Tag: dwf solicitors

  • Store First v Insolvency Service Battle

    Store First v Insolvency Service Battle

    Pension Life Blog - Store First v Insolvency Service - store first scam

    April 2019 sees the battle between Store First and the Insolvency Service.  On April 15th, the High Court proceedings will kick off.  As a result, the Store First v Insolvency Service will determine how many people will lose their pensions permanently.  Two sets of very expensive lawyersDWF and Eversheds Sutherland – will battle it out to see if Store First can continue trading.  In the end, if the Insolvency Service wins the war, then both law firms and an insolvency practitioner will get rich.

    You can read the Insolvency Service’s witness statement here.

    As a result of the Insolvency Service winning, 1,200 pension scam victims will probably lose the majority of their investments in Store First.  In most insolvencies, there is little left after the various snouts in the insolvency trough have had their fill.  Investors will be lucky to get 10p in the pound.  If there’s an “R” in the month.  And if it is snowing.  And if Brexit has a “happy ever after” ending.

    The Insolvency Service says it is “in the public interest” to wind up Store First.   But are they right?  Isn’t winding up the company going to do even more unnecessary damage?

    One very important issue is that the Insolvency Service’s witness statement dated 27.5.2015 (by Leonard Fenton) is so full of inaccuracies, misunderstandings, incomplete facts and an obvious failure to understand how the scam worked – as to be utterly laughable.  The Insolvency Service and the High Court will rely heavily on this witness statement – and yet it has so many holes and errors that it is misleading, incomplete and meaningless.  I asked the Insolvency Service questions about the incorrect and incomplete statements and made numerous comments on the failings contained within the statement.  But the Insolvency Service did not even have the courtesy to reply or even acknowledge my contribution.  In my view, this is arrogance and incompetence in the extreme.

    This impending legal battle (which will cost the taxpayer £millions) is riddled with many more questions than answers.  Here are a couple of my questions:

    QUESTIONS RE STORE FIRST V INSOLVENCY SERVICE BATTLE

    • Why did HMRC and tPR register Capita Oak and Henley Retirement Benefits Scheme as pension schemes in the first place?
    • How many of the many scammers behind Capita Oak and Henley have been prosecuted?
    • Is there an explanation as to why Berkeley Burke and Carey Pensions are still trading?

    The reason for my questions is that both HMRC and tPR were negligent in registering the two occupational pension schemes.  This was because the schemes were obvious scams from the outset.  They both had non-existent sponsoring employers which had never traded or employed anybody.  And they weren’t even in the UK.

    HMRC was blind, stupid and lazy at the start – when these two schemes were registered by known scammers.  But several years later, HMRC woke up pretty smartly and sent out tax demands for the “loans” the victims received.  The Store First v Insolvency Service Battle is probably doomed to ignore HMRC’s negligence in causing this disaster in the first place.

    James Hay and Suffolk Life had been facilitating the Elysian Fuels investment scam at around the same time.  And this was with the considerable “help” of serial scammer Stephen Ward.  So, this was a prime time for scams and scammers.  However, both HMRC and tPR failed the public back then and have continued to do so ever since.

    In 2015, the Insolvency Service identified and interviewed most of the scammers behind the Store First pension scam.  In their witness statement dated 27th May 2015, Insolvency Service Investigator Leonard Fenton cited statements and evidence from all the key players.

    KEY PLAYERS IN THE STORE FIRST PENSION SCAM:

    1. Ben Fox
    2. Stuart Chapman-Clarke
    3. Michael Talbot
    4. Sarah Duffell
    5. Bill Perkins
    6. XXXX XXXX
    7. Alan Fowler
    8. Jason Holmes
    9. Karl Dunlop
    10. Christopher Payne
    11. Keith Ryder
    12. Craig Mason
    13. Patrick McCreesh (of Nunn McCreesh – along with Phillip Nunn)
    14. Tom Biggar
    15. Paul Cooper (Metis Law Solicitors)

    That is fifteen scammers who have never been prosecuted.  They have not only never been brought to justice, but many of them went on to operate further scams and ruin thousands more lives – destroying more £ millions of hard-earned pension funds.

