Tag: Justice Morgan

Trustees Must Block Transfers to Pension Scams
Trustees have the power to block pension transfers if they suspect a scam – they must use it! Now the Ombudsman has upheld a complaint against the Police trustee, there is hope for further justice against negligent pension trustees.

In the Royal London v Hughes case, Royal London suspected an attempted transfer was destined to go into a scam and blocked it. The member, Ms Hughes, complained to the Pensions Ombudsman – but he did not uphold her complaint. He said that Royal London was quite right to block the transfer. But Ms Hughes appealed the matter to the High Court and the judge overturned the Ombudsman’s determination.

The industry was, naturally, appalled. But this matter left many questions unanswered:
- Why was a singing teacher so desperate to transfer her £8,000 pension and have it invested in Cape Verde property? (Had she developed a passion for collapsible flats?)
- Where did she get the many thousands of pounds it must have cost her to have a barrister represent her in the High Court? (Considerably more than eight thousand quid I reckon).
- How come the mighty Fenner Moeran QC (for Royal London) got so soundly defeated by a public access barrister? (Was his sharp stick a bit blunt that day?)
- What happened to the several hundred people queuing up behind Ms Hughes to have their pensions invested in Cape Verde flats? (“Flat” being the operative word).
I could ask loads more pertinent and searching questions – like why did Ms Hughes’ public access barrister, Frances Ratcliffe of Radcliffe Chambers, think it was a good use of her considerable skills to defend an obvious pension scam? How drunk was the judge on the day? How many more people got scammed out of their pensions because of this abomination – and proof the law is not just an ass but a whole donkey farm?

Anyway, enough already. The damage was done in the Royal London v Hughes case. And now, hopefully, the door to justice has been opened in the Police Authority v Mr N case – as eloquently reported by Henry Tapper in his blog on 2.8.18. But there is a great deal more work to be done on this now: the scammers who organised and promoted the London Quantum scam need to be prosecuted and jailed; and the FCA-regulated firm – Gerard Associates – which gave the advice to the police officer (Mr N) needs to be sanctioned by the FCA. Gerard Associates – run by Stephen Ward’s associate Gary Barlow – also needs to refund the £5k they charged Mr N – and indeed all of the £220k they charged the 98 London Quantum victims.

Now is the time to bring to justice not only the pension scammers, but also the negligent ceding pension trustees who allowed the scammers to succeed – and facilitated financial crime.

At the time Mr N was scammed by Stephen Ward; Viva Costa International (the “introducers”); and FCA-regulated advisers Gerard Associates, the Pensions Regulator’s “Scorpion” campaign was in full flow. But it was unbelievably inept. It only really talked about liberation and ignored the many other kinds of fraud being perpetrated at the time – i.e. investment fraud.

The London Quantum pension scam came hard on the heels of the Capita Oak and Henley scams – which straddled the Scorpion watershed of February 2013. The transfer administration for Capita Oak was done by Stephen Ward of Premier Pension Solutions (Spain) and Premier Pension Transfers (Worsley, Manchester). Ward knew from first-hand experience how ceding trustees were starting – albeit agonisingly slowly and gradually – to resist transfer requests.

Here is evidence of the first tentative – and very inconsistent – moves to do some long-overdue diligence on pension transfer requests – as reported by Stephen Ward’s team of transfer administration scammers:

24.4.2013 – ReAssure Pensions – “The scheme now want the client’s application and new-dated screenshot emailed to Alan (Fowler – Ward’s pension lawyer chum) – on hold at Tom’s (Biggar – XXXX XXXX’s mate) request”.

11.4.2013 – Prudential – “Transfer canceled as per XXXX (XXXX XXXX’s wife)”

26.4.2013 – Zurich – “Unwilling to process – not sure why – need to cancel”

11.7.2013 – Zurich – “On hold as there may be an issue with Scorpion”

26.4.2013 – Friends Life – “Awaiting trust scheme rules – with Anthony (Salih – Ward’s mate) – need to cancel”

30.5.2013 – Aviva, NHS, Co-op, Friends Life – “Schemes are refusing to transfer”

11.6.2013 – Scottish Life – “Scheme contacting client – believed not transferring”

However, during this same period, there were plenty of transfers being made in defiance or ignorance of Scorpion. These included ceding schemes NHS (£43k), Scottish Widows (£25k), LGPS Newham (£47k), Aviva (£54k), Xerox £92k, Zurich (£21k), Prudential (£25k) and Standard Life (£53k).

