Tag: Pension Life

HMRC Protected Assessment
Protected assessment: this is what thousands of pension liberation scam victims are receiving:

Pension Schemes Services

Fitz Roy House
Castle Meadow Road
Nottingham
NG2 1BD

PHONE 03000 564567

WEB www.gov.uk

Date 02 March 2016

Our Ref: UTR 99999 00000/XX/YYY – Ark

Dear Mr. J D

ARK PENSION RECIPROCATION SCHEMES

TAX LIABILITY – year ended 5 April 2012

During the year 2011/12 you were a member of The Tallton Place ARK Pension Scheme and according to the information I hold, an Unauthorised Payment (liberation/loan) was made either to you or in respect of you. I am currently liaising with the Trustees of the Pension Scheme and a list of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) have been prepared to help you understand the complex tax consequences and HMRC’s view. A copy of the FAQs is attached.

Following a change in legislation brought about by Schedule 39 Finance Act 2008 in relation to HRMC time limits for the issue of assessments and determinations, HMRC has issued an assessment in order to protect its position and ensure that any potential tax due for the year ended 5 April 2011 is not lost.

The assessment is based on the higher of the amount of MPVA loan you made or received from your pension scheme. Where you did not receive an MPVA we have based the assessment on the maximum amount of MPVA you coud have made (50% of the value you transferred rounded down to the nearest £2500) HMRC may consider other alternative arguments once their enquiries are complete.

Amount of unauthorised payment £ 57,500

Tax Due at 40%                                £23,000

Tax Due at 15%(surcharge)             £8,625

Total Tax Due                                     £31,625

HMRC will continue with its enquiries in order to establish the correct amount of tax due for the year ended 5 April 2011 and you should not, therefore, consider the assessment to signify the closure of HMRC’s enquiries.

If you have not already provided information to HMRC, please let me have the following information as soon as possible:
- A copy of the signed Maximisining Pension Value Arrangements (MPVA) Agreement relating to the sum received by you under Agreement relating to the sum received by you under the Agreement (the MPV Amount)
- A copy of your bank or building society statement showing the payment of the MPV Amount into your account
- Copies of all documents and correspondence held by you relating to the MPVA arrangements entered into by you.
- Details of how you were introduced to the MPVA arrangements
- Details of the persons you dealt with concerning the MPVA arrangements.
- An explanation as to why the unauthorised payment (the MPV Amount) was not declared in you 2012 Tax Return
You have the right to appeal against this assessment and, considering the circumstances, HMRC would not object to a postponement application of 100% of the tax due on the assessment until such time as our enquiries are finalised. Full details of how an appeal and postponement of tax can be made are enclosed.

I would also like to tell you that you may want to consider making an application for discharge of the unauthorised payments surcharge under Section 268 Finance Act 2004 if you think that you meet the ground set out in Section 268(3) Finance Act 2004. If you do want to make an application, this should be sent to me at the address shown above and you will need to set down the reasons why you meet the conditionset out in the legislation.

If you contact us, we can deal with you more quickly if you quote the reference number and provide a daytime telephone number. If you prefer you can email us at pension.compliance@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk. Please remember to include ARK in the subject line of your email.

A copy of this lette plus enclosures have been sent to your agent Angela Brooks.

Yours Sincerely

XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX

Compliance Officer

To find out what you can expect from us and what we expect from you go to www.gov.uk/hmrc/your-charter and have a look at ‘Your Charter’.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Pension Schemes Services

Fitz Roy House
Castle Meadow Road
Nottingham
NG2 1BD

PHONE 03000 564567

WEB www.gov.uk

Angela Brooks ARK Class Action
24 Calle Cuatro Esquinas
Lanjaron 18420
Granada
Spain

Date 02 April 2016

Our Ref: UTR 99999 00000/XX/YYY – Ark

Dear Ms. Brooks

Mr. J.D

NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT

I enclose a copy of the notice of assessment that I have sent to your client today. If you have any questions, please phone me on 03000 564234

Yours Sincerely

XXXXX XXXXXXX

Compliance Officer

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT

Mr. J.D
23 Foggy Dew Rd
Gloustershire
XXX YYY

Pension Schemes Services
Fitz Roy House
Castle Meadow Road
Nottingham
NG2 1BD

PHONE 03000 564567

WEB www.gov.uk

Issuing Officers Name: XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX

Reference: UTR 99999 00000/XX/YYY – Ark

Date: 02 April 2016

NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 05 April 2012

Amount charged by this assessment: £31, 999.00

I am sending this assessment to you because we have found that there is additional tax dur that was not previously shown on your tax return. It is now too late for us to amend your tax return so this assessment allows us to collect the additional tax. We have made this assessment under Section 29 of the Taxes Management Act 1970.

