Tag: Capita Oak

  • Pension Life Wish List

    Pension Life Wish List:

    make a wish; make a list: make a pension wish list!

    Pension Life is still dealing with so many victims of scams and scammers.  None of the Pension Life wishes published in December 2015 have come true.  In the intervening two years, thousands more people have lost part or all of their pensions – and the scammers are all still out there, scamming away merrily.

    Maybe the next two years will see some real change?  We at Pension Life certainly hope so.  Because things cannot continue like this – too many lives are being ruined.  The wish list is as valid and urgent now as it was in 2015.

    No.1 HMRC to do some basic due diligence before registering pension schemes.

    HMRC due diligence

    This has to be at the top of our pension wish list – whether for Christmas, Easter, or on May Day!  Since pension simplification in 2006, HMRC has done zero checking on a scheme before registering it. They rely on the principle of “self certification” which means that if the person who registers the scheme doesn’t actually admit that it is being set up fraudulently, then HMRC assumes that the scheme is not being set up fraudulently. In fact, HMRC says that even if they had asked the question “are you setting this scheme up fraudulently” the answer would always be “no” irrespective. Interestingly, the same principle does not appear to apply to either the victims or the ceding (original) pension providers as they are supposed to do their own due diligence to establish whether HMRC has “inadvertently” registered a fraudulent scheme.

    The 6th of April 2006, or A day as it is often called, was the date on which the then government simplified pension setup in relation to the tax relievable contributions and the assets in which pension funds could be invested. The intention was to simplify pensions going forward and de-clutter the complicated pension legislation set up by previous administrations. However, evidence suggests the opposite happened, leaving people open to losing their pension entirely or in part. This is especially the case for QROPS, which were introduced as a result of A Day. QROPS allowed unqualified offshore advisers to advise on very complex UK pensions with tragic results. Although simplification started in 2006, a detailed understanding of all the different pension rules that existed before that year is essential. People who joined pension schemes before 1987 or 1989 or 2006 may well have important protections that could be lost through the negligence of an incompetent adviser.

    So, in the course of simplifying the pension process the government has left a lot of pension holders vulnerable to pension advisers who are not regulated, or qualified correctly. HMRC now need to implement new criteria for registration of pension schemes.

    HMRC regulation and qualification of pensions

    Currently, there is no list of HMRC registered schemes available to the public. This is something that is desperately needed and it needs to report the regulatory status of each scheme.

    To suggest that an ordinary citizen without a background in finance and pensions should do ‘their own due diligence’ is downright ridiculous. Most ordinary people wouldn’t have a clue what to do or what questions to ask. And even if they did, they wouldn’t understand the answers. The best thing to do is to ensure a properly regulated and qualified financial adviser is used before making any changes to pension arrangements. However, in the UK, this advice would not be free and a charge would be made for it. The fraudsters would be offering “free” or “low cost” advice which would be deducted from the transfer – and this is why so many victims are conned.

    If an ordinary citizen were to attempt their own Due Diligence they would first need to check if the adviser is regulated. Adviser regulations depend on what they are advising on – be it pensions, investments or insurance. So while an adviser could claim to be regulated, they may not be regulated for the service, product or scheme they are advising on.

    The experience and qualification of the adviser is also a very important aspect of due diligence. Unfortunately, glowing testimonials are not sufficient. There is no one-stop resource in which you can be fully confident about the information you get on the adviser.

    One simple example of an obvious scam is the company “occupational” pension scheme. If an occupational pension is offered, a transferee needs to be an employee. Bear in mind the reason so many scammers set up schemes as “occupational” is that an occupational scheme with less than 100 members comes under the radar of regulatory scrutiny. In other words, the organisers and promoters of such schemes can get away with setting up fraudulent schemes. So many scams involved occupational schemes since 2010 – from Ark to London Quantum (both placed in the hands of independent trustees Dalriada by the Pensions Regulator). Sometimes, the sponsors of these schemes actually existed; sometimes they didn’t. Rarely had they ever traded or employed anybody. And of course, neither HMRC nor tPR checked this. Anyone being offered a transfer to an “occupational” scheme when they are not genuinely employed by the employing sponsor of the scheme should be extremely wary.

    No.2 The Pensions Regulator (tPR) to do some basic due diligence before registering occupational pension schemes.

