View more on these topics

Sipp claims against Berkeley Burke could top 1,000

UK-Currency-Money-Pound-GBP-620x413.jpgLawyers who represent investors against Berkeley Burke over allegations of mis-sold Sipps estimate more than 1,000 claims could be in the pipeline.

The High Court has approved a group litigation order relating to claims against Berkeley Burke Sipp Administration, and those affected have until 23 July 2018 to register to join the group action.

It is alleged that Berkeley Burke established the Sipps in breach of the Financial Service and Markets Act 2000, after unregulated third-party firms advised them to transfer their traditional private or occupational pension funds to a Berkeley Burke Sipp in order to invest into a variety of high risk schemes.

Claimants were often promised high or guaranteed returns across a variety of investments including self-storage units and foreign property developments.

Many investors have seen the value of their pensions plummet – or in many cases become worthless – following these investments, or have been left with highly illiquid pension portfolios.

A significant number of claimants invested their entire pension funds into the scheme, leaving them with no other source of income.

Currently 77 people have already registered for the group claim, pursuing a total of more than £3.7m in lost funds, but it is estimated that there could be in excess of 1,000 claimants affected by the same issue.

The claimants are represented by lawyers at Hugh James solicitors, based in Cardiff, and Wixted & Co. Solicitors, based in London..

Hugh James partner and financial claims specialist Neil Stockdale says: “The approval of a group litigation order is a really important step for the hundreds of people affected by this issue.

“People were wrongly encouraged to invest sums of money – in many cases their entire pension pots – into products which were unsuitable. These people have been left in a desperately difficult situation, which we’re now helping to put right.

He adds: “The court has recognised that there are common issues which affect these investors, meaning that we can now proceed with a co-ordinated action with all claims being administered in a single court.

“It is, however, vital that potential victims come forward before the closing date of 23 July 2018 or they risk missing out on the opportunity to be compensated for their financial loss.”

Berkeley Burke declined to comment.



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. […]


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 […]


FOS upholds complaint against Berkeley Burke over Ucis

The Financial Ombudsman Service has upheld a complaint against Sipp operator Berkeley Burke Sipp Admin-istration for failing to carry out adequate due diligence on a £29,000 unregulated collective investment scheme. In 2011 an investor, referred to as Mr A, transferred £29,394 from a personal pension plan into a Sipp through Berkeley Burke after being introduced […]


The lure of SJP

As competition for good advisers continues apace, one firm in particular is having little trouble bolstering its ranks: St James’ Place (SJP). Last month, the advice giant revealed it had increased its qualified adviser numbers by 246 in the 12 months to 31 December 2017. This was of little surprise to many in the wider […]


Best of both worlds: Blending active and passive

Looking to blend active and passive investment strategies? There are four key factors you need to know about, explains Ankul Daga, senior investment strategist with Vanguard Europe. Discussing the merits of active and passive investing with financial advisers, I am often surprised to discover how many are blending active and passive funds in their portfolios. […]


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. I wonder, if these Law firms are obliged to obtain written confirmation that the clients have instructed them , however knowing that the FOS would have provided them with the same recourse, and without cost. I expect the Law firms have borrowed against “others” assets to financially support this process, also paid for by the already financially disadvantaged. I agree with the action by those who have been mislead, but it seems its okay if a lawyer is in charge!!! You just do not lose out so much,,,!!! If you win.

    • Agreed totally – the FOS know what the breaches are and could easily issue a directive to the Sipp providers to write to their clients notifying them of the potential for a claim. The Sipp providers know which designated investments they accepted from non-authorised introducer’s

  2. This is the tip of the iceberg other Sipp administrators are affected by similar issues such as using non-regulated introducer’s, pre-determined investments, investments not suitable for Sipps and pension liberation schemes, however they are in denial about their potential liabilities not least because the multiples will almost certainly mean collapse. It would appear the strategy is very much keep your head down in the hope the claims become statue barred fortunately the FOS is not bound by the time limits.

    • statue barred – thats exactly what Liberty Sipp have been doing last few years trying to Fob investors off until its too late to claim. Investors keep getting told that all is well and investments are still running on track and that they are long term investments. They are still telling people that now and when you challenge them you get told ” We only adminaster Sipp, it was you that chose the investment “. Well it wasnt us, it was your Unregulated Introducers that you have agreements with that guided us to you without any financial advice. Well that is your downfall as you have nobody to blaim and are on the hook for MILLIONS.

Leave a comment