View more on these topics

FOS tells adviser to pay client over £30k loss through unsecured Sipp loan

The Financial Ombudsman Service has told an adviser to compensate a client who they told to make an unsecured loan to a third party with money from their Sipp.

In the case, a client referred to as Mr H was advised to set up a Sipp by The O’Rourke Partnership in 2011 and was introduced to a third party later in the year.

Mr H says O’Rourke Partnership recommended and arranged for him to make an unsecured loan of £29,325 to the third party from funds he held in his Sipp.

The loan was to be over a short-term at a high rate of interest but the loan has not been repaid and Mr H has lost his money.

An investigator reviewed the complaint, thought the advice was unsuitable and recommended that it should be upheld.

He said that the unsecured loan was too high risk for Mr H, comprised far too great a proportion of his pension funds, and The O’Rourke Partnership should not have recommended the loan.

The investigator said that the firm should pay Mr H £200 for the distress this situation had caused as well as compensation.

The case was subsequently referred to the ombudsman as the adviser did not reply to the investigator’s judgment and an agreement was not reached on the matter.

The ombudsman Keith Taylor took on the case and has reached the same conclusions as the initial investigator.

He explains that an unsecured loan agreement was established between the Sipp trustees on Mr H’s behalf and the loan recipient.

This was witnessed by a representative of the adviser and while there is no letter of recommendation Mr H says the loan transaction was suggested and arranged by The O’Rourke Partnership.

Taylor says: “I am satisfied that but for adviser’s involvement, I don’t think Mr H would have made the unsecured loan. I consider that the loan transaction, with the loan unsecured, represented a higher level of risk than Mr H was willing or could afford to take.

“I think the adviser had a duty to ensure that the loan transaction was suitable for Mr H. But I don’t think that it was. It was too risky for Mr H particularly given that the loan represented such a significant proportion of his Sipp.”

Taylor adds an unsecured personal loan exposes the money to many risks – not only that the interest might not be paid but that the capital itself would be lost if the borrower finds themselves unable to meet the repayments.

Furthermore as it is unsecured, there is no security which can be sold to repay the capital.

As with a single loan, there is no spread of risk across many different arrangements as might be the case with other structures like peer to peer lending.

To compensate Mr H, the ombudsman says The O’Rourke Partnership should pay Mr H £200 for the distress caused in addition to his financial loss.

To calculate the financial loss the adviser should compare the performance of Mr H’s investment with the FTSE UK Private Investors Income Total Return Index benchmark.

If the fair value is greater than the actual value, there is a loss and compensation is payable and if the actual value is greater than the fair value, no compensation is payable.

The O’Rourke Partnership was not available for comment at the time of publication.



FOS penalises Intrinsic over Sipp transfer to Harlequin

The Financial Ombudsman Service has ruled against Intrinsic Financial Planning over a client who switched his personal pension to a self-invested personal pension in order to invest in Harlequin. Mr A complains that he received unsuitable advice from an appointed representative of Intrinsic to switch his personal pension to a Sipp. When the transfer was […]


FOS sees rise in new Sipp cases

The number of new cases brought to the Financial Ombudsman Service about self-invested personal pensions increased in the third quarter of 2017/18, new data from the organisation shows. The FOS received 546 new cases about Sipps between October and December 2017, which was an increase from 498 new cases in the previous quarter. Enquiries received […]

London-based DFM investigated by US authorities

London-based fund firm Beaufort Securities has been charged with money laundering and securities fraud by the US Department of Justice, the FCA has revealed. In a statement this afternoon, the FCA said that it had been cooperating with the US agency over its investigations into six separate individuals. The indictment from the DOJ alleges that […]

Is volatility dead? No, sell credit

There are several arguments that one could currently make for why credit markets look unattractive. These include signals that the US economy is in late cycle, the fact that corporate leverage has been increasing (with 2016 setting a record for the amount of global bond issuance), and that US high-yield default rates have risen considerably […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 4 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. There will be more of these cases to come…….

    Which SIPP provider allowed an UNSECURED loan to a random 3rd party?

    Would you lend a 3rd party £30k of your cash without security?

  2. Was the 3rd partly truly random?.

  3. Julian Stevens 6th March 2018 at 9:54 am

    The relationship (if any) between the O’Rourke Partnership and the third party is a key factor in determining the logic (or otherwise) of this recommendation.

    Had the third party been a close relative of Mr H experiencing financial difficulty, one can understand why, in the absence of any other readily available funds, he might have approached his financial adviser to ask how he might help out said relative. But, given that the adviser introduced Mr H to this unknown third party, this appears not to have been the case.

    Surely, no FA in his right mind would recommend a client to make such a loan as an investment proposition, particularly without a legally binding written agreement and security? Such a recommendation appears to have been plain reckless. I’m not surprised the ombudsman found against the O’Rourke Partnership.

  4. Robert Milligan 6th March 2018 at 11:56 am

    Clearly, this is also a matter for the FCA, how many others have been so advised, This adviser should be De- Authorised, the Regulator should really be on to this case, I find where there is one, others do seem to follow!!

Leave a comment