View more on these topics

Sipp firms boosted by Ombudsman due diligence ruling

Anybody that needs to complain in the UK about a financial institution or service, must ultimately do so to the Financial Ombudsman. The Ombudsman will then arbitrate on the matter. The can adjudicate on any matter relating to banking, insurance, mortgages, credit cards and store cards, loans, credit, pensions, savings, investments, hire purchase, pawnbroking, money transfer, financial advice, stocks, shares, unit trusts and bonds. Basically, if there’s an issue related to any financial matter in the UK, the Ombudsman is empowered to arbitrate if the matter cannot be resolved between the two parties. Here the bank note imagery of a sterling bank note carries the message, with the Gavel symbolising the adjudication.

Sipp providers say the Pensions Ombudsman’s decision to throw out a complaint made by a member who lost a £40,000 investment will reassure the market.

Alexander Toward said Sipp firm Yorsipp failed to carry out proper due diligence on a 2011 investment, an unsecured loan to an unregulated firm called PFS.

The investment was to be used to fund commercial litigation, a controversial investment not accepted by many Sipp firms. The loan agreement stated interest was payable by PFS at 9 per cent a year paid quarterly.

Toward was a client of adviser Stewart Asset Management Limited, which began being wound up in 2013 and is now in liquidation.

Brian Stewart and Jacqueline Fowler were directors of SAML as well as PFS, but Toward says he did not know this when he made the investment.

In the application form he signed when making the PFS investment, Toward declared he had the financial ability to bear the risk of the investment and he was an experienced professional investor.

But Toward says he does not consider himself a professional but an “inexperienced, low risk” investor and relied on SAML as “experts”.

According to PFS’s liquidator report to January 2015 the firm had loaned £6.8m to three different parties “in order to fund certain litigious actions”.

The Ombudsman ruled Yorsipp undertook adequate checks on the investment under the requirements at the time. In addition, it was reasonable for Yorsipp to assume Toward had done his own due diligence after declaring he was a professional investor.

Ombudsman Anthony Arter says: “The evidence, therefore, falls short of establishing that injustice was caused to Mr Toward as a result of any failure on the part of Yorsipp to exercise due care and diligence in the conduct of business with him.”

Suffolk Life head of communications and insight Greg Kingston says: “Sipp operators increasingly feel they are at risk of being subject to claims for investment loss when all other avenues have proved unsuccessful and been exhausted. This ruling correctly offers reassurance that this is not the case.”

The Ombudsman says Sipp providers’ responsibility is limited to “guidance, help and support” when making investment decisions, while appropriateness and suitability are the responsibility of advisers.

But Dentons Pensions Management director of technical services Martin Tilley says the regulator’s changing stance has meant providers have taken on more responsibility.

He says: “At the time these investments were made, the requirement on a provider was to determine whether it was in the interest of the member because the asset may result in taxable charges.

“But investments beyond the date of the 2012 thematic review I don’t think would get a similar response because the regulator gradually chipped away and put more and more onus on the Sipp providers to make sure the business they were writing was in the best interests of their customers.”

The Ombudsman disregarded Toward’s claim that he did not read the application form for the investment because he trusted the advice he was given by SAML.

Tilley says it is “absolutely critical” both the Pension Ombudsman and Financial Ombudsman Service recognise individuals’ responsibility.

He says: “Individuals should be able to take responsibility for their pension savings. That means if you’ve gone through an advice process, given appropriate documentation and signed it, the person who issued it should be able to rely on the fact that if you’ve signed it then you have read and understood it.”

Adviser view

Paul Holiday, director, GreenSky Wealth

It’s good that cases like these are being highlighted. It depends how you act as a firm. If you have confidence and the knowledge to back your investment decisions and knowledge of the underlying investment and who the counterparties are then their should be no worries about what you get your clients to sign.

But if you don’t understand those underlying things you obviously have an issue and things will come back to bite you.

Recommended

Exploding-Piggy-Bank-700.jpg
3

Ombudsman backs Sipp firm over missing £40k

The Pensions Ombudsman has thrown out a complaint made against Yorsipp after a member lost a £40,000 investment. Alexander Toward said the Sipp firm failed to carry out proper due diligence on the 2011 investment, an unsecured loan to an unregulated firm called PFS. The loan agreement stated interest was payable by PFS at 9 […]

1

Martin Tilley: Property needs a definitive home in Sipps

The FCA intervention in the Sipp marketplace over the last 12 months has been well documented, as have forecasts the impact of the thematic review and capital adequacy amendments would lead to mass consolidation within the industry. In practice, however, this has not been the case. While there have been some notable transactions, consolidation has […]

3

Foot Anstey: Beware regulatory clashes over Sipp complaints

The Financial Ombudsman Service’s landmark decision in relation to Sipp provider Berkeley Burke has been widely reported. By way of reminder, in 2014 the FOS upheld a complaint against Berkeley Burke on the basis it had not carried out sufficient due diligence into one of the claimant’s Sipp investments: Sustainable AgroEnergy. The FOS concluded that, […]

US-USA-America-Federal-Reserve-Fed-700x450.jpg

US Fed edges closer to interest rate rise

Yesterday’s meeting of the Federal Reserve has made an interest rate hike in September more likely, say experts. In a statement following the Federal Open Market Committee meeting, the reserve said “some further improvement” was needed in the labour market, where previously it had said just “further improvement” was needed. “The addition of the word ‘some’ […]

Japan Economic Insight

James Dowey, Chief Economist, and Paul Caruana-Galizia, Economist

The conventional wisdom is that following a roughly 50 per cent rise in the stock market in 2013 in Yen terms, the Japan trade is over and done*. So the story goes, those big gains were due to a one-off boost from quantitative easing (QE) and a depreciation of the Yen — policies that one should think of as a palliative to Japan’s economic weakness, but not a cure. Rather the cure, and by implication the necessary condition for a longer-term investment case, is deep structural reforms — a painstaking re-weaving of Japan’s economic and social fabric, no less. The story continues: this is a much tougher test than launching a blast of QE, and one that prime minister Shinzo Abe, although well intentioned and well supported by the public thus far, is likely to fail. Stick a fork in Japan, it’s done…continue reading

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There is one comment at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. The thematic review and guidance make it clear that SIPP providers do need to be careful about so called non-mainstream products. There may have been leniency in the past but understanding the asset universe and its risks should be at the forefront of any SIPP provider’s risk management going forward. No more mongolian trouser funds please.

Leave a comment