    The Pension Regulator to Regulate

    Also near the top of our pension wish list, is the fact that we want a good, strong and effective pensions regulator – not a chocolate teapot.  The Pensions Regulator(tPR) seem to be reactive rather than proactive. The general public are not able to contact anyone at tPR. tPR doesn’t declare what due diligence they do before registering occupational schemes (in fact it is pretty hard to speak to them at all and they don’t answer emails). Parliament gave tPR independence and it appears they are answerable to nobody. They do intervene in some cases and place suspicious schemes in the hands of independent trustees, but there is no evidence that they do anything to prevent scams from getting off the ground in the first place and only take action once hundreds of victims have lost their pensions.

    No.3 Known pension scammers to be prosecuted and given maximum prison sentences to send out an urgent message of “zero tolerance” of pension scams.

    EXPOSE PENSION SCAMMERS

    As far as we at Pension Life know, there are very few instances of scammers being jailed. Known pension scammers are still out there on the streets, having scammed hundreds/thousands of victims out of their pensions and are in the process of scamming hundreds more every week. The same old same old worthless “investments” are still being peddled and nothing is being done to clean up this toxic trade which obliterates so many pensions collected over years of work in the hope of a secure retirement.

    2018 has seen many scammers ‘accepting’ bans from acting as pension trustees, however, this is not enough the SFO needs to push forward with their investigation’s and hand out long prison sentences to serial pension scammers AND make them pay the victims back.

    No.4 Toxic UCIS’ to be investigated and “toxic” warnings to be issued

    Tosic Investments IN Pension

    The FCA will not allow regulated advisers to sell Unregulated Collective Investment Schemes (UCIS) to anyone other than professional investors. The selling of them by unregulated advisers is actionable by the FCA. The FCA does issue warnings about schemes such as these but their followers are only people working within the financial investment industry and it is only after the investments are made that many of the public become aware of these toxic investments. The general public would not be familiar with the FCA and what it does – as only the industry looks at their website, generally.

    Pension Life would suggest that the FCA reaches out to the public and ensure that toxic investments are publicly named and shamed through mainstream media. The problem is that neither the regulators nor the police authorities do anything to stop known high-risk “dodgy” UCIS’ – let alone blatant investment scams.  This is especially true of funds such as Blackmore Global and Trafalgar Multi Asset Fund.

    No.5 Sanctions for ceding providers who handed over thousands of pensions in a negligent/box-ticking fashion.

     

    Pension Ceding PRoviderPension Ceding ProviderCeding pension provider Ceding Provider

    Sadly, the very institutions in whose hands the retirement interests of the British public are placed are the worst at admitting liability for handing over £billions haphazardly to obvious scams without any due diligence. All the big names – from Aviva and Prudential to Standard Life and Scottish Widows – were hopelessly inept from 2010 to 2013 and did no due diligence to prevent victims’ pensions from getting handed over to the scammers.

    It is now time the government stepped in and reminded these firms of their fiduciary obligations. That is to say that the government and these ceding providers have a duty of acting in good faith with regard to the interests of the ordinary pension holder.

    No.6 Government to take an interest in Pension Scams

    The government needs to take action on Pension Fraud Wake Up Altmann

    To all intents and purposes, the government is doing absolutely nothing to prevent pension scams, toxic pension investments, unregulated advisers and non-compliant schemes. As to why the loss of billions of pounds of pension scheme funds should not merit the interest of the government, remains a complete mystery.

     The government claims to be “aware” of pension scams and pledges to treat the observation and “monitoring” of this massive-scale fraud as if it were a spectator sport. Iain Duncan-Smith promised to set up meetings with Ark Class Action members and senior government ministers in 2014, but then reneged on his promise. Ros Altmann simply refused to meet the Ark Class Action at all and instructed the DWP security guard to order them off the premises.

    No.7 DEDICATED TASK FORCE 

    As a matter of the utmost urgency – no more messing around and pretending/lying/hiding – the government needs to set up a specialist task force to pull together regulation, policing, public information/warnings and a tax amnesty for victims of pension liberation fraud. It is now irrefutable that the Scorpion Campaign has failed; HMRC’s Project Bloom has failed; the FCA has failed; tPR has failed; the government has failed; ceding providers such as Standard Life, Aviva etc., have failed; Action Fraud has failed; the National Crime Agency has failed. Failure is no longer an option and the specialist task force needs to take over and get this disgraceful mess sorted once and for all.

    Pension Liberation transfers scams for under 55 and over 55. Pension liberation is a scam

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • Pension Liberation “Loans”

    Email to Michael Bridges, Compliance, HMRC from Angie Brooks, ARK Class Action – re pension liberation loans.