But the most worrying was the Firefighters Pension Scheme: £69K after the following notes were made:

“Advised that the trustees committee are meeting to discuss cases and we are awaiting a call back next week. Transfer sent today 2.7.13 and paid on 16.8.13. Statement sent to XXXX and Tom (Biggar)”.

So the Firefighters were no better than the Police Authority in terms of ignoring the Scorpion warning.

And here is what the Scorpion warning was saying from 2013 onwards – and, indeed, was still saying in 2016 when the last couple of hundred Continental Wealth Management victims were in the process of being scammed:

Predators Stalk Your Pension

Companies are singling out savers like you and claiming that they can help you cash in your pension early. If you agree to this you could face a tax bill of more than half your pension savings.

Don’t let your pension become prey.

Pension loans or cash incentives are being used alongside misleading information to entice savers as the number of pension scams increases. This activity is known as ‘pension liberation fraud’ and it’s on the increase in the UK.

In rare cases – such as terminal illness – it is possible to access funds before age 55 from your current pension scheme. But for the majority, promises of early cash will be bogus and are likely to result in serious tax consequences.

What to watch out for?
1. Being approached out of the blue, over the phone or via text message
2. Pushy advisers or ‘introducers’ who offer upfront cash incentives
3. Companies that offer a ‘loan’, ‘savings advance’ or cash back’ from your pension
4. Not being informed about the potential tax consequences
Five steps to avoid becoming a victim
1. Never give out financial or personal information to a cold caller
2. Find out about the company’s background through information online. Any financial advisers should be registered with the FCA
3. Ask for a statement showing how your pension will be paid at retirement and question who will look after your money until then
4. Speak to an adviser that is not associated with the proposal you’ve received, for unbiased advice
5. Never be rushed into agreeing to a pension transfer
If you think you may have been made an offer, contact Action Fraud.

But, the Scorpion warning failed tragically in so many different ways:
- The warning only talked about liberation. Many victims thought this warning didn’t apply to them as they had no intention of liberating their pension fund
- No information was given on how to find out about a company’s background – and how to establish whether it was regulated
- The warning talked about advisers being FCA regulated – but ignored the question of offshore advisers who obviously wouldn’t be FCA regulated
- The public was advised to contact Action Fraud – but did not disclose that Action Fraud would do absolutely nothing
In 2015, we went to see the Pensions Regulator to talk about the failings of the Scorpion campaign – as well as the failings of the Regulator. Two Ark victims and I met the then Executive Director for Regulatory Policy – Tinky Winky. Our intention was to explain to him how the Scorpion campaign had failed and how it needed to be made more robust and comprehensive.

Tinky Winky, flanked by two lawyers and a paralegal, told us to “hop it” – and warned us that if we tried to interfere with the authority of the powers of the regulator, our arse would be grass and he’d be a lawnmower. A year later the Scorpion warning had still not been updated or improved and hundreds more victims lost their life savings.

The Pensions Ombudsman is, naturally, the hero of the hour in the Mr N v Police Authority case. And hopefully, he will find for the rest of the victims if they all now bring complaints against their negligent ceding trustees in the London Quantum case. But we must remember that, contrary to what the Ombudsman’s service has said for the past few years, the industry did know about pension scams long before the Scorpion Campaign in February 2013.

In fact, a clear warning had been given in 2010. The Pensions Regulator had been fully aware that since 1999 pension scams were on the increase, and yet did not make it clear to ceding pension trustees what their statutory obligations were in respect of transferring victims into scams. On 13.7.2010, tPR Chair David Norgrove stated that: “Any administrator who simply ticks a box and allows the transfer, post July 2010, is failing in their duty as a trustee and as such are liable to compensate the beneficiary.”

But pension trustees claim they never read that message (let alone heeded it) and that it was neither publicised nor distributed. Further, in the same year Tony King, the Pensions Ombudsman, reported that he had “found that pension trustees failed in carrying out serious fiduciary responsibilities to others in circumstances in which the law specifically states that they should not be protected from liability.” And still tPR did nothing. And the Pension Schemes Act 1993 was not amended to reflect the urgent need to protect the public.

The Pensions Regulator’s predecessor – OPRA (Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority) had warned about the dangers of pension scams years before 2013 – as had HMRC. The last thing I want to do is criticise the Ombudsman – as this must be his hour of glory and we must all be hugely grateful to him. Especially Mr N and his fellow London Quantum victims. But we must remember that the industry in general, and pension trustees in particular, should have been alert to pension scams long before Scorpion.