I enclose a copy of my calculation of the amount charged by this assessment. I have also included this amount on your Self Assessment statement, a copy of which is enclosed.

About your adviser

I have sent a copy of this notice to your adviser, Angela Brooks, Ark Class Action.

Paying what is due.

Please pay £34, 630.01 no later than 4 May 2015. This is the amount due for assessment. Please refer to your Self Assessment statement for details of the interest included in this amount, as well as details of any other items that you have not yet paid. Please also pay any other amounts that are due.

We have charged you late payment interest for the amount charged by this assessment. We will add more interest on a daily basis until you have paid all the tax due that is due, so we recommend that you pay straightaway.

If you do not pay all the tax that is due as a result of this assessment within 30 days of the date it should be paid, we will charge you late payment penalties. A late payment penalty is an additional amount of money that you will have to pay as well as the tax that is due. If your payment is:
- 30 days late, we will charge you an initial penalty – this will be an amount equal to 5% of the tax you owe at that date
- 6 months late, we will charge you a further penalty – this will be an amount to 5% of the tax that you owe at that date
- 12 months late, we will charge you a second further penalty – this will be an amount equal to 5% of the the tax that you owe at that date.
Interest we charge for paying tax late

We will charge you interest on any tax and/or penalties that you pay late. We will charge it from the date that the payment should have been made, until the date that it is paid. Any interest charges are shown your on your Self Assessment statement.

We will charge you interest from 31 January 2013 until the date it is paid. If you should have made Self Assessement payments on account by 31 January 2012 and 31 July 2012, we will charge you interest on what you should paid from those dates.

Changes to the Self Assessment tax that you are due to pay for one year, may affect the payments on account that you are due to make for later years.

How to pay

We recommend that you pay us electronically. You can find more details on out website. Go to www.hmrc.gov.uk/payinghmrc/index.htm

If you need to pay by post, please send a cheque to:

HM Revenue & Customs

Accounts Office Shipley

BRADFORD

BD98 1YY

Please make your checque payable to ‘HM Revenue & Customs’ followed by the reference ‘UTR99999 00000’.

If you think you may have problems paying, you can find help on out website. Go to www.hmrc.gov.uk/payinghmrc/problems/cantpay.htm or you can phone our payment helpline on 0300 200 3822

What to do if you disagree

If you disagree with the assessment, you can appeal. To do this, you need to write to us within 30 days of the date on this assessment, telling us why you think our desicion is wrong. We will then contact you to try to settle the matter. If we cannot come to an agreement, we will write to you and tell you why. You can then either:
- have the matter reviewed by an HMRC officer who has not previously been involved in the case
- ask an independent tribunal to decide the matter.
If you choose a review, you can still fo to the tribunal if you are not satisfied with the outcome.

If you appeal, you can ask for the payment of all or part of the tax in dispute to be postponed until the matter is resolved.

If you want to apply for a postponement, please tell us the amount of tax that you think you are being overcharged and the reasons why you think you should not have to pay this. We will continue to charge interest on any tax that we postpone. Once the dispute is settled, the interest will be payable if tax is found to be due.

