Tag: PENSION SCAM

  • BLACKMORE GLOBAL; NUNN McCREESH; SLATER & GORDON; PENSION SCAMS

    BLACKMORE GLOBAL; NUNN McCREESH; SLATER & GORDON; PENSION SCAMS

    Underlying assets of Blackmore Global are neither prudent nor low low risk.
    Pension Investments should be prudent and low risk. Not gambling on crap.

    BLACKMORE GLOBAL; NUNN McCREESH; SLATER & GORDON; PENSION SCAMS

    Blackmore Global is a UCIS (unregulated collective investment scheme) which is illegal to be promoted to retail, UK investors.  The fund is run by Philip Nunn and Patrick McCreesh (formerly of Nunn McCreesh – the lead generation and cold calling firm which introduced around 8,000 victims to the scammers who were running the Capita Oak and Henley pension scams in 2012/13).

    It is perhaps more than a little ironic that a pair of cold-callers who were facilitating hundreds of victims being transferred into schemes 100% invested in Store First store pods are now running their own investment fund – Blackmore Global.

    Slater and Gordon is a very large firm of no-win-no-fee solicitors with an office in Manchester.  I met their National Practice Group Leader and specialist in financial litigation and pension mis-selling in April 2015. His name is Craig McAdam.  After going through the various scams I was handling at the time, and the appalling damage done by the scammers to thousands of victims, Craig was thoroughly up to speed on how the scams worked.  He was also deeply committed to helping the Ark Class Action and other group actions.

    Nunn McCreesh provided the leads and did cold calling for Capita Oak and Henley
    Nunn McCreesh was the introducer of contacts for the pension scammers

    Craig McAdam confirmed by email on 16.4.15 that he was looking forward to working with me.  A week later he sent a draft engagement letter and confirmed that Slater & Gordon’s success fee would be 15% – although he did revise this up to 18% a couple of days later.

    The following month Craig McAdam confirmed he would be attending a meeting with Dalriada Trustees and Pinsent Masons with members of the Ark Class Action.  He also confirmed he would be talking to one of Stephen Ward’s many victims: a member of the London Quantum scheme whose trustee was Ward’s firm Dorrixo Alliance.

    A month later, Craig McAdam was examining the Capita Oak pension scam run by XXXX XXXX and administered by Stephen Ward, and asked me to put forward one of the victims as a creditor.  The Insolvency Service had wound up the trustee of Capita Oak: Imperial Trustees Ltd.  Craig then asked me if I was happy for Grant Thornton to be appointed as the insolvency practitioner and I confirmed that indeed I was.  I felt that Grant Thornton was a competent and ethical firm and could finally unscramble the mess created by the scammers behind Capita Oak and bring some form of resolution to the victims who were all introduced and/or cold called by Nunn McCreesh.

    I was delighted that the same day, one of the Capita Oak victims put herself forward willingly and eagerly as a creditor and Craig McAdam confirmed this to Grant Thornton the following day.  At the same time, Craig confirmed that one of the London Quantum victims was a client of Slater and Gordon and made a complaint to FCA-regulated Gerard Associates who had acted as the adviser in that case.

    Later in June 2015, Craig McAdam confirmed that Slater and Gordon was instructed by the Capita Oak victim who had volunteered to be the creditor in the liquidation of the trustee of the Capita Oak scam.  Craig also sent out letters of engagement to other victims.

    In July 2015 I sent a copy of the Insolvency Service’s Capita Oak/Imperial Trustee Services witness statement to Craig McAdam.  This statement confirmed that Philip Nunn and Patrick McCreesh’s firm Nunn McCreesh had supplied up to 300 leads a month (for 28 months) to the scammers who promoted and operated the Capita Oak scam: Jackson Francis, Sycamore Crown, Sanderson Clarke, Barncroft Associates, Nationwide Benefits Consultants, Speke Admin, Timoran Capital.

    The Insolvency Service witness statement mentioned Nunn McCreesh several times:

    “Members of Capita Oak indicated they were initially contacted by Patrick McCreesh of Nunn McCreesh and referred to Jackson Francis or Sycamore for the transfer of their pension to Capita Oak.  I wrote to Mr. McCreesh to request a copy of any sales and marketing agreement with Jackson Francis or Sycamore and details of commission received.”  Nunn McCreesh and their solicitors admitted they had been involved with the scammers and also Transeuro Worldwide Holdings – one of the main operators of the Capita Oak and Henley scams.  

    However, Nunn McCreesh was unable to produce copies of invoices or sales ledgers for the money received for their part in these scams.  Their solicitors also confirmed that Nunn McCreesh received a commission of 8% of sales and the Insolvency Service stated that there was a “lack of transparency” by Nunn McCreesh.

    The Insolvency Service also confirmed that some of the victims had been cold called directly by Nunn McCreesh.

    Being in possession of the Insolvency Service’s witness statement clearly galvanised Craig McAdam into an enthusiastic confidence to take on the Capita Oak case and asked me to send him through contact details of all the members.  He obviously realised that now the scam was clearly documented and the promoters – including Nunn McCreesh – were now identified without any question of doubt.  It was also documented in the witness statement that Nunn McCreesh had earned £900k out of providing at least 8,000 leads for the scam – 300+ of which ended up in Capita Oak and 200+ of which ended up in Henley.  It is not clear whether the 8% sales commission was on top of this.  8% of £10.8 million would have been a handsome sum indeed.

    I provided Craig McAdam with contact details for the Capita Oak Class Action members and on 21.7.15 he confirmed that cases were “being opened up smoothly”.  At the end of 2015, Craig attended a meeting of Class Action members and got to meet a group of victims in person.  There can be no doubt that Craig, by now, thoroughly understood the wickedness of the scammers and the profound distress and impending financial ruin of the victims.