Now is the time to bring to justice not only the pension scammers, but also the negligent ceding pension trustees who allowed the scammers to succeed – and facilitated financial crime.
August 7, 2018
Justice Morgan’s Mad Mistake: Donna-Marie Hughes and Royal London Mutual Insurance Society
JUSTICE MORGAN’S MAD MISTAKE

(IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, CHANCERY DIVISION)

The law is an ass – especially when it fails to protect pension scam victims

This judgement makes the law not just an ass, but a whole herd of donkeys.

Dear Justice Morgan

I refer to your judgment in the matter of Donna-Marie Hughes and Royal London Mutual Insurance Society Case Number CH/2015/0377 on 19th February 2016.

With absolutely no apology whatsoever, I must point out that your judgment – overturning the Pensions Ombudsman’s Determination in this matter – is so stark staring, raving mad that it verges on utterly bonkers.

In a number of complaints, the Ombudsman has found that although the legislation is missing a few key words, it is clear that a person should only transfer into an occupational scheme if they are genuinely employed by the sponsor of the scheme. The Ombudsman drew attention to the fact that the words “employed by the sponsor of the scheme” are, curiously, missing (obviously, whoever wrote that passage nipped out for a liquid lunch at the crucial moment). But he used his common sense and pointed out that it would be a “very strange result” if a person wanted to transfer into an occupational scheme without any employment relationship or arrangement with the sponsor.

It is my obligation to refer you to the fact that the industry, regulators, law enforcement agencies, courts, ombudsmen and victims (existing and future) desperately need the legislation to be tightened – not relaxed (or, as in this case, made completely impotent). This judgment has effectively given the green light for hundreds of scammers to scam innocent victims out of their hard-earned pensions.

History, since 2011, shows that various pension liberation scams including Ark (Lancaster, Portman, Cranbourne, Woodcroft, Tallton, Grosvenor) Capita Oak, Westminster, Evergreen, Salmon Enterprises, Eric’s Yard, Pennines, London Quantum, Headforte, Southlands etc., all share a collection of common traits:
1. They were set up, administered and promoted by unregulated firms
2. These firms obscure the identity of the team
3. The address of the firm is a virtual office
4. The assets of the scams being peddled include high risk, illiquid, speculative investments entirely unsuitable for pensions
5. Bogus “occupational” schemes are registered with HMRC and tPR (who do nothing to check that the sponsoring employers actually trade or employ anybody – or indeed even exist at all)
6. Pensions are liberated using a variety of “loan” structures which victims are assured are legitimate “loopholes”
7. Transfer and loan fees are extortionately high
8. Victims are promised unrealistic gains such as “guaranteed 8% return per annum”
9. Assets are entirely unsuitable for pension schemes and often include huge “kickbacks” for the introducers
The firms and individuals offering these schemes have included:
- Premier Pension Solutions in Spain (run by Tolleys Pensions Taxation author Stephen Ward – available on Amazon if you need a copy: http://www.amazon.com/Tolleys-Pensions-Taxation-2014-2015-Stephen/dp/0754549356)
- Gerard Associates http://www.gerardassociates.co.uk/
- Frost Financial
- Continental Wealth Management
- J. P. Sterling
- Viva Costa International
- Windsor Pensions
- Blu Debt Management
- Wealth Masters
- Paul Baxendale-Walker
- James Lau
Thousands of victims have lost £ billions and gained £ millions in tax liabilities. The assets of these schemes have included offshore property, store pods, car parking spaces, unregulated collective investments, eucalyptus forests, hedge funds, forex, Cape Verde etc.

Now, I am not saying that Bespoke Pension Services are scammers. http://bit.ly/1VGeSPn but on the back of their victory in the case of Ms. Hughes, there are a further 160 blocked pension transfers sitting with the Pensions Ombudsman. We have no way of knowing whether they will all be pension transfers invested in Cape Verde, but we do know the Hughes case must have been very important to Bespoke Pension Services’ business. After all, they must have invested a considerable amount in legal fees to take an £8,000 transfer attempt to the High Court.

Interestingly, Bespoke Pension Services are unregulated and their address is a virtual office. According to their latest published accounts the firm is insolvent. The two directors/shareholders – Mark Anthony Miserotti and Clive John Howells – have between them an impressive portfolio of investment, consultancy, property development, investment and financial planning companies – one of which is called “Fortaleza Investments” which suggests something Brazilian.

On the back of your judgment in respect of Royal London, there will be a serious problem for all the pension providers who performed so appallingly in Ark, Capita Oak, Westminster, Evergreen et al: the worst of which being Standard Life, Prudential, Scottish Widows, Aviva and Legal and General. Having handed over £ millions worth of pension funds since 2010 – in a lazy, negligent, box-ticking fashion – there is evidence that they are trying to mend their ways. Or there had been, until your judgment in the Hughes/Royal London/Bespoke Pension Services case.