You can find more information about your appeal and review rights in factsheet HMRC1 ‘HM Reveneue & Customs decisions – what to do if you disagree’. You can get this fact sheet from our website. Go to www.hmrc.gov.uk/factsheets/hmrc1.pdf or you can phone our orderline on 0300 200 3610.
March 8, 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
Pensions Ombudsman Squashed by High Court

Loading…

February 26, 2016
Pension Life talks to SUR about Hefty Taxes for Pension Liberation Victims

February 26, 2016
WASPI Debate in Parliament 7th January 2016 With Mhairi Black

Parliament debated the WASPI issue at the beginning of 2016. The culmination of months of hard work by the WASPI (Women Against State Pension Inequality) campaigners finally arrived on 7^th January 2016. Mhairi Black (SNP MP for Paisley and Renfrewshire South) asked the Government to introduce “transitional arrangements” to help the hundreds of thousands of women suffering hardship as a result of the State Pension aged being raised from 60 to 66. It was never the campaigners’ case that the age should not have been raised at all – but that those women affected (born in the 1950’s) should have had proper notice to plan their finances and their retirement.

http://on.fb.me/1XazD71

Mhairi Black Raises the Pension Equalisation Debate in Parliament on the 7th Jan 2016

The surprise star of the show was the highly articulate and passionate Mhairi Black – aged just 21. With just eight months’ experience of being an MP, she shone out as a real champion of not just her own constituents, but all the WASPI’s who are victims of what was described as a “mess” caused by a succession of governments. This mess failed to communicate the raising of the State Pension age to those affected – either quickly enough or at all. Many women received contradictory notices from the DWP about when they could collect their pension and some received nothing. The resulting chaos is hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of women facing severe poverty, stress, physical and emotional health issues and relationship problems. Mhaira Black stated that these victims had been “shafted” by the government.

Ros Altmann: no intention of doing anything to help the WASPIs.

Another surprise in this issue has been the attitude of Ros Altmann who once “championed” the cause of women pensioners – even marching in the streets with them dressed as an “ordinary” woman. However, since being made Baroness and appointed Pensions Minister, her tune has changed from public-spirited enthusiasm to outright apathy at best – and total betrayal of WASPI victims at worst. The rest of the government has been no better – completely refusing to acknowledge the plight of the women affected.

Steve Webb previous Pension Minister – “bad decision made by the government based on a poor briefing”

Interestingly, former Pensions Minister Steve Webb, has admitted that the Coalition government did mess up pretty badly – both with the decisions and changes and with the way these were communicated to those affected. However, while claiming this was caused by the government not being “properly briefed” he also put much of the blame on the previous Labour government under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

The opposition side of the House was not only pretty full but also full of praise and admiration for Mhairi Black and the WASPI campaigners – many of whom were sitting in the gallery watching the proceedings. However, it was evident that few Conservative MP’s felt this was an important enough issue to attend the House of Commons – as only two of them turned up at the start of the debate. By the end, this had dribbled up to five. The disgrace of this apathy by the Conservatives was repeatedly noted.

Shadow Pensions Minister, Nick Thomas-Symonds

Shadow Pensions Minister, Nick Thomas-Symonds, spoke in a powerful and compelling manner about the injustice of the situation addressed by the WASPI campaign. All those who heard him also heard a man of principle who will make an excellent champion for the millions of victims of pension problems in the UK.

By “champion”, I refer not just to the State Pension “mess” but also to the thousands of victims of pension scams who are facing poverty in retirement in the long term, and financial ruin in the short term at the hands of HMRC. Between 2010 and 2015 there were numerous pension liberation schemes set up, run and promoted by fraudsters who assured victims they could get “loans” from their personal and occupational pensions in a way that “exploited” tax law loopholes and that there would be no tax liabilities to pay. This has resulted in thousands of tax demands of 55% of the money “borrowed” from the pension funds – known as HMRC’s “unauthorised payment” charges.

George Osbourne

Sadly, it is statistically inevitable that there will be some unfortunate women who are victims of both situations i.e. WASPIs who have also been scammed out of their personal or occupational pensions and will be forced to pay 55% tax charges by HMRC. The Ark Class Action (including victims of not just Ark but also Capita Oak, Evergreen, Salmon Enterprises, London Quantum and other pension liberation scams) has tried to address the tax position with the Government. The object of the exercise was to try to negotiate a tax “amnesty” for victims who were assured by the fraudsters (one of which was a government consultant) that their “loans” were legal and tax compliant.

