Tag: 55% tax

  • Pension Liberation Costs

    Pension liberation fraud costs victims £millions every year.  It ruins lives and causes desperate poverty in retirement.  But the situation is made far worse because the State has badly miscalculated how much it will cost to support these victims for the rest of their lives.  The amount of tax actually collected will be far outstripped by the cost of support and healthcare.

  • CAPITA OAK PENSION SCAM: BBC Radio 4 You and Yours.

    toCapita Oak pension scam: hundreds search for pensions they transferred after cold calls.

    In a special You and Yours, we investigate a web of companies that sold millions of pounds of pension investments to hundreds of people – and has left many of them desperately trying to find out where their money has gone.

    Click here to listen to the programme.

    Liberating Pension Pots:

    LIES, FRAUD AND FORGERY

    STORE FIRST/CAPITA OAK/IMPERIAL TRUSTEES AND VARIOUS SIPPS

    Shari Vahl – BBC Radio Four You And Yours 20.10.2014

    Transcribed by Angela Brooks, Chairman – Ark Class Action 20.10.2014

    (comments in bold by AB)

     

    Store First is doing really well.  Next year it is expected to open more of its self-storage warehouses.  It has celebrities such as Quentin Wilson recommending people invest in its storage units. Wilson claims: “I’ll be honest, I like it so much, I’ve got one myself.”  The BBC has spoken to some of the people who sold the Store First investments.  They told Shari how they lied, as well as forged documents and signatures to make sure that pension money was moved from secure schemes into Store First.  One salesman said: “I feel kind of sick to the stomach that I had transferred pensions from an elderly lady who completely trusted me.  I played with her dog.  She made me cups of tea.  She gave me biscuits.  I built trust with her.  And I don’t know if any of these people ever received any money.”

     

    The BBC’s You And Yours team devoted the entire programme to the thousands of people who invested millions of pounds in this one company: Store First.

     

    “I was asked by listeners to look into two Liverpool-based pension funds which had gone horribly wrong.  These were Capita Oak/Imperial Trustees (300+ members with total transfers of at least £10.8m) and Henley/Omni Trustees. £20 million of pension money had been invested in Store First but around 500 people hadn’t received the returns they were promised and now they can’t get their money.  The two pension funds were wound up in the High Court in 2015 and the judge described them as “dishonestly disadvantaging pensioners and sold on the basis of false representation”.  From the start, it was clear from the people who came to us that those two pension funds that the court wound up weren’t the only ones driving huge investments in Store First.  I’ve discovered another much bigger one marketed by the same Liverpool sales team, sending all the funds raised to Store First – a chain of storage warehouses.

    Alan: “I don’t suppose I’ll ever see that £140k again.  I don’t want other people to fall into the same trap.  Which they might do now with the new pension rules”.  Lolita: “This is the most appalling scheme I have ever heard of.  It is awful.  It is actually costing me money now.  I would never have agreed to this.”  David: “I’m annoyed with myself but I am even more annoyed with the people who took it off me.  £66k and I want it back”.

     

    “Those are three of the listeners that came to see us: Alan, David and Lolita.  They were promised big returns on their pension investments and access to a quarter of it, tax free when they reach 55.  They were told their money would go into Store First in 2012/2013.  He engaged a sales company in Liverpool to sell people the idea of investing their pensions into his company.  What the investors would get was a physical storage unit or pod and the money raised from renting out that pod (to people who wanted to store their stuff) is how they get the returns.  Or that was the promise.  The Capita Oak victims were also given non-repayable, interest free “loans” of 5% of the value of their pension transfers by a supposedly non-connected company registered in Gibraltar called Thurlstone.

     

    Quentin Wilson featured in the advert claiming a “guaranteed 8% for the first two years and up to 10% in years 3 and 4”.  This was due to rise to 12% by year 6.  So even people with secure, generous, final salary pension funds moved them into Store First.

     

    Alan, an ex postman, paid into the Royal Mail pension scheme: “I had about £144k.  These people came to me and said they could put it in a SIPP (Self Invested Personal Pension) and I’d get guaranteed returns on it”.  These people were the sales team based in Liverpool.  He believed the claims.  “I looked on the Store First website and they were predicting the same thing.  And then this guy Quentin Wilson doing a video about how it was the fastest growing market in the UK and predicted 85% profit in six years”.