I would draw your attention to Clause 53 in Justice Bean’s Ark ruling where he makes it clear that legislation wording must be interpreted intelligently – and not blindly.

He is obviously trying to make the point that it is essential to avoid an anomalous or unjust result from failing to look behind the intended meaning of wording. Indeed, the Pensions Ombudsman had already done that when looking at the wording when he said that he found that a transferee did need to be employed by the sponsor of an occupational scheme in order to avoid a “strange result”.

Your judgment has put at risk thousands of victims’ pensions. There have already been suicides, nervous breakdowns, life-threatening illnesses, broken marriages and families. There will be widespread poverty in retirement and many people will lose their homes. A strange result indeed – which does rather beg the question of how victims will get any protection or justice now?

This judgment makes the law not just an ass, but a whole herd of donkeys.

Regards, Angie Brooks
October 13, 2016
Pension Transfer decision from Ceding Provider to Pensions Ombudsman to the High Court

Pension Transfers are the cornerstone of pension scams. We expect to be looked after by the law, the large financial institutions and the government institutions such as ombudsmen but when they disagree our best interests often form the debris of the squabble. If you have saved for a pension, worked for years and years earnestly squirrelling away what you can for those golden years, you do not want to lose it. In fact that is what has happened to countless pension holders when they decided to transfer their pensions into what were presented as legitimate pension schemes. Some transfers were for liberation and some were to increase value of the pension. A recent High Court decision has opened the doors for scammer to legitimately roll out more of these scheme. Here is what happened when the High Court overruled the upright decision of the Pensions Ombudsman.

£8000 in a Secure Occupational Pension Scheme

Ms. Hughes was an Occupational pension holder with Royal London. Her Occupational Scheme was generated by the company she worked for and would have been available as a benefit of employment with that company. Had it been a contributory scheme both Ms.Hughes and her employer would have contributed to a fund which grows free of tax during the savings period. In non-contributory schemes, only Ms. Hughes’ employer contributes. The amount paid out to Ms. Hughes on her retirement will depend on the type of scheme and reflect either the contributions put in or the number of years’ service and the final salary of the employee. The main point of this is that the Occupational scheme is a benefit of employment with a particular company and this is managed by a trustee, in this case Royal London.

Royal London acts on behalf of the employee

Royal London is the largest mutual life, pensions and investment company in the UK. They are undoubtedly a secure pension trustee. They were the ceding provider for Ms. Hughes’ £8,359.71 occupational pension. As the pension trustee Royal London technically held the pension scheme’s assets for Ms.Hughes (the beneficiary of the occupational pension scheme). They act separately from Ms.Hughes’ employer for her benefit. Royal London’s powers are written in the trust deed and the scheme’s rules.

Bespoke Pension Services (Virtual Office)

Bespoke Pension Services made contact with Ms.Hughes through a cold calling operation First Review Pension Services, a UK promotor. Bespoke Pension Services claim to be ‘experts in pension scheme design, administration and regulatory pension guidance in the UK and EEA, including the Isle of Man’. They ‘design and implement pension schemes in the tax jurisdiction that is most advantageous to your requirements’. They do not have the same weight of reputation or confidence that a company such as Royal London have in the area of insurance and pensions.

The process starts with a Letter of Authority

Having engaged Bespoke Pension Services, they would have produced a Letter of Authority (LoA). This was sent to Ms. Hughes to complete, sign and return. She signed would have signed it. The LoA was then sent to Royal London (Ceding Scheme) to provide authority to Bespoke Pension Services to act on the client’s behalf. The LoA instructs the Ceding Scheme to send Ms. Hughes’ existing pension information (type of pension, investment structure, charging structure, growth rates, etc) to Bespoke Pension Services with Discharge Forms and Ms. Hughes’ pension documents.

To facilitate the Transfer Ms. Hughes needs her own company and a SSAS

In order to facilitate the transfer Ms. Hughes needed a company in her own name and so Babbacombe Road 1973 was set up for this purpose. This company is the sponsor for the SSAS Small Self Administered Scheme. This is a type of UK Occupational Pension Scheme which is trust based and established individually, usually by directors of limited companies for specified employees of the company. Babbacombe Road 1973 ltd. was possibly never intended to trade and was set up solely for the purposes of the pension transfer. All of the pension scams we have been dealig with to date have involved a bogus sponsoring employer which never traded or employed anyone

Royal London declined the Transfer

Royal London informed Ms. Hughes in September 2014, that they would not be able to facilitate the transfer to the Babbacombe Road 1973 SSAS. Through their investigations they were unable to confirm that the transfer would result in appropriate pension benefits for Ms. Hughes. They were also unable to determine that the scheme was a registered pension scheme. This was the first stumbling block for Bespoke Pensions Services and Ms. Hughes.