     

    11 November 2015

    Dear Mr. Bridges,

    Re: Pension Liberation “Loans”

    Thank you for calling me yesterday and for discussing the various aspects of the pension transfers and “loans”.  Some important points arose from our discussion, and I feel it would be valuable to get these recorded and addressed.
    The first issue was whether any of the members/victims ever asked their existing/ceding providers if they could provide a loan.  It has never occurred to me to ask this question so – by copying in a number of members to this email – I am reaching out to ask them this specific question:
    “Did you ever ask or consider asking your original pension provider – e.g. Standard Life, Aviva, Royal Mail, NHS etc. – whether they could provide a loan?”
    If I get any replies I will let you know.  I suggest the answer will be a resounding “no” – but rather than assume the response I will leave it to the experts, i.e. the victims themselves, to answer this question.  (I think you will find the answer in the Q10’s anyway.)

    How do Pension Liberation “Loans” work?

     Victims of different scams were told different things, and the “loans” were structured in different ways.  Some were told the loans were repayable; some that they were not repayable; some received elaborate loan documentation; some received nothing.  However, the common fact is that they were all told in no uncertain terms that the “loans” were not taxable.  Many of the scammers went to great lengths to try to create the illusion that there was no connection between the loans and the transfers and that it was entirely a coincidence that they both happened at the same time.

    Elysian Fuels

    In fact, in a recently-published case: Elysian Fuels (£240 million now valued at £zero) the participants were told by financial advisers that the 84% “loans” were not taxable and that regulated SIPP providers James Hay and Suffolk Life were fully aware of and “happy” with the “loan” structure.  I have copied and pasted the emails outlining this scheme below for your information.

    Tax Compliance

    The point I am trying to make is that if an “ordinary man in the street” is assured by an IFA, a solicitor and a SIPP provider that a transaction is tax compliant, there is no reason for him to question that assurance.  What makes matters worse for the victims (and better for the scammers) is that the vehicles for the scams – whether an occupational scheme, QROPS or SIPP,- are registered by HMRC in the first place.  This gives the illusion that there is something “safe” or “approved” about the entire structure and indeed the scammers often use the term “HMRC approved” to dupe the victims.
    I have copied James Hay into this email and hopefully – as a regulated SIPP provider – they will come back with some further professional and regulated views on how and why pension liberations/loans/maximising arrangements (or whatever “label” is used to describe the liberation mechanism) are so easy to sell as “tax free” transactions.  Hopefully someone at James Hay will be able to provide some enlightening “inside” information and views on the subject.
    I could tell that you felt impatient with the fact that so many people believed these various liberation scams were legitimate and tax compliant.  With the greatest of respect, I would point out that as you work for HMRC in Compliance, it is your job to be an expert on pensions taxation.  But the victims don’t tend to have that knowledge or education and won’t have read Tolley’s Pensions Taxation (420 pages) http://www.amazon.com/Tolleys-Pensions-Taxation-2014-2015-Stephen/dp/0754549356.
    You also pointed out that if there was no loan agreement or contract, then there was no loan.  Each scam worked differently, and as far as I can see the only one with a proper, enforceable loan contract was the Evergreen QROPS/Marazion loan scheme run by Stephen Ward from Spain.  The word “loan” was merely a four-letter word – sometimes accompanied by the term “non recourse” as in the James Hay/Elysian example below.  We could debate “when is a loan not a loan?” all day long, but the bottom line is that the victims were misled and defrauded.  In some cases by a government consultant on pensions; and in some cases an added layer of apparent respectability enhanced the illusion that the transaction was safe and compliant by involving FCA-regulated IFAs and SIPP providers.
    Another scheme for pension liberation was Salmon Enterprises which worked with the trustees Tudor Capital Management.
    All in all, it is a disgraceful state of affairs, and I am afraid HMRC themselves have played their own part in helping facilitate these scams for the past five years – resulting in ruin for many thousands of victims while lining the pockets of the scammers.
    Regards, Angie

    From: Alan Fowler <fowlerpts@gmail.com>
    Date: 17 October 2013 21:28:21 BST
    To: William Perkins <billperkins62@gmail.com>
    Subject: Fwd: a solution for you !