     

    Alan and hundreds of others like him were really interested and excited by this offer.  Interest rates on savings were so low and they needed money.  The salesmen said they had “frozen” pensions from their old jobs just sitting there.  Lolita also took one of these cold calls from Jackson Francis – the Liverpool sales team.  We’ve obtained a copy of the script they used for the phone calls and it shows the cold callers described themselves as “pension specialists”.  Lolita was 36 when she signed up so she is much younger than Alan and she had £20k in a pension pot from her old job.  Jackson Francis asked if she would be interested in taking control of that fund and she said yes, she would be prepared to re-invest it somewhere so that it would be working for her and give her a good pension.  So she allowed Jackson Francis to transfer her old pension into a SIPP (really only suitable for people with lots of money to invest).

     

    David Griffiths did the same thing with his pension which had taken 20 years to build up working as a van driver for the Birmingham Post and Mail.  A salesman visited him and gave him a glossy booklet and told him it was a very good investment and many people had had their money back on it and the website looked kosher so he decided to go with it.

    For a lot of people the promise of a tax-free lump sum was a big part of it and they could have got that out of their old pension schemes, but they didn’t know that and Jackson Francis didn’t tell them that.  Other people just wanted to make their money work harder for them and get better returns.  This has been researched by BBC Radio 4 for more than a year after being contacted by desperate people who had not received their lump sums at 55, couldn’t contact the Liverpool sales team and were very worried.

     

    Several former Jackson Francis employees started to get in touch with the BBC and started to reveal what was really going on inside Jackson Francis.  They believe that Alan, Lolita and David and hundreds of others were lied to and defrauded.  One salesman said that the promise of getting 25% of the pension at age 55 was really the main bait.  “A lot of people, especially over 55, were struggling and that tax-free lump sum would have helped them out”.

    People who go into a SIPP are strongly advised to get independent financial advice.  The cold callers described themselves as “pension specialists” and offered a free pension review and Alan thought he was getting good advice.

     

    Under the rules, you can’t take out any part of a pension under the age of 55, and if you do move your pension pot, you should have a third party company regulated by the FCA in the middle to manage the pension pot for you.  So who managed the Store First investment?  A company in Leicester called Berkeley Burke (SIPP administration company) – unrelated to Store First and Jackson Francis and wasn’t paid by either of them but took on the majority of Jackson Francis clients – hundreds of them – and handled their investments into Store First.

     

    Berkeley Burke was happy to facilitate the transfers provided the clients signed to say they recognised the investment was high risk.  After a few months, Berkeley Burke wouldn’t take any more Jackson Francis clients unless those people had received independent financial advice.  Jackson Francis approached an IFA called Keith Popplewell, experienced in pensions, who was paid to help them.  They asked him to provide advice to their clients so he needed information from these clients but before he could give advice he needed Jackson Francis to do a questionnaire but he didn’t meet the people he was advising.  He didn’t speak to them on the phone either.  He just looked at the questionnaires returned by the salesmen and then wrote a financial report either recommending or not recommending they move their money into a SIPP.

     

    This is where the allegations of fraud and forgery really begin.  This is what one of the salesmen said about the so-called fact-finding questionnaires: “There was a series of boxes and you had to tick one.  It went from low to high risk and we were told by our bosses that people needed to be at the higher end or there wouldn’t be a transfer.  If the client didn’t want to be high risk, they were told they would have to leave the pension where it was.  Another salesman reported it was more than just scaring people “When I was training I went out with one of the field agents.  He filled in the form before he went into the client’s house and ticked the box to say the client did have an appetite for risk before meeting him.  Clients did not see a copy of their reports.  Keith Popplewell claims he never recommended anyone in a final salary scheme to transfer into a SIPP.  Even clients whose reports said the pensions should not be transferred were still transferred and did not even see the report from Popplewell.

     

    One salesman witnessed another salesman signing pensions transfer paperwork himself and filled in the fact-find questionnaire himself.  Another salesman reported that this was routine and that the salesmen would sign the forms rather than the client.  In other words, forging signatures.  You would see them practising on a piece of paper until they got it right.