Bespoke Pension Services Apply to the Pensions Ombudsman

The Pensions Ombudsman settles disputes and acts within the laws set up for Pensions and Pension holders. They are an independent organisation for the moderation of pension administration. Ms. Hughes via BeSpoke Pension Services complained to the Pensions Ombudsman about Royal London’s decision to decline the pension transfer request. Anthony Arter, the Pensions Ombudsman, upheld Royal London’s decision describing it as “typical of one presenting itself across the pensions industry in relation to pension liberation”.

And finally…..to the High Court and the case is presented to Justice Morgan

Determined to put the transfer through for Ms. Hughes, the case is taken to the High Court by Bespoke Pension Services. Justice Morgan decided to overrule the Pensions Ombudsman’s decision and allow the pension transfer to go through. His decision was based on the wording of the legislation which in fact states that a member of an occupational pension scheme should have some sort of earnings/employment – but falls short of saying that the earnings/employment should be with the sponsor of the occupational scheme (to which a member is intending or attempting to transfer).

Pension Scammers will delight in this decision by Justice Morgan

Were this is a decision which only affected Ms. Hughes and her £8,359.71, it really would not be newsworthy at all. The fact of the matter is that it sets a precedent as an interpretation of the law surrounding many pension transfers. When the expertise of the pension trustees such as Royal London and the Pensions Ombudsman can be overrriden in this manner (i.e. an interpretation of legislative wording which is too weak and takes away the intelligence factor), you have to ask are whether ordinary pension holders in the UK are the first priority? Has this opened the flood gates for more fraudulent pension transfers? Have pension scammers been given the green light?

March 9, 2016
Justice Morgan Disaster
The Justice Morgan Disaster was a real setback for justice for victims of pension scams and emasculated the pensions ombudsman. Shame on the High Court.

Judgement in the matter of Donna-Marie Hughes and Royal London Mutual Insurance Society

Case Number CH/2015/0377 on 19^th February 2016

In the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division

Letters to:
1. Justice Morgan
2. Steve Webb, Royal London (former pensions minister)
3. Pensions Ombudsman
4. Ms. Hughes
5. Bespoke Pension Solutions
6. HMRC
Background: This is the introduction to letters to parties responsible for, involved in and affected by this matter.

THE EFFECTS OF PENSION SCAMS

Pension scams since at least 2010 have caused serious loss and damage to thousands of victims. There have been suicides, nervous breakdowns, life-threatening illnesses and broken marriages as a result of the stress, despair and horror of pension frauds. The Royal London vs Hughes judgement has put at risk thousands of existing victims and has now potentially opened the flood gates to thousands more. The vast majority of the existing victims fear above all losing their homes and facing poverty in retirement – despite having worked hard all their lives to save diligently for their retirement. Providers and advisers are utterly horrified and disgusted at this judgement because it further compromises confidence in the pensions industry and the principal of saving for retirement.

I would draw attention to Clause 53 in Justice Bean’s Ark ruling where he makes it clear that legislation wording must be interpreted intelligently – and not blindly. Judges can (and should) use their common sense and make ‘purposive’ judgements where necessary. In other words they can decide, where the wording of a clause is poor, weak or ambiguous, on the basis of the obvious purpose or intention of the legislation. Clearly, Justice Morgan failed to do this and relied on the exact wording in the legislation and ignored the obvious intention of the wording.

A substantial number of victims have been appalled by this ruling. The saying “the law is an ass” has been used repeatedly – and with some considerable disgust. I have always found this to be an anomalous saying since a donkey is a dependable, reliable, strong, faithful and obedient creature. And these are all the attributes the law is supposed to have. Legislation is supposed to protect the rights of citizens, but in this matter Justice Morgan’s ruling has had the opposite effect.

OCCUPATIONAL PENSION SCHEME/LIBERATION SCAMS

Let us look at the facts regarding occupational pension schemes/liberation scams to date which have cost victims somewhere between £1 billion and £55 billion (depending upon which quoted authority’s figures are used):
- All the known pension liberation scams have to date used occupational schemes
- Not a single one of the sponsors of these “occupational” schemes had ever traded
- It was never intended that any of the sponsors of these “occupational” schemes would ever trade
- Not a single one of the sponsors of these “occupational” schemes had ever employed anybody
- It was never intended that any of the sponsors of these “occupational” schemes would ever employ anybody
- Some of the sponsors of the “occupational” schemes didn’t even exist
- The companies (whether they existed or not) were set up purely for the purpose of running a pension scam
The legislation does in fact state that a member of an occupational pension scheme should have some sort of earnings/employment – but falls short of saying that the earnings/employment should be with the sponsor of the occupational scheme (to which a member is intending or attempting to transfer). The Pensions Ombudsman spotted this omission and made it clear that a person should indeed have earnings/employment with the sponsor of the scheme otherwise it would be a “very strange result”. In other words, he interpreted the wording of the legislation intelligently – he looked behind the weakness in the wording of the legislation and applied the clear intention of the condition.