    Interesting….but I’m amazed that reputable SIPP providers will countenance this.   Who’s making the loans?  I’m not sure I see how the SIPP pays the member (or anyone for that matter) £100k – with what/who’s money?  And won’t the SIPP need to verify that the shares in Xco are actually worth £100k.   That said, if the IFA is doing these, it seems the process works………..

    Regards,  Alan
    ==============
    Begin forwarded message:
    From: Stephen Ward <SWard@ppsespana.com>
    Subject: Re: a solution for you !
    Date: 17 October 2013 20:58:15 BST
    To: billperkins <billperkins62@gmail.com>
    Cc: Alan Fowler <fowlerpts@gmail.com>
    The arrangement I heard about today works like this as an example ( ignoring fees) and this is the simplistic version …
    1.  Client borrows 16k or thereabouts (this is available in the package)
    2.  He gets a non recourse loan (which will not be repaid) of £84k
    3.  He buys shares in Xco for £100k.   These are listed on the CISX ( name is Elysium)
    4.   Transfers £100k to James Hay SIPP
    5.   SIPP pays member £100k for the shares .,,,
    6.   Member repays the 16k and trousers £84k
    My IFA connection has done 40 of them so far
    Advice to transfer to the SIPP is from an FCA regulated IFA
    James Hay and Suffolk Life know the full structure and are happy with it ….
    Fees ….. On transfer to SIPP ( need to agree the commercials with the IFA)
    Regards
    Stephen
    Sent from my iPad

  • 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

    Capita Oak pension scam: Imperial accounts 23.1.15

    Ark Class Action

    24 Calle Cuatro Esquinas, Lanjaron 18420, Granada, Spain

    angiebrooks@pension-life.com angiebrooks99@gmail.com

    0034674746663 (mobile) 0034858995645 (landline) www.pension-life.com

     

    Roger Chant, Director – Imperial Trustee Services Ltd.                                                                              28th January 2015

    Brian Downs, Downs & Co Accountants

    Imperial House

    21-15, North Street

    Bromley BR1 1SD

     

    Copies to:

    Pensions Ombudsman; Pensions Regulator; D.S. Rob Harvey, Economics Crime Unit; Dalriada Trustees; FCA; TPAS; HMRC; SRA; ACCA; Iain Duncan Smith (Minister for Work and Pensions); Steve Webb (Minister for Pensions); BBC; ITN; Daily Mail; The Times; Insolvency Service; members of Capita Oak and Westminster pension schemes.

     

    Dear Sirs

     

    CAPITA OAK AND WESTMINSTER PENSION SCAMS

     

    The responses below (in bold) to the “announcement” and “financial report” purportedly from Roger Chant of Imperial Trustee Services Ltd. (ITSL) must be taken into context with the Westminster pension liberation scam operated by those who set up, promoted and administered Capita Oak.

     

    “In the second member announcement, I indicated that I had authorised the preparation of a financial report, to be prepared by an independent registered firm of accountants, Downs & Co.”

     

    First of all, ITSL has no authority to issue financial reports or announcements. ITSL was apparently appointed as administrator in the invalid and possibly forged “trust deed” dated July 2012 and apparently signed by Alan Fowler and Karen Burton (although not in her handwriting but with a signature that looks suspiciously like the handwriting of Anthony Salih of Premier Pension Transfers. Downs & Co is not an independent firm of accountants. Brian Downs was brought on board on board by Christopher Payne (sole shareholder and at the time director of ITSL – but also owner/director of TKE Admin to whom the scheme fees were paid) in October 2014 to try to deflect the questions by Sean Hughes of the BBC X-Ray programme. Roger Chant was also already a client of Downs before he was appointed a director of ITSL. This could hardly be called an independent firm as Downs has admitted he is a “close friend” of Bill Perkins who acted as a shadow director of ITSL. A truly independent accountant and auditor need to be appointed in full consultation with the board of trustees and a proper forensic analysis done on all financial transactions carried out by ITSL, TKE Admin, Premier Pension Transfers and Metis Law, and reported properly to the members. Robert Stell is still happy to carry this out.

     

    “I have now authorised that a copy of the financial summary prepared by the accountants and certified by them should be distributed to all members. A copy of the certified financial statement is attached. Disclosure of the certified financial statement provides transparency to Scheme members.”

    The financial statement issued is far from complete, only covers the period to September 2013, and raises many questions. My specific queries on the accounts are set out below.