    So for most of 2015, it looked like Slater and Gordon was going to represent the Capita Oak members – all of whom were initially introduced by Nunn McCreesh.  And it looked like Grant Thornton was going to be appointed as insolvency practitioner to Capita Oak’s trustee – Imperial Trustee Services Ltd.

    In the event, neither happened. But Capita Oak is now in the hands of Dalriada Trustees – appointed by the Pensions Regulator.  And the organisers, promoters and administrators of Capita Oak are all under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office.

    Slater and Gordon now represents cold callers Nunn McCreesh
    Slater and Gordon now represents Nunn McCreesh

    In a very curious twist, Philip Nunn and Patrick McCreesh are now running the Blackmore Global UCIS.  They are doing the cold calling and the pension administration, as well as running the fund.  And you will never guess who their solicitor is: Steve Kunziewicz of Slater and Gordon (Manchester office).  And you will never guess who their auditor is: Grant Thornton.  You really couldn’t make it up.

    Victims of Blackmore Global are indeed extremely distressed.  They have either managed to redeem out of the fund at a loss after a protracted struggle, or they are stuck in the fund with no prospect of getting out of it any time soon (if ever).

    A year ago, the underlying assets of the fund were confirmed to one victim by Optimus Fiduciaries Ltd, an IoM domiciled company managing the Optimus Retirement Benefits #1 QROPS. Further research discovered these underlying assets were a load of toxic, illiquid, high-risk crap.

    Neither Slater and Gordon nor Grant Thornton will confirm what the assets are or how much they are worth – despite Nunn and McCreesh claiming the fund has “£17m under management”.  However, £17m is nothing more than a meaningless figure on a piece of paper until such time as the assets are independently verified and audited. Nunn & McCreesh have promised to publish audited accounts for over 12 months now, but failed to do so. One can only assume that to do so would instantly crystallise a true value far below the imaginary £17m and result in a sudden collapse of the fund.

    Meriden Capital Partners claim Nunn and McCreesh are lying
    Nunn and McCreesh claim Meriden Capital Partners are the investment manager to the fund

    I have asked Steve Kunziewicz of Slater and Gordon on numerous occasions this past couple of months to tell me what the assets are, but presumably Nunn and McCreesh won’t tell their own solicitor – any more than they will tell their own auditors.  Perhaps they told the Blackmore Global investment manager, Meriden Capital Partners in Barcelona?  The trouble is that Meriden Capital Partners deny that they were ever investment manager to the fund and that Nunn and McCreesh are lying.

    I hope the irony of this situation is not lost on the gentle reader: Slater and Gordon solicitors and Grant Thornton being “gamekeepers turned poachers”.  My suggestion to both firms is that they should choose their clients carefully and protect their public image diligently. Both firms should decide whether they want to be like Bark and Co who openly represent fraudsters, murderers, insider dealers, hackers, race fixers and other criminals.  Or whether they want to be on the side of justice for victims of pension and investment scammers.  Because they can’t do both.

  • BRIDGEBANK CAPITAL FAST PENSION SCAM LOANS “SATISFIED”

    BRIDGEBANK CAPITAL FAST PENSION SCAM LOANS “SATISFIED”

    The Fast Pensions Scam funds were discovered in Bridgebank Capital
    Laurence Goodman and the three wishes: please make 37 Fast Pensions Scam loans disappear JUST LIKE THAT!

    Bridgebank Capital’s Laurence Badman Goodman has made 37 Fast Pensions Scam loans disappear as if by magic – while he was on holiday and too busy to engage with Pension Life or the distraught victims of Peter and Sara Moat.

    Having discovered this was where some or all of the elusive Fast Pensions Scam funds were hiding, we all hoped this might finally result in some of the 18 Pensions Ombudsman’s determinations to allow victims to transfer out being complied with.

    We all wanted to believe that Goodman was a good man, but now it would seem the opposite might be the case.  So, one of the following is true:

    1. All the borrowers of the 37 loans have simultaneously repaid their loans on 17th August 2017
    2. The loans have been sold or transferred on to somewhere we can find them (yet)

    Sara Moat had been claiming that Fast Pensions was merely the administrator of the pension schemes, and that it was ultimately the “responsibility of the trustees to decide whether the transfers could be made”.  Of course, the Companies House records showed that the Bridgebank Capital loans were made in favour of Sara Moat as trustee (along with another stooge called Martin Peacock). This scuppered Sara Moat’s excuse and exposed her as a liar once again.

    So, when Goodman has finished having a jolly time on the Costa Lot, necking his champers and writing his postcards to his mate Pete, perhaps he might find a moment to be sober enough to remember that I am meeting the Serious Fraud Office next week.  And most of the Fast Pensions Scam victims have also submitted their reports to the SFO.

     

  • BRIDGEBANK CAPITAL AND THE FAST PENSION SCAM

    BRIDGEBANK CAPITAL AND THE FAST PENSION SCAM

    We know Fast Pensions is a scam - but is Bridgebank Capital No. 5 kosher?
    Frantic with worry – the Fast Pensions victims now know their pension funds are being used for property loans.

    Bridgebank Capital seems to be a bona fide property loan company – providing bridging and development finance. Nothing wrong with that.

     

    But Bridgebank Capital No. 5 seems to be full of Fast Pensions money and locked into term loans secured on a variety of domestic and commercial properties.  Each charge refers to the trustees of four of the Fast Pensions schemes: DM1, FP1, EP1 and Leafield.  The trustees of each of these schemes are clearly identified at Companies House as Sara Moat and Martin Peacock.  (Interestingly, Sara Moat is telling victims that “the trustees” have to decide what happens to the pension monies – while hiding the fact that she is the trustee).