The Pensions Regulator’s Scorpion campaign specifically warns against the dangers of the way “occupational” schemes are set up for fraudulent purposes in the case of pension scams:
1. A recently set up small self-administered scheme – SSAS, where the member is a trustee sponsored by a newly registered employer
2. A scheme sponsored by a dormant employer
3. A scheme sponsored by an employer that is geographically distant from the member
4. A scheme sponsored by an employer that doesn’t employ the member
5. A scheme connected to an unregulated investment company
WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED IN THE HUGHES CASE?

Ms. Hughes’ proposed transfer from the Royal London scheme ticked these warning boxes. But now Justice Morgan’s ruling has disarmed and emasculated the Pensions Regulator, the Pensions Ombudsman and the ceding pension trustee.

The simple fact is that, leaving all legal jargon aside, trustees could now be under a legal duty to effect a transfer to a scheme, even when there is reasonable (or even compelling) suspicion that the transfer is to a bogus scheme. It may now be the case that when all the warning signs clearly outlined by the Pensions Regulator should be ignored even when, as in Ms. Hughes’ case, every single warning bell is sounding loudly and clearly.

It is my obligation to refer you to the fact that the industry, regulators, law enforcement agencies, courts, ombudsmen and victims (existing and future) desperately need the legislation to be tightened – not relaxed (or, as in this case, made completely impotent). This judgement has effectively given the green light for hundreds of scammers to scam thousands of innocent victims out of their hard-earned pensions.

HISTORY OF HOW PENSION SCAMS ARE SET UP

History, since 2011, shows that various pension liberation scams including Ark, Capita Oak, Westminster, Evergreen, Salmon Enterprises, Eric’s Yard, Pennines, London Quantum, Headforte, Southlands etc., all shared a collection of common traits:
1. They were set up, administered and promoted by an unregulated firm
2. The firm obscured the identity of the team
3. The address of the firm was a virtual office
4. The assets of the scams being peddled included high risk, illiquid, speculative investments entirely unsuitable for pensions
5. Bogus “occupational” schemes were registered with HMRC and tPR (who did nothing to check that the sponsoring employers actually traded or employed anybody – or indeed even existed at all)
6. Pensions were liberated using a variety of “loan” structures which victims were assured were legitimate “loopholes”
7. Transfer and loan fees were extortionately high
8. Victims were promised unrealistic gains such as “guaranteed 8% return per annum”
9. The schemes’ assets often included huge “kickbacks” for the introducers (up to 60%)
The firms and individuals offering, promoting, and running these schemes included:
- Gary Collin of Asset Harbour https://register.fca.org.uk/s/firm?id=001b000000bOu6zAAC
- Premier Pension Solutions in Spain (run by Tolleys Pensions Taxation author Stephen Ward – available on Amazon if you need a copy)
- Premier Pension Transfers Ltd (31 Memorial Road, Worsley)
- Fraser Collins, Villa Financial
- Julian Hanson
- Gerard Associates http://www.gerardassociates.co.uk/
- Frost Financial
- Continental Wealth Management, Spain
- P. Sterling
- Viva Costa International
- Windsor Pensions
- Blu Debt Management
- Wealth Masters
- Paul Baxendale Walker
- James Lau
- Silk Financial Solutions, Alexander Johnson – now James Alexander Enterprises
- Hudson Clarke
- Jackson Francis
- Jeremy Denning
- Tony Jimenez (Newcastle United and Charlton Athletic FC)
- Wightman, Fletcher McCabe
- Spain Wealth Management
- Mark Ainsworth
- Ralph Noel and Sons
Thousands of victims have lost £ billions worth of hard-earned pension funds and gained £ millions in tax liabilities in the past six years. The assets of these schemes have included offshore property, store pods, car parking spaces, unregulated collective investments, eucalyptus forests, hedge funds, forex, Cape Verde property etc.