     

    “As stated in the second member announcement, it can be seen, quite clearly, that (other than the amount deducted for administration) the totality of the funds received into Imperial’s bank account were transferred, on the instructions of the directors at the time, to the account of a UK registered law firm, Metis Law, who are based in Leeds. This is evidenced by the bank accounts reviewed by the independent accountants.”

     

    Not evidenced at all because not reviewed by independent accountant/auditor – and the missing £1.22 million/47 transfers is still not explained. I have provided a complete schedule of all the transfers processed to Downs via Paul Thomas showing the transfers which were included in the £10,810,301.57 originally disclosed and the extra transactions which were not transferred to Metis Law to purchase store pods, but Downs has refused to acknowledge these missing transfers and provided no explanation. He has also refused to explain a number of suspicious entries on both the bank statements for accounts 03841928 and 83365921 (sort code 20-25-42).

     

    “In summary, 95% of the funds received into Imperial’s bank account in respect of Scheme members was transferred to Metis Law. The 5% deduction for administration was made, which deduction was clearly specified in the Scheme membership documentation signed by each member.”

    The members were clearly given the impression that the 5% was for administration, although 5% was grossly over-priced for a simple transfer for which no competent or diligent administration was carried out. I submit that this should be refunded to the members immediately by TKE Admin. The subsequent investment of 100% of the funds in Store First was clearly negligent and irresponsible, with no regard to the obligations for prudent investment principles required by law for a pension scheme.

     

    “My enquiries suggest that of the 5%, some 3% was applied to TKE Admin Ltd., who arranged for the administration and other necessary services. In this regard, it should be noted that there is no annual administration charge applied to your funds within the Scheme. The remaining 2% was directed by the directors at the time to be paid to Mr. GS.”

     

    What “other necessary services”? The only necessary service was to ensure that the funds of the scheme were properly invested and the scheme run responsibly with a view to providing retirement income for the members, rather than just fees and commissions for the operators/promoters of the scheme. This requires further explanation and complete disclosure of exactly who was paid what and why. It was agreed between Perkins, Fowler and Mr. G.S. that 3% would go to towards “processing” with Stephen Ward of Premier Pension Solutions SL and Premier Pension Transfers Ltd receiving £250 per transfer. So where did the remaining 2% go and to whom was it paid? It is not accounted for. The statement that “no annual administration charge would be applied to the scheme” also needs explaining. How would the scheme be administered going forward for years to come? This suggests there never was any intention to manage the scheme properly in the long term and deal with members’ interests (such as retirement, transfers out, death of members and also diligent control of the assets and income). It is clear that the high level of up-front fees were intended as a quick way for the organisers of Capita Oak to earn a large amount of fees and then abandon the scheme altogether and ignore the many appeals by members for information, accounts, and data on the scheme and the investments. This includes Mr. X whose case was investigated by the Pensions Ombudsman who found ITSL guilty of mal-administration and referred to Capita Oak as being typical of a pension liberation scheme and organized crime.

     

    No mention has been made as to who has provided “services” to the scheme or in what capacity. Full disclosure and complete transparency is now formally requested as to who was behind these services and what services were provided. There has not been any evidence of any service to the members – other than complete silence and refusal to communicate. The people behind Capita Oak have provided no accounts, no reports, no transfers, no asset valuations and have ‘lost’ £1.6 million in “guaranteed” rental income: the main selling point that convinced members to transfer to Capita Oak.

     

    “There is a further purpose that is served by distribution of the certified financial report. I had hoped to avoid drawing these matters to your attention, preferring instead to focus on material and factual matters. In summary, I have been made aware of a number of comments and statements (many anonymous, others adopting obviously fictitious names) having been made on various social media or similar sites. Apart from being grossly misleading and wholly without foundation, some of the comments and statements are, frankly, shocking, containing as they do lurid and defamatory statements against a number of persons, including some who have provided services to the Scheme. In particular, some of the statements make allegations as to financial impropriety.”

    There is clear financial impropriety. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous. Not only has there clearly been obvious “financial impropriety” but also obvious fraud on the part of the operators and promoters of Capita Oak. The statements clearly and transparently made by me contained facts and hard evidence on the WhoCallsMe forum.

    http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/01516680386/120#p831709128742963577

    Various other contributors have posed as me and Downs using fictitious names, but although some have clearly sought to disrupt the flow of genuine information, there has been some valuable information provided about the activities of Perkins, Fowler and Downs. I stand by everything I have said on the forum and have always stated that if evidence can be provided that I have been mistaken I will gladly make a full retraction and apology. The only connected individuals I have ever communicated with have been Downs, the individual operating the Thurlstone loans and members of the Perkins/Fowler/Ward team who are disgusted at the wholesale defrauding of victims in Capita Oak, Westminster and other scams. I have also communicated extensively with Metis Law and JWK Solicitors acting for Toby Whittaker, but they have both now “pulled up the drawbridge” as they are now in contentious communication with each other.