    Of great concern is the fact that one of the borrowers, Clearclose, has gone bust owing the pension fund nearly £900k.

    The Pensions Ombudsman has made 18 determinations against Fast Pensions – but Sara and Peter Moat of Fast Pensions have studiously ignored them.  I sent links to all of the background to Fast Pensions to Laurence Goodman of Bridgebank Capital on 6th August 2017:

    Dear Mr. Goodman

    It was good to speak to you on Friday.
    First of all, may I say that I recognise that Bridgebank Capital is a bona fide finance company and I mean no criticism against you or your company in the summary I am setting out below.  I have tried to summarise the position in a bullet-point series of statements to make this as easy to understand as possible.
    Once you have read and digested this, please can we start a dialogue about what happens next.  What the members need to know, is how much do these various loans/charges/mortgages in favour of the four Fast Pensions schemes realise when they mature, and what will happen to the money.  I realise you are restricted to an extent in terms of what you can tell me, but there are many Fast Pensions victims who will happily provide you with letters of authority as they are the beneficiaries of the pension schemes and have a legal right to know what has happened to their pension funds.
    Best, Angie
    —————-
    * There are hundreds of members of various pension schemes (including DM1, FP1, EP1 and Leafield) run by Peter and Sara Moat of Fast Pensions – a pensions administration company.
    * The Moats maintain they are not the trustees of the schemes.  Peter Moat (masquerading as “James Porter”) told me the trustee was a company called FP Scheme Trustees, of which one Jane Wright is sole director.  She was an employee of Moat’s at his former company Blu Properties in Javea which folded and it is believed she was paid to be the director of this company.
    * The charges registered at Companies House for Bridgebank Capital No. 5 show all the loans as being in favour of Sara Moat and Martin Peacock (an associate of Peter Moat’s) as trustees of the Fast Pensions schemes.
    * The various Fast Pensions schemes – including DM1, FP1, EP1 and Leafield – I believe are all bogus occupational schemes.  When I say bogus, what I mean is that they were not set up to provide genuine pensions for employees of a company which intended to trade and create jobs, but merely as a vehicle for a pension liberation scam.
    * Peter Moat told me (while he was masquerading as a “James Porter”) that the underlying assets of the Fast Pensions schemes were “invested in Bridgebank Capital” and also in another loan company called Pamplona Capital Partners.  Clearly, having the underlying assets of a pension scheme solely “invested” in property loans is not acceptable.  A pension scheme is required to have low-risk, liquid assets as members have a statutory right to a transfer and need to be able to take their 25% tax-free lump sum at age 55, or retire or die.
    * The Moats have failed dismally to communicate with the members or respond to transfer requests for a long period of time – causing considerable distress to the victims.  The Pensions Ombudsman has made a large number of determinations in response to complaints by the victims and has ordered Fast Pensions to allow the victims to transfer out and pay compensation for their distress.  These 18 determinations have all been ignored by Fast Pensions:
    Needless to say, there is no evidence that the Moats have complied with any of these determinations and the victims themselves report that they have not.
    * Alongside the pension transfers and lending of the pension funds to Bridgebank Capital No. 5, the Moats were operating pension liberation in the form of loans from Moat’s companies Blu Debt Management and Umbrella Loans.  Victims were told these loans were not connected to the pension transfers and would not be taxable.  HMRC is now sending out tax demands in respect of these loans.
    * There are grave concerns about the Bridgebank Capital No. 5 loans for the following reasons:
    1. We do not know what the total amount lent to Bridgebank Capital is
    2. There are multiple loans to the same parties
    3. One borrower is in liquidation
    4, We do not know what the terms of the loans or the interest payable are
    * The greatest concern is that if any part of the money is recoverable and is paid back into the control of the Moats, it will simply “disappear” again and not be available for the benefit of the members who are the ultimate beneficiaries.

     

     

  • FRIENDS LIFE – OR DEATH? WINDSOR PENSIONS QROPS SCAM (DANICA)

    FRIENDS LIFE – OR DEATH? WINDSOR PENSIONS QROPS SCAM (DANICA)

    Friends Life transfers pension to a fraudulent bank account
    Friends Life negligent in Windsor Pensions “Danica” scam

    FRIENDS LIFE – OR DEATH? WINDSOR PENSIONS QROPS SCAM (DANICA)

    Since 2010, dozens of ceding pension providers have recklessly and negligently allowed transfers out to obvious pension scams.  During the years of Ark, Capita Oak, Westminster and Henley, the worst offenders were Standard Life, Scottish Widows, Prudential and Aviva as personal providers, and Royal Mail as an occupational provider.

    Both HMRC and the Pensions Regulator claim there were sufficient/ample warnings in the public domain to educate and inform ceding providers about pension scams since 2002.  But the Pensions Ombudsman’s Service claims the cut-off date was February 2013 when the Pensions Regulator first published the “Scorpion Campaign”.  According to the POS, before Scorpion all ceding providers walked around with paper bags over their heads and did no reading up on their professional and fiduciary obligations or any developments among scams and scammers.

    However, a recent ruling on the negligence of a ceding provider – Friends Provident – may change the course of history.  The case of “Mrs N” involved a transfer from FP administered by a company called Windsor Pensions run by one Steve Pimlott in Florida.  In fact, I “secret shopped” Windsor and Pimlott in 2015, and he was still offering “transfers to Danica QROPS” with full liberation.  He also claimed to have done 5,000 such transfers/liberations.

