Sesame to pay redress over Sipp investment in Cape Verde fund

Sesame argued that it was not responsible for the investment in the Ucis fund

Sesame must compensate a client after one of its appointed representatives invested a client’s assets into an unregulated Cape Verde fund.

Sesame initially argued that it was not responsible for the advice but the Financial Ombudsman Service has ruled otherwise.

In 2012, the client, Mr P, was advised to transfer his pension benefits, which were held in a number of schemes, into a self-invested personal pension. The total fund was then invested in an unregulated collective investment scheme.

In 2014, the client complained about the advice to transfer into the Sipp, which was given by Moneywise Mortgage & Financial Planning, which was an AR of Sesame.

Sesame accepted responsibility for the Sipp advice but said the Ucis investment was not allowed under the scope of the AR’s permissions. It says this is confirmed in its compliance manual.

In the provisional FOS decision, ombudsman Doug Mansell says: “I understand Sesame’s point, and have considered the core compliance manual it’s referred to. But the AR was required to follow the relevant rules set out by the regulator. It had an overall duty to act in Mr P’s best interests and was required to know its client and to give suitable advice.”

He adds: “The appointed representative couldn’t have given suitable advice to Mr P on the pension transfer without also considering the investment to be made. The Sipp was simply a wrapper to hold investments, and the sole reason for opening the Sipp was to make the investment in the Ucis. The letter the adviser sent the Sipp provider in March 2012 for the transfer noted that it was to fund a property purchase with the Resort Group. It’s clear from this the adviser was fully aware this investment would be held within the Sipp.”

Sesame to compensate over unregulated property investment dispute

Mansell said the Sipp transfer advice could not be separated from the investment so Sesame was responsible for both.

The FOS deemed the advice unsuitable and said the adviser had not established if Mr P was willing to invest in such a risky investment.

Sesame disagreed with the provisional decision, saying it had shown it never authorised its ARs to advise on unregulated investments. It also argued that because commission was paid to an unregulated business, it should not be responsible for the advice.

However, the FOS continued to uphold the complaint. It said Sesame should pay Mr P £450 for the trouble and upset suffered. It also ordered Sesame to compensate Mr P by comparing the performance of Mr P’s investment with a benchmark and to pay the difference between the fair value and the actual value of the investment.


Stephen Gazard SBG MD 700

Sesame’s Stephen Gazard to join Intrinsic

Sesame Bankhall Group managing director Stephen Gazard is to join Intrinsic in the newly created role of group managing director later this year. Gazard’s departure from Sesame was announced yesterday, amid an executive reshuffle. At Intrinsic, Gazard will work with chief executive Andy Thompson on the distribution strategy as well as leading the mortgage division. […]


How to break the Sipps and Ucis misselling cycle?

Sadly, there are enough stories about dodgy investments held in Sipps that have gone wrong that if you are not careful, you can become immune to it. But it is only once you start to consider the extent of Sipp misselling that you start to grasp the scale of the problem. Financial Services Compensation Scheme […]

British GBP UK pounds 5 note 450

Barings to close five funds following MassMutual merger

Barings is closing five funds following the merger of Baring Asset Management, Babson Capital Management, Cornerstone Real Estate Advisers and Wood Creek in 2016. The decision to close the Multi Asset Income fund, Global Mining fund, Global Growth trust, UK Growth trust and Emerging Markets fund follows a review of the range when it was decided […]


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. A rubbish defence which, had the FOS accepted it, would open the floodgates to AR’s recommending any old unregulated rubbish via a SIPP effected in their capacity as a member of a network. Advice on the wrapper and investments effected within it cannot and should not be treated as separate activities.

    • And disgusting of Sesame to even try it.

      • I agree, there’s little point trying to defend the indefesible. It’s pretty simple agency law and I am surprised they wasted their time trying to defend it, they should have spent the time and money pursuing the adviser concerned to ensure they had the money to pass on to the client. I would hope they do that now.

Leave a comment