View more on these topics

AJ Bell: What is holding back P2P lending in Sipps?


While the rise of Sipps has been widely documented, the growth in the peer-to-peer market is yet to attract the same level of attention. This is unlikely to remain the case for long, with experts predicting it will double in size every six months.

With such impressive growth, it is interesting the touch points between the two markets have so far been limited. Why is this?

There are two main points of concern. The first is the perception the P2P market is still immature, implying the risk of losses is too high. The second is that HM Revenue & Customs rules mean loans could lead to tax charges on the Sipp member, which providers cannot prevent.

Perception of the market’s maturity needs to be reassessed given the pace of growth. The three largest players each have between 20,000 and 60,000 lenders on-platform. The largest recently broke through the £1bn barrier in funds lent. Meanwhile, it has been subject to FCA regulation since April 2014 and appears to have welcomed it well. The same cannot be said of parts of the Sipp industry at times.

P2P lending has also attracted an impressive level of Government support, with millions of pounds injected into it by the British Business Bank and the proposed launch of Innovative Finance Isas.

Risk of failure

Another concern has been the possibility of platform failure. Indeed, a few have hit problems. In the last few weeks, problems with TrustBuddy, one of the smaller platforms, have highlighted the importance of the issue. The biggest previous failure was YesSecure, although lenders reportedly received funds back. In late 2014 GraduRates closed but one of the big-three platforms, RateSetter, took over. The only failure known to have resulted in the loss of funds was Quakle in 2011. All of the issues have arisen with the smallest platforms but the Sipp market itself has not been immune to provider failure.

Most P2P platforms now offer protection from the risk of loss for individual borrowers. A common option is a protection fund, typically funded by a fee from each borrower. The biggest is now around £20m.

You would expect HMRC’s rules on pension scheme lending to be the source of less debate. But even here there has been uncertainty. The key considerations are whether there is a connection between the lender and borrower, and whether the loan is used by the borrower to purchase taxable property.

If the Sipp lends money to a person connected with a member or ex-member of the pension scheme, an unauthorised payment occurs. The test is not applied at individual Sipp arrangement level but at the level of the registered pension scheme sitting above the arrangement. It might be easy to check whether a borrower is connected to the Sipp member but it is less straightforward when the test is applied to all, say, 80,000 members of the same scheme or anyone connected to them.

The solution may come from the way P2P platforms structure their loans. While some offer direct lending between individuals and borrowers, the bigger platforms tend towards a pooled, anonymised model. Funds can be spread across dozens, with neither the lender nor borrower knowing who is involved in the transaction. Some platforms also require clients to self-certify they will not intentionally lend to, or borrow from, connected parties and have processes to highlight any chance of collusion.

The question is whether this will satisfy HMRC. Using its definition of connection, it is impossible for the party on either side of a P2P transaction to know whether the other is connected. Would this be sufficient to demonstrate an absence of collusion, or would Sipp providers be expected to prove this beyond all doubt? If the latter, the position becomes unworkable on any sort of scale. It is hoped that HMRC comes to a sensible conclusion.

Taxable property

The use of loan funds to purchase taxable property has also been misunderstood. If a Sipp lends money to someone and the funds are used to purchase taxable property, HMRC says it can have an interest in that property. This is a problem regardless of whether the lender and borrower are connected and whether the loan is secured or unsecured.

Again, the solution may come from the platform’s model. If the loan is directly between a single lender and borrower, and funds are used to purchase taxable property, the Sipp member is likely to have inadvertently incurred an unauthorised payment charge. However, where lending is pooled, the Sipp may be treated as having an insufficiently significant interest in the taxable property for a tax charge to apply. Again, It comes back to how HMRC views this.

Although the lending is pooled, an individual contractual relationship is likely to exist between lender and borrower for their part of the overall transaction. If HMRC applies the ‘level of interest’ test at the combined amount of funds borrowed, individual Sipps may not have an issue. If the test is applied at the level of the individual contractual relationship between Sipp and borrower, there is a problem.

Discussions are ongoing between P2P lenders, Sipp operators and HMRC to resolve the technical issues. It will be a shame if the Government’s own rules, introduced a decade ago when P2P was not a consideration, prevent greater collaboration in today’s financial landscape.

Gareth James is head of technical resources at AJ Bell 


FCA interior 620x430

FCA targets drawdown in advice due diligence review

The FCA is homing in on income drawdown products as it kicks off its thematic review into advisers’ due diligence. The regulator has sent an information request to a number of advice firms ahead of site visits. In its 2014/15 business plan, the FCA announced it would be carrying out a thematic review on “effective due […]


Standard Life ‘sailing close to wind’ on investment advice

Standard Life has been accused of overstepping the line between advice and guidance in a letter that suggests clients switch to a higher-charging fund. The provider has written to thousands of customers urging them to review whether its Annuity Purchase fund is still suitable for them. The letter says the fund is designed for customers […]


Govt eyes early increase to personal allowance

Chancellor George Osborne is considering a package of measures to lessen the impact of his controversial cuts to tax credits. A plan, including speeding up the planned increases in the personal allowances, could be unveiled in the Autumn Statement, the Mail on Sunday reports. Under current proposals, the Government will raise the starting rate of […]


David Ferguson: Platforms must adapt or face extinction

Platforms are dead! So say recent headlines across the financial services trade press. To be fair, some platforms are dead (I can think of at least three) and some platforms appear to be lurching that way, but others are thriving. There’s a way to go until the entire sector can claim to have delivered on […]

HMRC helping to remove artificial gains

An investment bond offers investors certain tax advantages, one of which is the ability to take partial surrenders from the investment. This facility allows the policyholder to withdraw amounts up to 5% of the amount invested each policy year on a tax deferred basis, without incurring any immediate tax liability. This tax deferred allowance can […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 5 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Common sense will prevail, the Govt’s British Business Bank are lending alongside the P2P crowd and at the LenditEurope conference last week it was clear that all stakeholders, eMoneyUnion included, are behind making P2P assets accessible for all, HMRC and Treasury included.

  2. A good article covering the concerns of many SIPP Operators who are being asked to look at this sector.

  3. 17 P2P lenders including RateSetter one of the largest 3, are available now via SIPPclub’s SIPP & others so they seem to have overcome the operational issues. If so, I’d expect significant demand for platforms to open up to P2P, not just in their SIPPs but especially when the Innovative Finance ISA goes live in Apr 16. Can platforms pls respond.

  4. Why not just flush your money down the toilet – it is about as profitable as P2P. No collateral, no security, not a lot of due diligence. If I lend money I want equity or solid collateral and then only after a full DNA test.

    Otherwise I may as well go to William Hill or buy lottery tickets.

  5. Are any IFAs prepared to recommend a transfer out of a DB company pension into a P2P SIPP?

Leave a comment