    On 25 February 2015 at 10:37, STEVE PIMLOTT <stevepimlott@windsorpensions.com> wrote:
    Dear Ms Brooks

    I cannot give you tax advice. If you cash out, it’s possible that HMRC will send you a tax bill. We assisted approximately 5,000 people who took that route and I would estimate that 200-300 did receive a tax bill. The rest to my knowledge did not. Of those that did, many just ignored it because they were resident in a different country and had no assets left in the UK.

    Regards

    Steve

    The question is, however, does this set the bar for other negligent ceding trustees?  This case is notable because it is “pre Scorpion”.  But the POS found that irrespective of the date, Friends Provident should have done more due diligence and not just handed over a pension to a scheme which was no longer registered (and, de facto, to a fraudulently-set-up bank account).

    You decide:

    PO-9935 1 Ombudsman’s Determination Applicant Mrs N Respondent Friends Life Limited

    Outcome

    1. Mrs N’s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Friends Life should pay her the unauthorised member payment tax charge and surcharge less the tax liability she would have paid had the full pension been taken as an uncrystallised funds pension lump sum (UFPLS). In addition it should pay Mrs N £1,000 for the significant distress and inconvenience caused by its error.
    2. My reasons for reaching this decision are explained in more detail below.

    Complaint summary

    1. Mrs N complained that Friends Life undertook insufficient due diligence on the qualifying recognised overseas pension scheme (QROPS) into which she had requested a transfer. Had it acted appropriately it would not have accepted the transfer instruction.
    2. Following the transfer Mrs N received the full value of her pension. At the time she was 53. As a result she is now liable to a 55% unauthorised member payment tax charge.
    3. Mrs N has also said she has incurred costs whilst attempting to resolve the situation and Friends Life should pay these.

    Background information, including submissions from the parties

    1. On 10 May 2011, HMRC wrote to Danica, Stockholm, confirming undertakings had been received that Danica was a recognised overseas pension scheme, and that HMRC would accept the scheme as a QROPS with effect from 10 May 2011. It provided a QROPS reference number – QROPS 503810 – and confirmed that the scheme name and country would be added to the list of accepted QROPS on HMRC’s website.
    2. Danica was added to the HMRC QROPS list, but then removed on 29 June 2011.
    3. In October 2011 Mrs N completed a letter of authority for an unregulated financial intermediary; Insignia Financial Services. This was submitted to Friends Life which responded with a transfer illustration on 3 January 2012. QROPS illustrations were issued on 21 January 2012.
    4. On 16 February 2016, Friends Life received an Overseas Transfer Out Payment form and Member Declaration, signed by Mrs N on 7 February 2012. Accompanying this was the HMRC letter confirming QROPS status.
    5. QROPS discharge forms were issued to Mrs N shortly after.
    6. The required forms were received by Friends Life on 9 March 2012. Friends Life says that the supplied QROPS number was checked against the QROPS list and found to be correct. Friends Life also checked the HM Treasury sanctions list.
    7. The payment of £88,622.80 was processed on 13 March 2012. However, what the POS has not disclosed is that the funds were sent to a Barclays Bank account in the Isle of Man which was fraudulently set up by the scammers with the account name “Danica”. I understand the money was subsequently paid to Mrs N by the Danica arrangement and has since been spent. No it wasn’t.  The money never went near the Danica pension scheme in Sweden.  It went straight to the scammers’ bank account in IoM.
    8. Friends Life were made aware of an issue with the Danica scheme, and Insignia Financial Services on 13 April 2012.
    9. Mrs N has since been contacted by HMRC and informed that the transfer was an unauthorised payment, so it is subject to an unauthorised member payment tax charge and surcharge of approximately £49,000. I understand this has not been paid and remains outstanding, with interest accruing.
    10. Mrs N raised a complaint about Friends Life’s actions. It did not uphold the complaint, and made the following summarised points.
    • Mrs N had a statutory right to transfer, and Friends Life had no reason to think that the information provided regarding the QROPS was false. Friends Life missed a rather obvious clue i.e. a QROPS in Sweden was purportedly using a Barclays bank account in the IoM – might that not have rung an alarm bell?
    • The QROPS number was checked against the QROPS list and found to be correct. Although the name Danica did not appear on the QROPS list, Danica Private Pension (Sweden) and Danica Pension (Sweden) did. In other words, similar but different.
    • The transfer happened prior to concerns about pensions liberation being widely recognised as an industry issue. The Pension Ombudsman has previously said that February 2013 was the point of change in good industry practice where knowledge of pension liberation and scams had increased. This is nonsense – both the Pensions Regulator (formerly known as OPRA) and HMRC had been warning the industry about pension scams for more than fifteen years. Friends Life had an absolute duty to be aware of and vigilant against pension scams.
    • The presence of a scheme on the QROPS list does not guarantee its QROPS status, and HMRC forms which would have been completed by Mrs N state: “The list should not be relied upon by you, the member in deciding whether a scheme is a QROPS.” Pretty confusing to be honest: HMRC publishes a list of QROPS but the member herself has to decide whether the scheme is a QROPS. How would a member decide that?  Ask the scammers?
    • Friends Life suggested that Mrs N transferred her pension with full knowledge of a lump sum payment being made, which was not offered under her existing plan due to UK tax legislation. It was reasonable to expect that she would have sought independent financial advice before proceeding. Instead she proceeded through an unregulated financial adviser and did not seek advice from a regulated adviser. Indeed, the adviser was unregulated – but Mrs. N did not know this and wouldn’t have known how to check anyway. In fact, Friends Life ought to have brought this to her attention at the start.
    • There was an onus on Mrs N to check the legitimacy of her financial adviser. At the time there was no reason for Friends Life to think the financial adviser was unregulated. Friends Life didn’t even check.
    1. Friends Life had highlighted that, ‘Tax penalties may apply following a transfer to a QROPS. It is important all implications are understood before transferring funds from the UK’, and Mrs N had received a copy of this statement.