Iain Duncan-Smith

The Secretary of the Ark Class Action met with her MP, Iain Duncan-Smith – also Work and Pensions Secretary – to raise the matter. He agreed it was an unfair situation and promised to organise a meeting with Chancellor George Osborne and Treasury Secretary David Gauke at the end of 2014. He took the Ark victim’s entire case file and assured her he would get back to her. That was the last she heard from him, and her case file mysteriously “disappeared”.

WASPI: Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign

I have been tremendously inspired by the WASPI campaign, and impressed with the support provided by MP’s and leading journalists such as Paul Lewis and Jeff Prestridge. I hope this will lead to similar support being given to the Ark Class Action – as there is much to be learned from the WASPI founders’ approach. What WASPI and ACA have in common, of course, is they both represent a group of decent, honest, hard-working people who have been victims of injustice and whose interests are being ignored by the present government.

House of Commons

Journalists have often asked me whether I was myself a victim of pension liberation fraud, and sometimes I have felt almost ashamed to admit that I am not, and that by definition I cannot talk with first-hand experience of the pain and distress suffered by the victims. However, I am a WASPI having been born in late 1954 and so can attest to the fact that I have NEVER received any notification from the DWP about the change in my State Pension entitlement date.

Those who watched the debate on television will have seen and heard the passion of so many MP’s who have constituents affected by the WASPI problem. Viewers may also have noticed the pathetic turn out by Conservative MP’s – suggesting not just apathy but complete contempt for the matter. I myself noticed the blond woman sitting next to Shailesh Vara who couldn’t stop yawning while he was talking. I guess it must be pretty boring and exhausting listening to a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Department for Work and Pensions trying – and failing – to defend the indefensible.

Shailesh Vara

Unsurprisingly, the motion was carried by 158 to nil (the government didn’t even both to vote) – but there is no obligation by the government to do anything about the WASPI situation.

STATEMENTS (SMALL SELECTION) MADE BY MP’S DURING THE DEBATE

Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South – SNP): The 1995 Act increased the SP age for women from 60 to 65 to equalize the pension age so that women retired at the same age as men. The Turner Commission recommended that 15 years’ notice be given to individuals if their pension arrangements were to change to give them adequate time to respond appropriately. The changes were not to be brought in until 2010 which technically gave women 15 years’ notice. The problem is that nobody knew about that. As late as 2008, fewer than half of women knew that they would be affected. The National Centre for Social Research stated in 2011 that only 43% of women were aware of the planned change. Even the previous Pensions Minister, Steve Webb, recognised that not everybody knew that the changes had happened in the 1995 Act. Paul Lewis, financial journalist, told us that after researching he could barely find any reporting of the issue at all in 1995.

A response to a Freedom of Information request states that the Department eventually wrote to individuals affected and that “Mail campaigns took place between 2009 and 2013.” That is 14 years after the 1995 Act. Women were not personally notified by anybody official until 14 years after the changes came in. That is 14 fewer years that women have had to prepare and to try to make alternative arrangements.

But when giving evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee, financial journalist Paul Lewis told us that after researching this himself he could barely find any reporting of the issue at all in 1995. There were a few small press cuttings from the business pages at the back of some newspapers. A freedom of information request revealed that the Government did fund “broader” awareness campaigns, which ran in waves between 2001 and 2004, but that these campaigns “did not focus on equalisation in particular”. In fact, only one of the press adverts in those campaigns was focused on this issue—one press cutting roughly seven years after this had already been passed into law. It is quite evident that this whole thing became a total mess. I do not know whether it was not reported deliberately, for political reasons or fear of ramifications, or whether it was a genuine accident, but what I do know is that women were not notified. It was not reported and they were not given enough time to be able to make appropriate arrangements. This brings us on to the Pensions Act 2007, which increased the equalised state pension age from 65 to 66 between 2024 and 2026. It gave all affected people 17 years’ notice. That is fair enough, but then the Pensions Act 2011 came along and said, “Forget the 17 years’ notice, we’re going to rush this through. We need to do this right now.” The 2011 Act accelerated pension age equalisation for women and the subsequent increase to 66, effective from October 2016 onwards, meaning that affected women had only five years’ notice to try to remedy life plans that had been in place for years.

Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op): The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech and I welcome the debate she has brought to the House. Does she agree that many of these women have had a lifetime of low and unequal pay in low-paid jobs? They have had broken careers, because they have brought up children. Some may have got divorced or separated. Their whole life plan has been disrupted, destroyed and impoverished by this awful change.