     

    Jackson Francis was a “machine” that drove £100 million into Store First.  The salesmen did not know about the level of commission paid by Store First.  Over two years, Store First paid £33 million to a mysterious company called Transeuro Worldwide Holdings and it worked like this: every time an investment was received into Store First via the Liverpool sales team, Store First would pay Transeuro a commission of 30% or 46%.  So when Alan put his £141k pension from the Royal Mail into a SIPP and that went into Store First, Transeuro was paid nearly £65k – 46% commission.

     

    The government took Transeuro to the High Court to wind it up in the public interest after complaints from people who had been persuaded to move into two other pension funds also invested in Store First and millions of pounds are also missing from those pensions.  Up until that court hearing, it was really hard to see who really ran Transeuro.  It seemed to be based in Gibraltar and was shrouded in layers of nominee directors in the Caribbean and Central America and at the winding up hearing the court forced Transeuro’s solicitors to name the man in charge.  That man is Michael Talbot who all the Liverpool salesmen believed was their boss.  The man they described as having the big glass desk in the Speke office; the quiet man who hired and fired; the man with the chequebook.

     

    But in a letter to the BBC from Talbot’s lawyers, he denied he ran the Liverpool sales operation or Transeuro Worldwide Holdings.  He claimed his role was IT and databases and he told the BBC that at his garden gate in 2014.  Talbot is 42, from the North of England and he used to be a nightclub promoter, married with two children.

    Transeuro used £5m of the £33m they were paid to run the Jackson Francis operation and for buying in names of potential customers; they rented offices in Speke.  Mike and Stuart would often roll up to the office in Ferraris and Rolls Royces, a Porsche, all owned by Store First.  These offices were called Business First and Jackson Francis worked from there.  Store First owned all the cars that the salesmen used to drive to visit clients and provided all the glossy brochures, and the product knowledge training for the sales team.

    We can’t say that the investors have lost everything because they still are the legal owners of these storage pods.  Quentin Wilson promoted the “exit strategy” as being able to “bail out at any time without cost and can sell to Store First who have a guaranteed buy-back scheme or you sell to another investor”.  But Store First told one investor “on the fifth anniversary if you request for Store First to buy your pods back and if this is agreed then Store First have a further five years to complete the buy back”.  And over that time you have to pay another five years’ fees and management costs.  SF claimed it could organise an “in house” sale and sell the storage pods to someone else and make the original investor a profit of 25% but simultaneously offer a 25% discount on a new one.  Why would anyone buy a second-hand unit for 50% more than a new one?  It has been three years since Alan asked Store First to his sell his units and so far nobody wants them.  Nobody has bought David Griffiths’ pods either.

    BBC went to speak to Mike Burkey at Andrews Estate Agents in the Wirral and he said they had one on the market for £15k in February.  They dropped the price in June to £9k as interest was minimal.  The realistic price could be £5k and they charge a flat fee of £1k plus conveyancing fee of about £600.  So after total fees of around £1800 the seller might walk away with £3.5k.  Other estate agents tell the same story and one said they thought the investors had been “stung”.  A major auction house had 9 pods for sale from the Blackburn site.  The auctioneer started at £10k but there was not one single bid.  No-one out of the 400 people in the room showed even a flicker of interest.

    The original investors were shown a valuation by a chartered surveyor and the BBC asked him how he had calculated the market value and he said it was a sum based on how much rent the pod would generate.  He was then asked where he got the rental figures and he said “Store First”.  He was then asked whether he checked those figures to prove those rents were coming in and he said “no”.  When the Capita Oak store pods were purchased in 2012/13, the solicitors used for the conveyancing – Metis Law – were specifically instructed not to get valuations for the pods they bought using £10m of funds from the Capita Oak members.

     

    “As a matter of policy, Carey Pensions use a conservative valuation estimate for Store First storage units of 50% of the original purchase price in preparing annual SIPP reports”.  This was a letter sent in 2015 to some Store First investors telling them their investment is worth half what they paid.  When asked why the value of the investments had dropped so much they didn’t answer.