THE EFFECT OF THIS RULING

I am not saying that Bespoke Pension Services are scammers but on the back of their victory in the case of Ms. Hughes, there are a further 160 blocked pension transfers sitting with the Pensions Ombudsman. We have no way of knowing whether they will all be pension transfers invested in Cape Verde assets, but we do know the Hughes case must have been very important to Bespoke Pension Services’ business.

Interestingly, Bespoke Pension Services are unregulated and their address is a virtual office. According to their latest published accounts the firm was insolvent in 2014. The two directors/shareholders – Mark Anthony Miserotti and Clive John Howells – have between them an impressive portfolio of investment, consultancy, property development, investment and financial planning companies – one of which is called “Fortaleza Investments” which suggests something Brazilian.

On the back of Justice Morgan’s judgement in respect of Royal London, there will be a serious problem for all the pension providers who performed so appallingly in Ark, Capita Oak, Westminster, Evergreen et al: the worst of which being Standard Life, Prudential, Scottish Widows, Aviva and Legal and General. Having handed over £ millions worth of pension funds since 2010 – in a lazy, negligent, box-ticking fashion – there is evidence that they are trying to mend their ways. Or at least there had been, until the judgement in the Hughes/Royal London/Bespoke Pension Services case.

It is essential to read Clause 53 in Justice Bean’s 2011 Ark ruling where he makes it clear that legislation wording must be interpreted intelligently – and not blindly. He is obviously trying to make the point that it is essential to avoid an anomalous or unjust result from failing to look behind the intended meaning of wording in legislation. Indeed, the Pensions Ombudsman had already done that when looking at the wording when he said that he found that a transferee did indeed need to be employed by the sponsor of an occupational scheme in order to avoid a “strange result”. Justice Morgan’s judgement has now put at risk thousands of victims’ pensions. There have already been suicides, nervous breakdowns, life-threatening illnesses, broken marriages and families. There will be widespread poverty in retirement and many people will lose their homes. A strange result indeed – which does rather beg the question of how victims will get any protection or justice now?

PENSION LIFE WOULD LIKE ANSWERS URGENTLY

Hopefully, the recipients of the following letters will provide some answers:

Dear Justice Morgan

Hopefully, you can clear up a few questions which are puzzling me and many other disgusted parties: why did you ignore the Pensions Regulator’s clear warnings re pension scams?; why did you ignore the Pensions Ombudsman’s intelligent interpretation of the poorly-worded legislation?; why did you ignore Justice Bean’s warnings re avoiding anomalous or unjust results in the Ark case?; how many victims will now lose their pensions as a result of your judgement?; how many of these victims will lose their homes and even their lives?; what research did you do into how pension scams have worked this past six years before making your judgement?; what steps are you now taking to highlight the urgency of reforming and re-writing pension legislation to correct the weakness in the wording relating to genuine employment by a sponsor of an occupational pension scheme?; what remorse do you now feel for the fact that you have put £ billions worth of pensions at risk?

Dear Steve Webb, Royal London

Hopefully, as former Pensions Minister, you can give some clarity to how Royal London feels this appalling judgement can be appealed, or its effects mitigated. It is obviously completely unacceptable that pension trustees may now be forced to allow transfers even when it is strongly suspected that the receiving scheme is a scam. However, an even more serious concern is that this may now compromise claims against negligent ceding providers. Dozens of negligent firms handed over £ millions worth of personal and occupational pensions to scammers from 2010 onwards. These firms asked no questions either before tPR’s Scorpion campaign or after and simply used a lazy, negligent, box-ticking approach. Obviously, these firms need to compensate their victims and restore faith and confidence in the industry. According to my own records, the worst offender overall by a generous margin was Standard Life. Other firms that performed especially badly included Prudential, Scottish Widows, Legal and General, Aviva, Phoenix Life and Aegon. My evidence suggests that Royal London was not among those who negligence was as extensive as Standard Life et al, but I do have one case that it would be useful for you to address. Your firm’s victim – whose pension was handed over to one of the Ark schemes: Portman – is currently fighting ISIS in the Middle East and is playing a significant role in defending our country from terrorism. I am sure you will be particularly keen to ensure he is compensated for the loss of his pension and the exposure to crippling tax penalties. What will definitely help to rescue the public’s and the industry’s disgust at the widespread negligence of firms such as Standard Life will be if Royal London sets a shining example and pays out the required compensation voluntarily rather than waiting for the victims to have to drag these matters through the courts.