Mhairi Black: I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. The 2011 Act made women wait an extra year to a year-and-a-half to claim their state pension. However, we have to remember and take into account the context that women did not know about the initial 1995 Act. We have a situation where there is a whole host of women who read about the 2011 Act and went, “Oh, God. Okay, I am going to have to be working an extra two years. I’d better start making plans. Oh no, wait a minute, I’m working till I’m 66. Where did that come from?” There is a whole host of women who have been given a double whammy. The Government have not and are not giving women enough time to prepare alternative plans. There have to be better transitional arrangements.

The Conservative ethos is to encourage independence and responsible choice, but how can that happen if we do not give people the time to make the responsible choices? By continuing this policy at such a high speed, the Government are knowingly and deliberately placing another burden on women who are already trying to deal with consequences of an Act passed 21 years ago that they have only now found out about. To put that into context, I am 21—that’s how old this is. One of my constituents told me that she began working at 17 and chose to pay the full rate of national insurance on the basis that she would retire at 60. Other options were available to her, but she said, “I want to retire at 60 so I’ll pay the price, through national insurance, my whole working life.” She put it in a way that I think is a very good and accurate description of what is happening. She has now found out that she is not retiring until she is 66. She says: “The coalition and this present Government have stripped us of our pensions with no prior warning and with no regard to the contract we all entered when we were 17.” She uses the term “contract”. That is an important point, because pensions are not benefits; they are a contract. People enter into them on the basis that if they pay x amount of national insurance they will receive y at a certain age.

The Government have said: “The policy decision to increase women’s state pension age is designed to remove the inequality between men and women.” That is a strange definition of equality: I am being shafted and short-changed purely because of when I was born and because I am a woman. That is not my definition of equality.

Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con): I congratulate Mhairi Black on leading today’s debate, for which there is an extraordinary turnout, showing the considerable interest of so many Members in this subject. I was approached by several constituents who said they were going to be disadvantaged. I recorded a short podcast on the subject, which has now been followed by 145,000 people, many of whom have written to me about it—and not just my own constituents either. I want to pay tribute to the Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign, which has articulated the case so well in front of the Select Committee. Its petition has now been signed, I believe, by more than 103,000 people. I want to thank the WASPI campaign for the help and support it gave me, not least in telling nonconstituents to write to their own MPs rather than have them all writing to me—and I am exceedingly grateful for that. We all agree with equalisation of the pension age. Large sums of money are involved and difficult decisions have to be made, but it is important that the rule of fairness is applied as much as possible, and it is clear that a sizeable group of women seem to be bearing the brunt of these changes disproportionately.

I have had representations from constituents who were in low-paid jobs with huge caring responsibilities for children and other family members when they did not have access to free child care and other things—and we have them to thank. Yet it is those people for whom I believe there has been a breach of trust, as these changes hit them disproportionately. We have a large duty of care to them, but I do not think we are going to fulfil it.

January 11, 2016
Dear Ros, A Pension Wish List

Your Christmas Pension Wish List!

Dear Ros,

Seasons greetings. We thought you might like to see what are the items, we at Pension Life, would like for this Christmas and the New Year.

No.1 We would like to see that HMRC implement a thorough Due Diligence strategy.

No.2 At Pension Life we feel that the Pensions Regulator’s (tPR) due diligence is also a very important requirement for pensions.

No.3 . The government needs to prosecute known pension scammers and give them maximum prison sentences to send out a clear message of “zero tolerance” of pension scams.

No.4 Toxic Unregulated Collective Investment Schemes commonly called UCIS to be investigated and “toxic” warnings to be issued. UCIS are not allowed to be sold by regulated advisers – e.g. Premier New Earth sold by (among others) Holborn Assets.

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

No. 6 We at Pension Life want the Government to take an active interest in pension scams with immediate effect.

No. 7 A dedicated task force to be set up in the coming year.

That’s the Pension Life Christmas Wish List. If you would like to talk to us about pension matters we are always willing to listen. Check out other blogs on this topic:

https://pension-life.com/your-detailed-christmas-pension-wish-list/

https://pension-life.com/your-christmas-pension-wish-list/

Happy Christmas and let’s hope 2016 is a better year for pensions and that fewer victims will be ruined.