    Store First claims it has 5,000 investors who have put £250 million pounds into Store First.  Tom McPhail of Hargreaves Lansdown says the way these investments were sold was wrong because unregulated advisers were selling high risk investments with financial advisers signing off risk profiles that were inappropriate and then people buying into unregulated high risk investments and people who should never have been moved out of final salary schemes and unregulated investments shouldn’t be in the SIPPS at all in the first place.

    The BBC tried to get in touch with the SIPP administrators Berkeley Burke, regulated by the FCA, but they didn’t respond.  Carey Pensions did respond saying that they did do checks in line with FCA regulation and that they are happy.  The Self Storage Association says that the figures that Store First are putting out are not viable and they got an independent report from Deloittes who confirmed the initial suspicions that the promised returns are unviable from a self storage business and there were two similar operations in Australia that failed and the investors were left out of pocket.  There is very little, if any, market for re-sold units.  Tom McPhail says there is very little avenue for compensation for the investors.

    Quentin Wilson states he has asked Store First to remove the videos from their website and he has confirmed he has received no income from his pod.

     

  • BBC News England – Meet the pension liberation fraud victims.

    BBC Inside Out investigates a new cold-calling practice involving pension liberation fraud which is taking place across England.

    Liberating your pension

    Click here to watch video

    Pension liberation fraud has been reported widely in the press, on t.v. and on radio for several years.  The Inside Out documentary showed how easily victims are scammed by the teams of scammers.  The Ark Class Action, led by Angela Brooks, filmed part of this programme at the BBC studios along with a financial adviser and solicitor.

    Interestingly, Andrew Isles, the accountant who helped design and set up the Ark schemes, took part enthusiastically in the filming.  The BBC team did some secret shopping of their own, and uncovered another pension liberation scheme run by George Frost – former Chairman of Canvey Island Football Club.  Frost’s scheme invested victims’ pensions in “truffle trees”.

  • Ark Pensions Disaster and Mission Statement

    Ark Disaster will destroy many victims’ homes

    ARK PENSIONS DISASTER CLASS ACTION – MISSION STATEMENT

    For members of the Ark Pensions schemes and any other similar schemes involving MPVA (Maximising Pension Value Arrangements) or PRP (Pension Reciprocation Payments) or Pension Liberation (releasing a proportion of your pension before the age of 55).

    THE MISSION: There are a number of challenges facing the Ark Pensions victims.  What they want and need is clarity, honesty, transparency, justice and action to get their pensions back and be put into the position they should have been in before their original pensions were transferred to Ark (or any other similar pension liberation schemes).

    The Ark Pensions Class Action is taking up all the challenges required to do this and give the victims back their financial security in retirement.  To do this, and more, there are five distinct but inextricably-linked aspects to the mission:

    1. THE GOVERNMENT
    2. DALRIADA TRUSTEES
    3. HMRC
    4. FINANCIAL ADVISERS WHO SOLD THE ARK SCHEMES
    5. JUSTICE BEAN’S RULING (INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION)

    THE GOVERNMENT                                        

    The Government’s Pensions Regulator investigated the Ark schemes and made a full report detailing the areas where it did not feel the schemes complied with Pension Regulations:  http://www.thepensionsregulator.gov.uk/docs/DN2116109.pdf.

    When I say “full” I mean “full-ish”.  The Pensions Regulator has blanked out the bits it doesn’t want the public to see.

    The Pensions Regulator appointed Dalriada Trustees to take control of the Ark schemes and they were suspended in May 2011.  Dalriada has been recovering the original investments made by the Ark schemes and have recovered the majority (despite originally declaring them to be worthless).  They are now taking steps to recover the loans made to the Ark members.

    The government is responsible for HMRC who are trying to tax the Ark loans even if they are repaid.

    The government department – The Financial Conduct Authority – refused to take action against the financial advisers who sold the Ark schemes, saying that it was “not within their jurisdiction” – and anyway they get to pick and choose which cases to pursue.