     

    “As can be seen from the certified financial statement enclosed with this announcement, all monies transferred into the Scheme referable to members have been fully accounted for.”

    I refer to my previous comments about an independent auditor, only then will the members be satisfied that all monies have been accounted for. There is evidence that there is still 1.22 million missing and unaccounted for, with several members having confirmed that their funds are amongst the missing funds. In other words, members have transferred their pensions and yet these transfers are not on the list of transfers that went to Store First via Metis Law. The 100k paid to Thurlstone (which operated the pension liberation loans) remains unexplained, despite my asking about this repeatedly. Now, presumably, the 100k is hidden within the administration expenses. Further, my specific accounts queries below need to be addressed immediately.

     

    “It should further be noted that the certified financial statement was prepared with the independent accountant having been provided with copies of the bank statements for Imperial’s bank account. In view of this, I again ask that members rely solely on official announcements and information issued by Imperial and to ignore comments and statements issued by others, some of whom it must be assumed have ulterior motives.”

     

    The question remains: why did Downs refuse to provide the bank statements to the board of trustees? Further, I repeat, Downs is NOT independent. And this “financial statement” is far from complete and transparent as will be seen from my comments on the very incomplete “Analysis and Summary of Bank Account”. The question: why were the limited accounts only made up to September 2013? must also be answered. I would also like a proper explanation as to why the appointment of a truly independent (not previously connected with any of the parties who operated and/or promoted Capita Oak) accountant/auditor, Robert Stell, was rejected.

     

    “My enquiries, through my professional advisers, as to the investments made with the funds transferred to Metis Law are continuing.”

    I think at this point we have got to cut through all the obfuscation and ask who this communication is actually from? Imperial has had various directors since July 2012: Christopher Payne; Karen Burton; Karl Dunlop; Maria Orolfo (nominee in Dubai with false address in UK); me (immediately removed by Christopher Payne as I predicted); Christopher Payne (again); Roger Chant. Why so many directors? Why do they keep resigning? Why did Payne – the sole shareholder – resign from his own company? Then re-appoint himself and remove me? Why do the shadow directors Bill Perkins and Alan Fowler fail to appoint themselves as directors? Perkins, Fowler and Ward were clearly behind Capita Oak and Imperial Trustee Services. Ward had details not only of Capita Oak on his system but also of Westminster – which had the same sponsoring employer – RP Medplant in Cyprus (but whose assets have totally disappeared, totaling between 3m and 7m and clearly also run by Fowler and Salih). Although this letter appears to have been written by Roger Chant, why would a complete stranger, previously unconnected with ITSL and/or Capita Oak elect to be a director in the full knowledge that ITSL is in serious trouble over a fraudulently-operated pension scheme with compromised assets and stolen income? And why have neither Perkins nor Fowler appointed themselves as directors instead of Roger Chant?

     

    It must further be raised that Imperial (and the directors/shadow directors/shareholder) were entirely legally responsible for the set up, structure and operation of the scheme, as well as the illiquid investments in Store First. Christopher Payne – the founding director and sole shareholder of Imperial (as well as TKE Admin to whom the “administration” fees were paid) was clearly heavily involved from the start and is well known to Downs, so why does this letter seek to create the impression that investigations are required? Perkins, Ward and Fowler know everything about the Capita Oak scheme so why don’t they just come clean? 

     

    “I will authorise the preparation and distribution of a further announcement regarding the Scheme’s investments as soon as possible.”

     

    Further “announcements” will have much greater credibility if they are issued by the people who operated Capita Oak: Perkins, Ward and Fowler, rather than an un-connected person who has had no experience of the scheme and whose sudden, unexplained appointment as director appears to be a rather ham-fisted attempt to shield Perkins’, Ward’s and Fowler’s responsibilities and culpabilities.

     

    “I am also seeking information regarding the investment return that was due on the investments.”