    Adjudicator’s Opinion

    1. Mrs N’s complaint was considered by one of our Adjudicators who concluded that further action was required by Friends Life. The Adjudicator’s findings are summarised briefly below:-
    • Central to the complaint was whether Friends Life should have acted on Mrs N’s transfer request. Side issues relating to the legitimacy of the financial adviser involved or any declarations signed were not integral to the complaint.
    • The events complained of occurred prior to the Pension Regulator’s pension liberation warning campaign of February 2013, at a time when checks on receiving schemes were less rigorous. This may be correct – however, that doesn’t make it right. However there were reasonable basic checks that Friends Life ought to have completed before making the transfer, including checking HMRC’s QROPS list. They did check the QROPS list and were probably confused by the similar names of two other schemes containing the word “Danica”.
    • The Danica scheme had been on the list for a short period but was removed by the time Mrs N submitted the transfer request. Friends Life’s internal policy was not to transfer to schemes which were not on the QROPS list.
    • Although the QROPS list was checked the day before the transfer was put through and there were two similarly named schemes on the list, the Danica scheme was not on the list. At that point additional checks should have been undertaken to establish why the Danica scheme was not on the list, had it done so it would have established that the Danica scheme had been removed nine months prior.
    • In these circumstances Mrs N’s pension should not have been transferred, and had it not done so Mrs N would not now be subject to the unauthorised member payment tax charge and surcharge. One could argue against this point – perhaps Windsor Pensions and Insignia Financial Services would have found another obscure QROPS to use for the fraud.
    • To put matters right Friends Life should agree to meet the full cost of the unauthorised member payment tax charge and in addition pay Mrs N £500 for the distress and inconvenience suffered.
    • The Adjudicator did not consider Friends Life should be required to pay the costs Mrs N incurred when bringing the complaint. The complaint could have been referred to this Office and resolved without the involvement of her representative. I would not agree necessarily: Mrs. N had a very busy life running a business in the USA and she did need help and guidance with the complaint against Friends Life and the POS process. She was also fighting the tax demand at the same time and was extremely distressed.
    • Additionally, in relation to potential accountant’s fees she may incur, the Adjudicator concluded she would have needed to pay similar costs had the funds been received through legitimate means.
    1. Mrs N did not accept the Adjudicator’s Opinion and the complaint was passed to me to consider. Mrs N and Friends Life provided further comments which are summarised below.
    2. Friends Life said:-
    • Friends Life accepted the recommended redress in principle, but highlighted that it had already paid a 40% Scheme Sanction Charge and Mrs N was, under the Adjudicator’s recommendation, in effect being paid the fund value without any tax liability. Friends Life proposed to pay the unauthorised member charge less the notional tax Mrs N would have paid had she legitimately accessed the full fund value under the current rules. It calculated the tax she would have paid to be £15,294.34.
    • Friends Life also considered that given Mrs N’s position it was reasonable for her to have sought independent financial advice given its recommendation that she do so, and especially given her unfamiliarity with UK taxation laws. In not doing so Mrs N had contributed to the risk that her pension could be adversely impacted by the transfer.

    Mrs N said:-

    • The proposed redress would have significant tax consequences for her as a U.S. resident. As a result the redress would not put her back into the position she should have been had the error not occurred.
    • She had incurred significant expenditure appointing a representative to pursue the complaint on her behalf. Those costs, and the cost of receiving appropriate cross border tax advice, would continue to rise. Given the complexity of the issues in the complaint, and the tax complications she could not have brought the complaint without specialist assistance.
    • The redress methodology used by Friends Life show a misunderstanding of Mrs N’s tax position. For instance it has suggested that she would be entitled to a personal allowance, when as a U.S. resident this is not the case.
    • The wording of the redress must be specifically tailored to avoid potential tax complications in the UK and U.S. Friends Life should pay the costs associated with drafting agreeable wording to avoid those tax complications.
    • Friends Life should provide an indemnity to cover the potential tax liability arising from the redress payment.
    • She was very distressed by the situation, has been unable to sleep and it has impacted her health.
    1. On review of Friends Life’s and Mrs N’s responses to the Opinion the Adjudicator made the following points:-

    * Friends Life’s offer to pay the unauthorised member payment tax charge and surcharge, less the tax Mrs N would have paid had the pension been paid as an UFPLS, was reasonable in the circumstances. The recommended redress was altered to reflect this.

    * The redress was not intended to pay Mrs N’s tax liability. Mrs N was the party subject to the liability and would need to pay this. The redress was intended to make good a relevant proportion of that loss once it had been paid. Under this arrangement the reference to a personal allowance was only notional it did not appear that Mrs N would be subject to punitive tax charges as the redress was intended to make good Friends Life’s error.

    * Given the significant impact on Mrs N’s health the Adjudicator increased the proposed distress and inconvenience award to £1,000, which Friends Life agreed to.

    1. Having considered Mrs N’s arguments they do not change the outcome. I agree with the Adjudicator’s Opinion, summarised above, and I will therefore only respond to the key points made by Mrs N for completeness.

