIS in a SIPP or any other structure is frankly wreckless.

  11. I flew over to London to meet Mr Neal once regarding a job ‘opportunity’. I was able to catch an early flight back!

  12. Shearer was always a greedy “poacher” in his working game – which made him so popular with those he played with.

  13. Dear Ted Shaw – you can go back over all the years to 1996 I think it was and sue every player in the squad. But there has been lean years – and there have been pathetic years – with a lack of commitment on the part of players. This case does summarise those who would ” test” and attempt “Claims”. It is like a footballer going down in the box ( or any whereelse) – it is quite frankly Cheating – and the impact is on the other player – same thing really Cheating ! is Cheating ! lacking in integrity or professionalism – we could stop watching football when shearer was on ?

  14. May I ask why the word dishonest in the headline is in parenthesis.

    There has been a multi million pound settlement, the adviser has had complaints upheld previously and a devotion to flogging UCIS doesn’t readily speak of honesty.

    If it looks dishonest, smells dishonest and is subject to severe sanctions; then for heaven’s sake it surely must be dishonest. Or is your legal department that timid?

Leave a comment