     

    This statement unfortunately stretches credibility beyond the limit and is also insulting to the intelligence of the members. Perkins, Fowler and Ward devised and operated the scheme and Craig Hollingdrake of JWK Solicitors, acting for Toby Whittaker of Store First, confirmed to me that the 8% “guaranteed rental income” was paid to Transeuro Worldwide Holdings on the instructions “of the people operating Capita Oak”. According to the BBC, Toby Whittaker himself also confirmed this to the BBC investigating journalist. Let us be clear, the investments in Store First were done with the explicit intention of extracting the 30% introduction commission for those directly and indirectly connected with ITSL – not providing a secure retirement investment or income for the members. ITSL’s directors and shadow directors never intended running a long-term pension scheme for the benefit of the members: if they had, they would have invested the funds in diverse, prudent, liquid assets to provide for transfers, retirement and death. To claim to be “seeking information” is just nonsense. If the rental income of £1.6m has been stolen, then Chant and Downs have a duty to report the matter to the police and provide them with all the evidence. Have they done this?

     

    “Currently, and it must be stressed subject to confirmation, the position appears to be that the funds transferred to Metis Law (from which it can be expected that legal fees will have been deducted, but again that has still to be confirmed) were subsequently applied in the purchase of commercial property, principally storage pods with a company called Store First. These investments appear to have been made at the direction of the directors at the time. The former directors who were in office at the time that Scheme assets were transferred to Metis Law and/or were applied in the investment of those assets appear to be a Mr. Karl Dunlop and a Ms Maria Orolfo.”

     

    “These investments appear to have been made….” This is an unbelievable statement. A quick phone call to Metis Law would clear that up, though the fact that that current director of a pension scheme is not sure is damning in the extreme. The directors at the time were Christopher Payne, Karen Burton and Karl Dunlop – so what questions have been asked of them? And why did they resign? Metis Law confirmed that they were instructed by Karl Dunlop. Reverting to my previous comment above, the writer appears to express surprise at the position regarding the investments and the activities of Metis Law. ITSL was the “administrator” and instructed Metis Law. If (and it is a BIG if) Chant has no communication with Payne (who instructed Downs in the first place), Dunlop, Burton and the shadow directors Perkins, Ward and Fowler, why doesn’t he ask them? Why doesn’t he ask Ward whose 31 Memorial Road address was used as the Capita Oak address? Why doesn’t he ask Whittaker whose Goodlass Road address was subsequently used? Why is he purporting to “seek” information when the various parties who operated Imperial/Capita Oak are right under his nose?

     

    I have already sent in a much more complete set of accounts than the one submitted by “Chant” showing what was paid to Metis Law and TKE Admin but this was ignored by Downs and those instructing him. The investments were clearly made at the direction of those who set up, promoted and operated the scheme i.e. Perkins, Fowler and Ward. If another party had instructed the purchase of the pods or any other transaction connected with the scheme, this does not absolve the directors or shadow directors of legal responsibility and accountability.

     

    “Should any members have information as to how (and by whom) they were made aware of the Scheme, or if members have details of any promotional material or statements made (including, but not limited to, those regarding any investments and the expected return on investments) it would be appreciated if members could provide a copy or details to Imperial, either by post or by email. This information may assist in the enquiries being undertaken by my professional advisers.”

     

    This is an admission that the scheme has no idea how it was promoted to its members. I suspect that the director’s advisers are looking for evidence that the agents and promoters of the scheme are guilty of misleading statements to deflect the blame from those that set up the scheme itself. Many members have written and emailed “Imperial” and been denied any kind of response for many months. Indeed the Pensions Ombudsman has declared that this constitutes mal-administration over a prolonged period of time, and has described the scheme as typical of pension liberation and “organized crime”.

     

    “In response to the second member announcement, a very small number of members have enquired about, or have requested, a transfer payment to another scheme or arrangement. Until full details of the location, security, liquidity and value of the Scheme’s investments, and the investment return paid on those investments, is fully understood, in the short term it is not possible for transfer values to be quoted or transfers to be made. Naturally, as soon as it becomes possible, we will advise members as to next steps regarding the availability of transfers.”

     

    This statement really does again stretch credibility to the limit, and beyond. Could we have confirmation how many have enquired? It is surprising that only a very small number want to transfer out. The directors and shadow directors of ITSL clearly set up and ran this scam. They instructed Metis Law to effect the purchases of store pods using virtually 100% of the members’ funds, instructed Store First to pay the 8% 2-year guaranteed rent to Transeuro Worldwide Holdings Ltd., and operated the Thurlstone pension liberation scam. So how can they not know? It defies belief. The very fact that this letter appears to be trying to create the impression that ITSL was not responsible for everything that has gone wrong is damning in itself. Also, the fact there is no liquidity for transfers out, demonstrates again that this scheme has not been managed for the benefit of the members.