    Ombudsman’s decision

    1. Mrs N argues that she could not have brought the complaint without employing the assistance of tax and pensions specialist. I do not agree. In the first instance a complaint can be passed to the Pensions Advisory Service, who can guide an applicant through the Scheme’s complaint process and provide technical input where the applicant lacks an understanding of the issues involved. In this case TPAS considered it too late to intervene due to the potential time limits of referral to this Office. So it was not a lack of understanding that prevented TPAS from taking on the case.
    2. Notwithstanding that, had Mrs N not accepted Friends Life’s response to the complaint she could have brought the complaint directly to this Office for review. Although Mrs N’s representative disagrees, I am confident that this Office has the expertise to investigate complaints about pension liberation. I would dispute that: the POS has repeatedly failed to uphold pre-Scorpion complaints on the basis that pension trustees had never heard of pension liberation fraud prior to February 2013 – which is absolute nonsense. The representative’s involvement has not brought any unknown evidence or arguments to the investigation. Mrs N was entitled to seek assistance in this matter, but that does not mean Friends Life are responsible for the costs incurred where there are free dispute resolution alternatives available to her. For that reason I do not consider Friends Life should pay the costs she is claiming. To be fair, I think Mrs N should have had her costs paid.  She – and thousands of other victims in this situation – find themselves utterly overwhelmed by these types of cases and need support.  Also, being based in the USA, she needed someone to deal with the case in the UK.
    3. I understand that as a U.S. tax resident there may be complications in Mrs N’s tax situation on receipt of the redress payment. Her UK and U.S. accountants have said they will not provide advice on the matter because of the complications. The redress may cause her to have to seek specialist tax advice. However, tax is matter for Mrs N and the local tax authorities. It is not for me to determine any future tax liability she may have, and it may ultimately be that there is none.
    4. I have also taken into account that had Mrs N taken her pension through legitimate means she would have needed to seek tax advice regardless, so in my view the position has not changed. Mrs N will have had to pay for tax advice at some time or another regardless of how the pension was accessed.
    5. Friends Life has said it does not believe that the redress payment would be taxable, but that it would reconsider its position if at a later date it can be shown that Mrs N had suffered a tax liability, although it would not agree to an indemnity. This is a reasonable stance for Friends Life to take. Mrs N should establish any resultant tax liability due to the redress and communicate that to Friends Life if necessary.
    6. Looking at the proposed redress methodology, Mrs N may disagree with certain assumptions made by Friends Life, but I consider they are reasonable assumptions. I note in particular that in relation to the personal allowance, under this notional methodology, she is better off for it being included than if Friends Life assumed no personal allowance.
    7. The approach taken to offsetting the notional income tax that Mrs N would have paid had she taken the full fund value as an UFPLS is balanced and appropriate. This places Mrs N broadly in line with the position she would have been had the pension been taken in full under the current rules. I believe that is an appropriate remedy for the error caused by Friends Life.
    8. Therefore, I uphold Mrs N’s complaint.

    Directions

    1. Within 28 days of this determination Friends Life should establish the unauthorised member payment tax charge and surcharge less the notional tax liability of £15,294.34 she would have paid had the full pension been taken as an uncrystallised funds and pay this to Mrs N. PO-9935 7 31. Additionally it should pay £1,000 for the significant distress and inconvenience suffered.

    Anthony Arter Pensions Ombudsman 27 June 2017

     

     

  • HOLBORN ASSETS AND THE CHAMPAGNE KILLER

    HOLBORN ASSETS AND THE CHAMPAGNE KILLER

    Holborn Assets mercilessly leaves its victims facing financial ruin

    HOLBORN ASSETS “CHAMPAGNE KILLER” APPROACH TO FINANCIAL ADVICE IS DESTROYING VICTIMS’ LIFE SAVINGS

    Holborn Assets “Champagne Killer” approach to financial advice is ruining victims.  Holborn Assets is routinely destroying people’s pensions and life savings, and refusing to compensate the distraught victims facing poverty in retirement.  The so-called “advisers” at Holborn Assets give investment advice (often unregulated) which entails investing victims’ funds in whatever toxic, illiquid, high-risk rubbish pays the highest commissions, and then leave the devastated investors hung out to dry.  Neither the firm nor the “advisers” responsible for this outrage show any compassion or contrition. This is no different to the callous actions of a common drunk, hit-and-run driver.

    As if this wasn’t bad enough, Holborn Assets also employs Darin Brownlee-Jones: the “Champagne Killer“.  A drunk hit-and-run driver who killed an innocent man then walked away to drink champagne.  He didn’t stop to try to help the victim he left dying in the road – or show any remorse for the horrible, painful death the poor man suffered.

    Holborn Assets seems to make a habit out of employing the unemployable.  First, there was Paul Reynolds who was banned by the FCA and fined nearly £300,000 for giving unsuitable and misleading financial advice.  The FCA declared Reynolds was not a fit and proper person to give financial advice.  But Uncle Bob Parker of Holborn Assets Dubai welcomed him with open arms – and Reynolds has since changed his name to try to conceal his unsavoury past.  But I bumped into Reynolds when I was at the Holborn Assets office at the end of 2015 – so I know it is him despite trying to change his appearance as well as his name.

    And now there is Darin Brownlee-Jones who is commissioning pension reports for more poor unfortunate victims. These people are transferring their defined benefit pension schemes to offshore QROPS in dodgy jurisdictions where negligent trustees peddle their toxic wares.  In one case, Brownlee-Jones has employed a Spanish firm to sign off a DB transfer for a resident of France.  The advice is covered (allegedly) by the Spanish insurance regulator (which doesn’t cover pension or investment advice) and not the French regulator or the FCA.

    So why would Brownlee-Jones in Dubai get a Spanish firm to provide unregulated advice to an investor in France? In 2003, the FSA had refused an application from Brownlee Jones to perform investment and pension-transfer functions.  The reason was that the FSA did not consider him to be a fit and proper person as he had indecently assaulted a woman, caused criminal damage and death by dangerous driving.

    I think any reasonable person would agree that Brownlee-Jones was the last person you would want handling investment and pension advice.  But Bob Parker at Holborn Assets clearly likes having misfits, FCA rejects, sex offenders, drunks and killers on his team.