    And what of Toby Whittaker’s Store First?  There is no question that store pods are not suitable investments for pension fund investments.  Car parking spaces are unsuitable for pensions as well.  There are, in fact, a long list of inappropriate investments for pensions – including anything high-risk, illiquid and expensive or commission-laden.

    TYPICAL INVESTMENTS USED BY SCAMMERS:

    All the above are routinely used and abused by pension scammers as “investments” for some dodgy scheme.  Invariably, the above investments come with pension liberation fraud and/or huge introduction commissions and hidden charges.  However, it is rarely the fault of the artist, wine maker, start-up entrepreneur, truffle farmer or property developer that the scammers profit so handsomely from abusing their products.

    Store First v Insolvency Service Battle

    I hope Store First defeats the Insolvency Service in the forthcoming battle in the High Court this month.  And I hope that the public and British government will finally get to see what embarrassingly inept, corrupt, lazy regulators and government agencies we have.  I will publish the Insolvency Service’s witness statement separately for anyone who wants to read the Full Monty.

    Let us not forget that the solicitors acting for the Insolvency Service – DWF LLP – also act for serial scammer Stephen Ward.  It was Ward who was responsible for the pension transfers which subsequently invested in Store First.  Had it not been for him, 1,200 victims’ pensions totaling £120 million wouldn’t now be at risk.  But, somehow, DWF LLP doesn’t think that is a conflict of interest?!?

    Let us be clear: if the Insolvency Service wins the court case, the investors will get nothing.  This will mean that, yet again, the victims will get punished.  If Store First wins, the investors will get at the very least half their money back.  If they are patient, they may even get it all back.

     

     

     

     

     

  • DWF Solicitors and their client Stephen Ward

    DWF Solicitors and their client Stephen Ward

    DWF’s clever PR chaps have come up with some impressive words to sell this law firm’s services: “We connect expert services with innovative thinkers across diverse sectors wherever our clients do business.”

    They even reach as far as the Spanish village of Moraira where Stephen Ward plies his evil trade.

    DWF is clearly a big firm (albeit, size isn’t everything).  However, one of their most senior litigation teams (twenty senior lawyers) upped and left a couple of years ago to join rival law firm Trowers and Hamlins.  These guys obviously didn’t make the leap because things were going swimmingly at DWF – and clearly, they felt no loyalty to their previous employers.  Either they were leaving a ship with a hole in the hull the size of Manchester, or they didn’t want to be associated with a firm that happily represented fraudsters.

    So how do I know DWF?  One of their nice lawyers, David Summerhayes, threatened to sue me for defamation when I exposed some of the frauds perpetrated by his client, Stephen Ward of Premier Pension Solutions.  Dear Dave got straight to the point in a letter to me on 8.5.2014:

    “We act on behalf of Mr. Ward, who trades as Premier Pension Solutions (“PPS”). Our client has become aware of many statements in which he is identified, both personally and through PPS, which contain false and defamatory allegations about him and his conduct. Of particular concern are the statements which convey an imputation of criminal conduct and fraud. The statements our client complains about convey the imputation that our client is guilty of criminal conduct and fraud. This is wholly false and highly defamatory of our client. The publication of these words has caused and is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of our client.

    In light of the above, we now require urgently from you:

    1. Identification of where else you have published defamatory statements or similar allegations
    2. Your agreement to withdraw the defamatory allegations and undertake not to repeat them
    3. Your agreement to provide our client with an apology which shall be published on Facebook
    4. Your proposals to pay an appropriate sum of damages to compensate our client for injury to his reputation 

    In light of the seriousness of the matter, the on-going damage which is being caused to our client’s reputation and the simplicity in which these issues can be redressed, we require that you remove the defamatory allegations and respond with your suggested wording of apology by 4 pm on 22 May 2014.

    To be fair to Dave, he probably wasn’t aware at that point just how many thousands of lives his client Stephen Ward had ruined or how many £ millions worth of life savings he had destroyed.  But in the intervening four and a half years, you’d have thought that Dave might have done a bit of research on his client.  And told some of his mates at DWF what Ward has been up to.