Dear Pensions Ombudsman

Hopefully, you will have some valuable thoughts and suggestions on the effects of Justice Morgan’s ruling in the Royal London case. As I am sure you can imagine, the scammers will be absolutely delighted and will now be setting out to ruin even more victims’ lives on an even greater scale. It is obvious that pension scams are very lucrative for the scammers and their success can be measured by the impressive houses and cars they own. Perhaps you could let me have your thoughts as to what pension trustees should now be doing to protect their members? You must also be aware that targeted victims are often carefully “coached” by the scammers as to how to overcome resistance to transfer requests. In the case of the London Quantum scam (the trustee of which was Stephen Ward of Dorrixo Alliance at 31 Memorial Road, Worsley), for example, one adviser reported that he had several clients desperately trying to get out of the scheme and several more trying equally desperately to get into the scheme. Now that London Quantum is in the hands of tPR-appointed Dalriada Trustees, the assets have been disclosed as being the usual toxic, illiquid, high-risk investments such as car parking spaces, forex trading, derelict German buildings and Cape Verde properties.

Dear Ms. Hughes

Hopefully, you yourself can shed some light on why you were so desperate to transfer your Royal London £8,000 fund into a SSAS. You are registered as the sole director and shareholder of Babbacombe Road 1973 Ltd. However, there is no evidence that this company has ever traded or employed anybody since 2014. Also, it would be interesting to know what your connection to Bespoke Pension Solutions is and how this firm initially made contact with you. Your High Court proceedings must have involved some considerable time, effort and expense; did you pay your legal costs yourself? Were you aware that this firm had a further 160 pension transfer attempts hingeing on the outcome of your case? I am also curious as to why you have three different director IDs at different addresses? 905529548 at 49 Wakedean Gardens, Yatton, Bristol BS49 4BN; 918824265 at First Floor Flat, 269 Babbacombe Road, Torquay TQ1 3SZ, 912378590 at Brynteg Llangenny, Crickhowell, Powys NP8 1HE. Finally, why are you using a firm with no evidence of a premises, regulation, qualifications or team members?

Dear Bespoke Pension Solutions

Hopefully, you could explain a couple of issues that I am struggling to understand. Why do you use a virtual office rather than a physical address? Officefront Why are the members of your team not disclosed on your website? What qualifications do your team have for pensions and investment advice? Why was your firm still trading while, according to Companies House records, the company was insolvent in 2014? Did your firm pay off the £101k owed to creditors in 2014? What regulation does your firm have for pensions and investments in the UK? Which lead generation service do you use? Which cold-calling sales service do you use? What investment introduction commission relationships do you currently have? (e.g. Store First, Quantum, Cape Verde, Dubai Car Parks, Dolphin etc). Do you have professional indemnity insurance? Did you pay Ms. Hughes’ legal fees? What connection does your firm have to First Review Pensions? http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/01332426342/2

Dear HMRC

Hopefully, you can now – finally – provide answers to crucial questions relating to your role in pension scams. Since 2010, HMRC have been registering schemes without checking the credentials of the trustees, the sponsoring employer or the purpose behind the scheme (i.e. to provide income in retirement, to operate pension liberation or to earn huge commissions on investment introductions). Of even greater concern is the burning question as to why HMRC did not de-register schemes as soon as there were concerns in order to prevent victims from losing their pensions and gaining crippling tax liabilities. If you remember, HMRC had a meeting with Stephen Ward of Premier Pension Solutions to discuss the Ark schemes in February 2011. At this time, there was about £7m in Ark, but HMRC did not suspend the registration and nothing was done to close the scheme down until three months later by which time there was £30 million in Ark. Hence, HMRC was directly responsible for hundreds of victims’ financial ruin and is currently pursuing these people for tax which was entirely preventable had HMRC suspended the schemes. Subsequently, having known that Stephen Ward was heavily involved in pension liberation, HMRC then went on to accept numerous pension scheme registrations from him and his company Dorrixo Alliance at 31 Memorial Road, Worsley. These included Southlands, Headforte and London Quantum – among many others. HMRC was handed evidence of these various schemes in May 2014, and yet took no action to suspend any of the schemes. Then in August 2014 a serving police officer lost his police pension to London Quantum. In 2010/2011, HMRC, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Pensions Regulator were all investigating the fraud being perpetrated by pension trustees Tudor Capital Management. But although there were a total of 25 different schemes involved – one of which was Salmon Enterprises (yet another bogus “occupational” scheme) – HMRC did nothing to suspend the schemes and prevent victims from losing their pensions and being exposed to tax liabilities. HMRC is currently pursuing thousands pension scam victims for tax on transactions which could – and should – have been prevented had HMRC acted diligently. Therefore, kindly confirm what proposals is HMRC currently working on for compensating these victims for the damage and loss caused by HMRC’s negligence?

From Angela Brooks, ACA Pension Life

www.pension-life.com
March 4, 2016