    Brownlee-Jones: after a belly full of beer in 1999, got into his car and hit a motor cyclist head on.  He left the poor man dying in a pool of blood and went to celebrate at his favourite wine bar. He ordered two bottles of Dom Perignon champagne at £95 apiece.  When he was arrested, he was quaffing his favourite bubbly – although he probably wasn’t smiling quite so broadly when he was jailed for four years.

    The distraught father of the victim said that Brownlee-Jones had treated his dying son “like an animal“.  And yet Bob Parker employs this callous killer and encourages him to provide unregulated pension advice to victims in France and Spain.

    This routine callousness is shown by Bob Parker and many other Holborn Assets salesmen.  Where their victims’ pensions and investments have been decimated by high-risk structured notes and unregulated, toxic, illiquid funds -such as Premier New Earth Recycling – Holborn Assets just shrugs and leaves the victims to face poverty in retirement.  Once they have earned their fat commissions from the victims’ pension funds, Holborn Assets doesn’t want to know any more.  Bob Parker and his merry men simply walk away without a backward glance.

    Holborn Assets has been aggressively targeting new victims with a cold-calling campaign using a well-known boiler-room scam operation in Manchester.  The cold calls to Spanish residents are followed up by salesmen such as Jason Ryder who claims that Holborn Assets have offices in Barcelona and Marbella.  Of course, Holborn Assets is not licensed to operate in Spain – and once conned into letting these cowboys plunder their pensions for fat commissions and fees, there is no regulator to complain to.

    Apart from Bob Parker, Paul Reynolds, Darin Brownlee-Jones and a bunch of other “snake oil salesmen”, there are some people at Holborn Assets who do have some ethics and a conscience.  Surely, if these people had any sense they would distance themselves from this cesspit of financial disservice?  Why stay with a firm with such an appalling track record?

    Below is a list of all the people who work for Holborn Assets (excluding admin and finance).  I wonder if a single one of them will feel some sense of disgrace at being a part of this “champagne killer” approach to financial services?

    Robert Parker, Phillip Parker, Simon Parker, Gerard Frew, Gerard J Leahy, Adrian Bliss, Alexander Herbert, Andrew Jarvis, Daniel Quinn, Joanne Phillips, Michele Carby, Nicholas Thompson, Rubina Khan, Ryan Quinn, Vince Truong, Paul Barrass, Kapil Mathur, Mark Powsney, Payal Trehan, Richard Hanna, Samuel Ebbs, Simon Burrass, Steve Lawton, Steven Downey, Usman Ahmed, Conor O’Shaughnessy, Anthony Murray, Colin Estlick, Creigh Classey, Jamie Arthur, Gavin Webster, Guillermo Martorell, Adrian Luscombe-Whyte, Tim Sant, Stuart Bichard, Richard Colburn, Kevin Curtis, Alison Sant, Ian Leigh, Darin Brownlee-Jones, Colin Kneale, Bryan Wawman, Vivian Van Eeden.

    If not a single one of the above group of people is prepared to put ethics and principles at the top of their agenda and ensure their professional reputations are not sullied by the “champagne killer” approach to financial advice, then there truly is no hope for Holborn Assets.

    **************************************************************

    As always, Pension Life would like to remind you that if you are planning to transfer any pension funds, make sure that you are transferring into a legitimate scheme. To find out how to avoid being scammed, please see our blog:

    What is a pension scam?

    FOLLOW PENSION LIFE ON TWITTER TO KEEP UP WITH ALL THINGS PENSION RELATED, GOOD AND BAD.

  • SAIL FINANCIAL – ANOTHER SCAM?

    SAIL FINANCIAL – ANOTHER SCAM?

    Establishing the connection between Sail Financial, Portia Financial and Global Partners Ltd
    Plain sailing in the world of pension scams

    SAIL FINANCIAL AND TRAFALGAR MULTI ASSET FUND: What is the connection?

    Who is behind Sail Financial?  And what is the connection to Trafalgar Multi Asset Fund?  We know Trafalgar Multi Asset Fund was originally run by XXXX XXXX as “Victory Asset Management” and that XXXX had also been behind the Capita Oak, Henley Retirement Benefits Scheme and Westminster pension scams: wound up by the Insolvency Service; now in the hands of Dalriada Trustees and under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office.

    We also know that the £120 million of store pods purchased for Capita Oak, Henley RBS and hundreds of SIPPS are now probably worthless and Store First is subject to a winding up petition due to be heard on 1st August in Manchester.

    In addition to being the Investment Manager of the Trafalgar Multi Asset Fund, XXXX was also the “financial adviser” in the form of his firms Global Partners Limited and The Pension Reporter – a “trading style” of XXXX’s Nationwide Benefit Consultants.  But none of these firms were licensed for pension or investment advice.

    In fact, Nationwide Benefit Consultants were an appointed representative of Joseph Oliver – Mediacao de Seguros LDA, a firm registered with the FCA.  Joseph Oliver is a UK branch of a Portuguese firm and has permission for insurance mediation under both the FCA regulations and those of the Portuguese insurance regulator.

    However, Joseph Oliver’s Marcus Groombridge has stated:

    “I can confirm that XXXX XXXX and Nationwide Benefit Consultants Ltd were appointed on the 29th of May 2014 and terminated on the 8th of April 2016. The permission for insurance mediation covers pension advice.”

    Phew!  What a relief.  I am now looking forward to Mr Groombridge’s full cooperation with putting XXXX XXXX’s victims back into the position they should have been in had they not been scammed into investing their pensions in the Trafalgar Multi Asset Fund in the first place.  I will also probably remind Mr Groombridge that the Trafalgar matter is under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office – along with other pension scams “distributed” by XXXX XXXX in 2012/13.