     

    “Please be assured that Imperial continued actively to pursue all matters relating to the Scheme, with the best interests of the members its paramount aim.”

     

    Am not sure any of the Capita Oak victims will believe this statement, having seen that they have been scammed out of £10.8 million (plus the £1.22 million missing transfers), as well as ITSL failing to account for the missing £1.6m rental income.

     

    “This is being done within the very limited funds available to Imperial.”

    Bearing in mind ITSL charged 541,775.51 by its own admission, according to the “financial analysis” reported by Chant, I would have thought Imperial had plenty of funds to “actively pursue” these matters. (Plus the 70,162.19 they are supposed to have as a “balance” which should be held in cash. Plus the 31k that Metis Law are sitting on.)

    If the funds are limited, how was the scheme ever going to be administered going forwards? Not only do we not have audited accounts, there are no individual statements for members. Why were the funds not segregated into individual accounts? It is not just a question of illiquid assets, the scheme cannot even tell an individual what the transfer value is in the first place. A shocking state of affairs that has not been addressed. Why not?

     

    “ITSL c/o Downs & Co

    Signed Roger Chant”

     

    PURPORTED “ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY OF BANK ACCOUNT” BY IMPERIAL

    Transfers Received: 10,835,510.21 (why is this 25,208.64 greater than stated in the original Imperial accounts and where is the missing 1.22 million made up from 47 transfers?)

    Interest Received: 832.11

    To open account: 75.00

    TOTAL: 10,836,417.32

    Pension cash lump sums: 82,911.31

    Bank charges: 812.33

    Administration fees: 541,775.51 (why did the original Imperial accounts state 441,751.85 and does this revised figure include the 10k paid to Christopher Payne when Barclays realised that ITSL was operating a scam? And further, does it include the 100,557.58 paid to Thurlstone by Metis Law?)

    Pensions Regulator: 157.71

    Metis Law re investment: 10,140,598.27

    Balance held by ITSL: 70,162.19 (does this include the 31k held by Metis Law which they are refusing to release?)

    Where are the following items in the financial statement?:

    9,828,750.00 paid to Store First – of which 30% was paid in introduction commission

    2,948,625 paid in commission (to whom?)

    647.00 in bank charges

    720.31 in courier services

    61,172.98 in fees to Metis Law

    3,990.00 to Harper McLeod

    1,696.00 in indemnity insurance

    12,370.00 in Land Registry fees

    5,194.20 to SDLT

    94,165.00 to Stamp Duty

    100,557.58 to Thurlstone

     

    It must be clearly declared that taking into consideration the 30% introduction commission and the 8% “guaranteed rental income” that in fact Imperial effected payment of 9,828,750 for property which was worth 46% less than the purchase price at the very least (and which may have a zero re-sale value). Furthermore, aside from the 5% “admin fee” paid to Imperial/TKE Admin, a further 179,955.29 in assorted costs added to the dilution of the value of the transfers.

     

    Finally, kindly respond to the following by return:

    1. Comments are sought on the invalid and forged “trust deed” which appointed ITSL as administrator but not as trustee. The signatures look like they could be Alan Fowler and Karen Burton (although it is not the same signature as Karen Burton used to sign letters to Capita Oak members and the handwriting is identical to that of Anthony Salih of Premier Pension Transfers at 31 Memorial Road, Worsley). Why were the signatures not identified, dated and witnessed? And why was no trustee appointed? Where is the original, witnessed trust deed?
    2. Who registered Capita Oak with tPR and HMRC?
    3. Why were the pods registered in the name of ITSL (as trustee of Capita Oak) when it was not the trustee? This means that the Capita Oak scheme is not the legal owner of the pods, but ITSL is. How will HMRC treat this?
    4. Why were the Barclays Bank accounts in the name of ITSL/Christopher Payne and not ITSL/Capita Oak?

     

    A full and prompt response to the above queries would be much appreciated. This letter is being copied to the Police Economics Crime Unit, the Pensions Regulator, the Pensions Ombudsman, the Insolvency Service, the members, the press as well as the SRA and Mr. Downs’ professional body.

     

    Angela Brooks

    Chairman – Ark Class Action

     

  • 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.