    The government is responsible for:

    • Pensions being frozen and 10% of the original Ark assets being spent on fees by Dalriada in the first two years
    • Secrecy over the who/where/what/how the Ark disaster was set up, investigated and “worked”
    • Failure by the FCA to take action against the negligent financial advisers who sold the schemes in the first place
    • Failure by HMRC to decide clearly how and where they intend to tax the loans at 55% despite having had three years to do this and honour their own “Taxpayers Charter” (help and support taxpayers to get things right).  The loans could be taxed in three different places (depending on what HMRC can get away with).
    • Apathy.  So far, only three MP’s out of the entire House of Commons have taken up their constituents’ cases.  George Osborne has completely ignored the matter.  David Gauke, Treasury Secretary, has brushed the matter aside in a “bothered?” letter without even asking about the welfare of the Ark victims or offering to do anything to help.

    DALRIADA TRUSTEES                     

    Dalriada were appointed by the Pensions Regulator in May 2011.  The pensions remain frozen.  After numerous bouts of legal action, two sets of audited accounts were sent out seven months after the end of the first two financial years.  No news as to when Dalriada’s work will be concluded.  Bulletins and updates sent out infrequently and Dalriada staff not great at returning Ark victims’ calls and emails.  Some Ark victims have still heard absolutely nothing from Dalriada.

    In the first two years since their appointment, Dalriada charged £665,039 in fees, spent £1,633,371 on legal fees and £47,695 on audit fees (10% of the total fund value).  They refuse to declare how much has been spent in year three, stating that the Ark victims must wait until audited accounts are released in December 2014.

    In three years, Dalriada have failed to resolve with HMRC whether the Ark loans are taxable or repayable.  And failed to inform the members that – actually – they are both.  Dalriada have been meeting with HMRC for some time, but claim it is nothing to do with them if HMRC tax the loans (just as HMRC are claiming it is nothing to do with them if the taxed loans are forcibly reclaimed by Dalriada).

    There is still no clear idea of how safe the Ark pensions are.  £11.8 million of Ark victims’ cash is held on deposit at Barclays Bank earning pitifully-low interest.  (Let’s not forget that Barclays are being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office over a shady £322 million Qatar deal and have been fined £50 million by the FCA – so why chose Barclays?)

    Dalriada are making a “Beddoe” application for court directions as to how to recover the Ark loans.  They have stated they will not agree to Angela Brooks, representing numerous Ark victims, being present at the private hearing because the hearing is “private” and that she is an “unconnected party”.

    Dalriada need to answer key questions about the future of the Ark pensions.  Legal and financial professionals fear the “fee-earning machine” could roll on for years until there is nothing left of the pension funds.  Unless Dalriada are challenged.  And vigorously.

    HMRC                                       

    The Taxman has a “Taxpayers Charter”:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/91888/charter.pdf

    HMRC should read it.

    In the three years since Dalriada took over the Ark pensions, HMRC have done nothing – I repeat, NOTHING – to clarify the taxation of the Ark loans.  They did not even sit down and have a meeting with “pensions experts” until the end of March 2014 i.e. more than two years after Justice Bean ruled in the High Court that the loans constituted unauthorised (i.e. taxable) payments.

    It must be remembered that if HMRC had not registered the Ark schemes in the first place, the original pension providers would not have made the transfers and the Ark disaster WOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED.  HMRC have since publicly stated that they were going to put an end to the “register now, ask questions later” negligent and sloppy approach.  But they lied.  Angela Brooks applied to register a pension online at the HMRC website, using her own name and private address in Spain at the beginning of January 2014.  Two weeks later she received her HMRC-authorised pension certificate.  No questions asked.

     

     

    HMRC have informed the Ark Pensions Class Action that:

    • 55% tax is payable at the receiving end or at the making end of the loans (the funds).  Or both.
    • Dalriada have said that HMRC will also be taxing the members themselves for “making” the loans (even though they had nothing to do with it).
    • Even Ark members who did not receive loans will be taxed at 55%.
    • HMRC refused to be joined in the High Court proceedings in December 2011 because “it wasn’t a tax case”.
    • They declined to be bound by Justice Bean’s ruling.  But are now relying on it.
    • They want all Ark members to complete tax returns so that an appealable decision can be issued and then the members have to appeal the tax before the tax tribunals – knowing full well that this is a lengthy, expensive and stressful process.  But HMRC have deep pockets, and they don’t care.
    • If the Ark members don’t get an appealable decision, HMRC will issue a determination with no appeal.
    • Some Ark members have received demands to complete tax returns.  Some haven’t.  Some have already paid the tax “on account”.  Some are so worried they can barely function.
    • HMRC state that the loans are still taxable even if they are repaid.