    Moving forward to 2018, we now have the announcement that DWF is acting for the Insolvency Service in the matter of the winding up petition against Store First scheduled to be heard on 15 April 2019 at the Manchester District Registry of the High Court.

    Three hundred victims of the Capita Oak pension scheme were defrauded into transferring their pensions and having them 100% invested in Store First store pods.  A bunch of crooks – many of which are now under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office – set up this scam and mercilessly relieved the victims of their life savings.

    Store First is a company based Up North where they talk funny.  They make buildings that store stuff (kind of does what it says what it says on the tin).  Funny thing is, when you put your stuff in a Store First store pod, you can take it out again whenever you like.  However, when you put your pension in one of Stephen Ward’s pension schemes, that’s the last you ever see of it.

    So just to show Dave Summerhayes there are no hard feelings about his unfriendly threats to me back in 2014, I’m going to give DWF a few friendly hints as to how they might approach their case in the High Court in April 2019.  I’m going to be generous because I wouldn’t want them to look silly – so here are some points they might want to mention to the judge:

    Q: Who registered the Capita Oak occupational pension scheme with HMRC?

    A: DWF’s client Stephen Ward

    Q: Who produced the Capita Oak trust deed and rules?

    A: DWF’s client Stephen Ward

    Q: Who handled the transfer of 300 victims into Capita Oak – at £300 a pop?

    A: DWF’s client Stephen Ward

    Q: Who knew for certain that all 300 Capita Oak victims were doomed to lose their pensions?

    A: DWF’s client Stephen Ward

    Q: Who advised XXXX XXXX on how to operate the Capita Oak pension liberation fraud (Thurlstone loans)?

    A: DWF’s client Stephen Ward

    Q: Who advised XXXX XXXX  how to deal with ceding provider reluctance after the Pensions Regulator’s Scorpion warning?

    A: DWF’s client Stephen Ward

    Q: Who registered the “sister” scheme to Capita Oak – Westminster (now under investigation by the SFO)?

    A: DWF’s client Stephen Ward

  • I’d rather have a cup of tea than sex – Boy George

    I’D RATHER HAVE A CUP OF TEA THAN SEX – Boy George

    BG had a point.  A cuppa can be enjoyed without taking your clothes off or getting your hair messed up.  Plus you can easily do it with people you haven’t quite made up your mind about.

    This is my dilemma.  I am enormously popular with solicitors and I have two potential new best friends: Carter Ruck and DWF Solicitors.  They both want to be my friends but I have to chose both of them, half of them or neither of them.

    So I’ve decided to invite them both to my kitchen for a cup of tea and a few fruity tarts.  Firstly, I will make it clear that it is my kitchen – my rules.  And I shall expect good manners and elegant waggling of their pinkies.

    Secondly, I will impress upon both of them that while I can friend them, I can just as easily unfriend them.  The rules of my kitchen include: no smoking; no belching and no farting.

    I have had many friends among the legal community over the past few years.  You can see why they enjoy writing to me – scammers pay them huge amounts to engage with me.  (Rather than the fact that they enjoy being my pal).

    Assisting me in my quest to decide whether to accept either of these guys as my “new bestie” will be my Toy Poodle Tigga, who will hump the leg of the one he likes best.  It is not so much what Tigga does, but how the lawyers react – and whether they deal with such a situation with elegance and class.

    It must be declared that, actually, DWF does start out with a huge disadvantage.  In 2015 they were acting for the Insolvency Service in the winding up of Imperial Trustees in the matter of the Capita Oak scam.  But they were also acting for Stephen Ward of Premier Pension Solutions – the transfer administrator for the Capita Oak scam.  I did point out that this was a bit of a conflict of interests (to various parties).  Shortly after, DWF was dropped as legal representative to the Insolvency Service.

    Another thing against DWF is that a couple of years back, a group of 20 lawyers left the firm for Trowers and Hamlins.  Not exactly a confidence-inspiring event in the reputation of the (DWF) firm.

    As we are an all-girls’ team at Pension Life (except for Tigga) we only have one loo.  And that has framed letters from a number of my other favourite lawyer chums on the walls.  It remains to be seen which of these two new candidates will end up on the toilet wall and which will be told to “Ruck” off.

    One lump or two?  (Or perhaps three?)