December 24, 2015
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.

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 6^th 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

December 22, 2015
Your Pension Minister Ros Altmann – Westminster Job Centre

On a rainy Tuesday, we wiggled our way round the back of Westminster Cathedral to the DWP which houses Pensions Minister Ros Altmann and also Work and Pensions minister Iain Duncan-Smith. As it turned out, it also housed a security guard called “Babs”.

We were a trio from Ark Class Action which represents victims of pension scams such as Ark, Capita Oak and Evergreen. With me were the vice chair (an Ark victim who lost her final salary pension along with her partner); and secretary (also an Ark victim who lost her final salary pension along with her husband). The previous evening, they had spent several hours comforting a very distressed Capita Oak victim who was worried sick that the assets of his pension – Store First store pods – were now worthless.

We had gone to meet recently appointed Altmann to urge her to ensure the government takes the action which is so desperately needed to tackle pension scams. Altmann, former adviser on pensions to the Labour government, had severely criticized George Osborne for his “cavalier” attitude to Britain’s 12 million pensioners – one of the most powerful voting blocks in the country. http://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/mar/27/george-osborne-ignore-pensioners-peril#comments

We had decided not to waste our time seeing Iain Duncan-Smith since a year previously he had promised support, action and meetings, but had turned out to be as dishonest as the scammers themselves. After his false promises, he had then gone on to “lose” one member’s entire file, including copies of bank statements and then lied about having returned it by recorded delivery.

Altmann had always come across to me as an honourable person and we had high hopes that she would take the time and trouble to understand the seriousness of the pension scam industry – which continues to flourish and ruin thousands of victims – costing billions of pounds’ worth of pensions every year. Having already met shadow Pensions Minister Nick Thomas Symonds, Mayor of London Boris Johnson and MP Wes Streeting, we felt sure Altmann would want to engage with the Class Action and spearhead an anti pension scam campaign without hesitation.

Having spent weeks trying to set up the meeting with Altmann, our mission was to ensure she understood that the system of policing and preventing pension scams was quite simply broken. We wanted her to become the champion who would take the credit for putting this disgraceful situation right while regulators, police authorities, HMRC and the government continue to fail to address the problem. With the Pensions Select committee aiming to treat pension scams as a spectator sport, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmworpen/371/37106.html we thought Altmann might step up to the plate and launch a military-style, zero-tolerance initiative against pension scams and scammers.

We thought wrong. Babs the security guard informed us:

“You are not going to be seen and you need to leave the premises. This is not a Job Centre”.

Altmann has brought both the Cabinet and the House of Lords into disrepute by publicly turning her back on thousands of victims of pension scams. She would do well to remember that along with many frontline workers, there are Police officers and Armed Forces personnel losing their pensions every day.

MPs have already urged the government to take action against the embarrassing and disgraceful scandal of unchallenged pension fraud.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/business/13893452.MPs_urge_government_to_act_on_embarrassing_rise_in_pension_frauds/?ref=twtrec

I suggest she puts rather more effort into doing her job properly and less effort into comparing the DWP with a Job Centre. Her responsibility is to champion the cause of thousands of victims of pension fraud – both helping existing victims and preventing future ones. Altmann should hark back to the warnings she herself made about George Osborne’s “cavalier attitude” to pensioners before she was appointed pensions minister. And also remember the criticisms she was making about the government four years ago. http://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/mar/27/george-osborne-ignore-pensioners-peril#comments And then search her conscience honestly.

December 13, 2015

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

November 11, 2015

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.

October 1, 2015
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. 28^th 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
January 28, 2015
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 h ere 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.

October 20, 2014

Tag: Pension Life

Happy Christmas and let’s hope 2016 is a better year for pensions and that fewer victims will be ruined.

Pension Life Wish List:

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

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

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

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.

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

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

No.6 Government to take an interest in Pension Scams

No.7 DEDICATED TASK FORCE

Re: Pension Liberation “Loans”

How do Pension Liberation “Loans” work?

Elysian Fuels

Tax Compliance