    HMRC have to be taken to task.  They have blatantly contravened their own “Taxpayers Charter”.  They have not lifted a finger to sort out a clear and fair way to deal with this unclear and unfair situation which is inflicting so much stress, anxiety and potential financial ruin on so many Ark victims.

    The tax demands have to be vigorously challenged and appealed in the tax tribunals and some sort of justice as well as closure sought to end the misery of the past three years.

    FINANCIAL ADVISERS         

    Let’s get one thing 100% straight right from the start.  Financial advisers have one thing and ONE THING ONLY to sell: financial advice.  Not halal chicken or horse-meat burgers; not snake oil or penis enlargement cream.  Pure and simple financial advice.  And it is an easy enough job because all you have to do as a “financial adviser” is ask your clients three basic questions:

    1. What is your risk profile?
    2. What is your risk profile?
    3. What is your risk profile?

    Then all the financial adviser has to do is provide the client with three crucial bits of information:

    1. Here’s a copy of my professional indemnity insurance
    2. Here’s proof of my authorisation/regulation
    3. Here’s my fee for your approval (plus anybody else’s fees in the “supply chain” for this transaction)

    It is worth defining “risk profile” in order to establish just how easy it is to get it right:

    • First, ask the client if they are low, medium or high risk (in other words, how happy are they to lose their investment if things go tits up).  If the investor says “very happy” – refer to a psychiatrist
    • Second, explain the underlying investment in plain English without any gobbledygook (i.e. property or shares or precious metals or an outsider in the 3.30 at Kempton Park)
    • Third, outline how the investment will be spread between a variety of different types and class of fund (after all, only a complete moron would put 100% of his client’s money into something as outrageously risky and toxic as a “death bond”!)

    However, if – despite following all the basic, not-rocket-science rules of how to be a competent and successful financial adviser – things do go pear shaped, then the client can go back to the financial adviser and complain and ask for compensation and redress.

    The good, professional, competent, conscientious, properly regulated and insured financial advisers will move heaven and earth to help, assist and support the aggrieved client and make every effort to resolve an investment which has turned sour.  If the problem is not resolvable and the client ends up either losing money or gaining an unforeseen tax liability (or both), then the financial adviser will notify his professional indemnity insurers and ensure that the client is compensated.

    As with all professions, however, there are the good, the bad and ugly.  Unfortunately for the Ark members, they have been victims of financial advisers who are not only bad and ugly, but downright cowardly.  In the face of their monumental cock ups, they have shown that not only do they have no conscience but they have no balls either.

    The financial advisers responsible for the Ark disaster will be brought to justice.  Many of the Ark victims have described them as “dead men walking”.  However, the Ark Pensions Class Action wants them kept alive and healthy so that they can face both criminal and civil proceedings for justice and compensation for their victims.

    HIGH COURT RULING

    In December 2011, Justice Bean declared (Clause 57 of the ruling) that the Ark Pensions loans were “unauthorised payments” (i.e. taxable at 55%).  In the same clause, he also ruled that they were “not unauthorised payments” (i.e. not taxable at 55%).

    About as clear as mud.  Either way, HMRC declined to be joined in the proceedings (or, to put it in layman’s language – they couldn’t be bothered to turn up).  Their excuse was that “it wasn’t a tax case” – although they knew that tax was central to the issue.  They also declined to be bound by the ruling – although they are subsequently relying on the ruling that the loans WERE unauthorised payments and ignoring the bit that says they WERE NOT unauthorised payments.

    Many highly-qualified and experienced legal and tax professionals think Justice Bean was wrong.  Equally, James Bulger’s family thought Justice Bean was wrong when he sentenced Jon Venables to two years in prison for distributing child pornography, and stated it was important to protect Venables’ secret identity.

    To be honest, Justice Bean’s ruling didn’t say much that the Pensions Regulator hadn’t already said in their report (only without the X’s).  http://www.professionalpensions.com/digital_assets/3826/4568_001.pdf

    However, the judge did say one very significant thing which seems to have escaped HMRC and that is at Clause 53 where he quotes the case of DCC Holdings v HMRC heard by Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe and a bunch of other judges who agreed with him about the principles of interpreting and applying laws (also known as “common sense”):

    “…the correct approach in construing a deeming provision to be to give the words used their ordinary and natural meaning, consistent so far as possible with the policy of the Act and the purposes of the provisions so far as such policy and purposes can be ascertained; but if such construction would lead to injustice or absurdity, the application of the statutory fiction should be limited to the extent needed to avoid such injustice or absurdity…”

    To put the above into layman’s terms, this means “if the law is an ass, don’t act like a donkey”.

     

     

    The Ark Pensions Class Action puts it to His Honour Justice Bean, HMRC, The Pensions Regulator, Dalriada Trustees, the Treasury Secretary, the Pensions Minister, the Chancellor, the Prime Minister, the Financial Ombudsman, the Pensions Ombudsman, the Parliamentary Ombudsman (and any other Ombudsman you can think of) that the following position is both unjust and absurd:

    • Dalriada will be reclaiming the Ark loans
    • HMRC will be trying to tax the Ark loans – at least once, if not twice or three times if they can get away with it
    • The tax on the loans (whether 55%, 110% or 165%) will be repayable even if the loans are repaid
    • Even those Ark victims who did not receive a loan will be taxed at 55% because they “intended” getting a loan
    • Even those Ark victims who didn’t receive a loan because they didn’t want one will be taxed at 55% because they “made” a loan (presumably in their sleep)

    The Class Action will be calling upon all involved in this disaster to interpret the law justly, and with intelligence rather than with downright stupidity.

     

     

    Ark Pensions Class Action

    14th May 2014

  • Ark Disaster – Dalriada Accountable for Strategy

    Ark Disaster – Dalriada Accountable for Strategy

    Dalriada – accountable for strategy

    Need a bigger ark for the Ark Pension Disaster…

    Mark Atherton of The Times wrote:

    We have tried to establish who should take responsibility for the financial disaster which befell investors in the Ark pensions “liberation” schemes. They were suspended in May 2011, leaving hundreds of investors facing ruin after being hit with a punitive 55 per cent tax penalty on the so-called “reciprocal loan” payouts they were given.

    Yet when you talk to the people and organisations involved about who should carry the can for the Ark debacle the response of everyone, from those who originally marketed the schemes to the regulators and the watchdog, is a firm: “Not me, guv.”

    None of this is much help to Ark victims such as Neale Morgan, who invested his money in good faith after checking that the schemes were properly registered and yet now finds himself being punished by the taxman for participating in a scheme which the revenue itself had previously registered.

    The revenue and the pensions regulator have, since October 2013, tightened up the registration process for pension schemes — a tacit admission that the system in place at the time of the Ark fiasco was inadequate.

    It seems unfair that the revenue is now hitting those people who invested in the Ark schemes with severe penalties, while not going after the people who profited from the scam. As Mr Morgan says: “The authorities seem to be punishing the victims, while letting the perpetrators go scot-free.”

    The revenue and pensions regulator should start turning the spotlight on the perpetrators, while the Financial Conduct Authority should launch a full-scale investigation into the Ark collapse and name, shame and punish those found guilty of wrongdoing.

    What is a Pension Scam?

    At the same time, the revenue should consider tempering justice with mercy in the case of the Ark victims. Many of these people were given false assurances that the schemes were viable.

    In most cases they have spent the lump sums that were “unlocked” from their pensions, often on settling debts, and they simply have no money left to pay the revenue’s penalty fees.

    Sadly, the Ark disaster is not an isolated event. Every month brings news of fresh pensions “liberation” cases and the scammers are likely to be gearing up to take advantage of the confusion surrounding next year’s relaxation of the rules governing how you can take your pension cash.

    The message to ordinary investors is a simple one — be alert to anyone promising you easy money if you transfer your pension to an unknown scheme.

    Your default position when confronted by any smooth-tongued salesman should be: “Why is this person lying to me?”

    Ark was an appalling disaster.  It has cost several people not just their life savings but also their lives.  It really is time to make sure that the Pensions Regulator doesn’t just mouth the words “scammers are criminals” but also make sure they are prosecuted.

    What is a Pension Scam?