    If there hadn’t already been enough misery for the hundreds of victims of the Capita Oak and Henley Retirement Benefit schemes run back in 2012/13 – XXXX had also been operating pension liberation in the form of “loans” from his company Thurlstone, based in the Seychelles.  The victims have now been sent tax demands. But XXXX and his solicitor, Mark Manley of Manleys Law, have ignored pleas to indemnify the victims from these crippling tax liabilities.

    I have often wondered what people like XXXX do after their latest scheme collapses or implodes.  History tells us that they simply get straight on with their next one – and in fact had probably started it already.  XXXX  has been a director of seven companies (according to Companies House):

    Nationwide Benefit Consultants (active)

    Nationwide Corporate Benefits (active)

    Proactive Administration Solutions (active)

    Nationwide Trustee Services (dissolved)

    Ashton Abbott (dissolved)

    Nationwide Tax Administration (dissolved)

    Admin Protection (dissolved)

    XXXX  has resigned from Nationwide Benefit Consultants and Nationwide Corporate Benefits – and appointed someone called Raymond Hampton as a director.  But XXXX remains a director of Proactive Administration Solutions.  So perhaps that is one to watch.

    XXXX’s background is in the “distribution of pension schemes” (his words).  He has worked closely with the cold-calling and lead generation firms (such as Jackson Francis, Sanderson Clarke and Barncroft Associates run by XXXX´s mates Ben Fox and Stuart Chapman-Clarke) who were involved in the Capita Oak and Henley scams.

    So what is XXXX doing now?  Perhaps whatever project he is working on involves trying to make enough money to compensate the victims of Capita Oak, Henley, Westminster and the Trafalgar Multi Asset Fund – all of the schemes are now under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office.  It is also probable that Gibraltar Trustees STM Fidecs no longer want terms of business with XXXX XXXX now that so many of his schemes are subject to criminal investigations.  STM Fidecs also probably now realises it was a serious conflict of interest taking business from an adviser who was also the Investment Manager to the Trafalgar Multi Asset Fund – which is now in the process of being wound up.

    While I was idly puzzling over what XXXX´s next scheme might be, I started hearing reports about a firm called Sail Financial doing the rounds of firms in Europe – touting offering to do “introducing” and cold calling.  Looking at the Sail Financial website, it is impossible to see who is involved in the business – no names, no address, no regulation. According to the Companies House register, Sail Financial – incorporated on 8.5.2015 – has two directors: Robert Hathaway and Brian Westhead.  Neither of those names rang any bells with me.

    Hathaway has no other directorships listed.  However, Westhead does: he is listed as a director of a dissolved company called BIGB22 (08559856).  This company’s previous names were Portia Financial and The Pension Reporter: XXXX XXXX’s firms.  These firms have a history of being involved in pension and investment scams, cold calling and unregulated financial advice.  The victims of the Trafalgar Multi Asset/STM Fidecs pension and investment scam were introduced and “advised” by Portia Financial, GPL (Global Partners Ltd) and The Pension Reporter, with advice letters signed by XXXX XXXX and Tom Biggar.

    So clearly there is a connection between Sail Financial and various firms and schemes run by XXXX XXXX – including Trafalgar Multi Asset Fund.  Perhaps XXXX XXXX  is sailing round the Mediterranean now?  I just hope he doesn’t have one glass of champagne too many and fall overboard.

     

  • BLACKMORE GLOBAL FUND – ASSET OR BLACK HOLE?

    BLACKMORE GLOBAL FUND – ASSET OR BLACK HOLE?

    Blackmore or Blackhole Global fund

    BLACKMORE GLOBAL FUND – BLACK HOLE?

    A fund like Blackmore Global really ought to be audited as soon as possible – to make sure it isn’t simply a “black hole” into which victims’ hard-earned pensions have sunk.  Numerous worried pension savers are stuck in the Blackmore Global Fund and finding it difficult – if not impossible – to get out.  They are seemingly “locked in” for ten years.

    I WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS MY SINCERE THANKS TO THOSE – INCLUDING IFAs, PENSION TRUSTEE FIRMS AND BLACKMORE GLOBAL VICTIMS – WHO HAVE CONTACTED ME AND SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS, CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS.

    Allegedly, Grant Thornton is working on an audit – and has been doing so since September 2016.  They could probably have audited Microsoft in that time – and squeezed in Amazon on the side during the lunch breaks. Just how difficult can it be to audit a fund which only has a handful of assets in it?

    Originally, the directors of Blackmore Global were Brian Weal, Patrick McCreesh, and Phillip Nunn.  

    Brian Weal – sanctioned by the FSC in 2014 – was also a director of Swan Holdings – the only investment that the Advalorem Value Asset Fund made. Brian Weal was also a director of Advalorem. Advalorem lost most of its money because the investments in Swan Holdings were overvalued. The valuations were supplied by Stuart Black who also provided valuations for a Hedge Fund called Heather Capital which lost $300 million because of overvaluations. Swan Holdings had invested a chunk of cash in Etaireia Investments. Stuart Black was a director of Etaireia Investments. Brian Weal owns a controlling number of shares in Etaireia Investments.  So, make up your own mind as to whether having Weal as a director of Blackmore Global is a good thing or a bad thing – or a “black hole” thing.

    As for Nunn and McCreesh, I will let Leonard Fenton of the Insolvency Service do the talking:

    • Documents and information received from members of CAPITA OAK indicated they were initially contacted by Craig Mason or Patrick McCreesh of Nunn McCreesh of Its Your Pension Ltd and offered pension review services prior to them being referred to JACKSON FRANCIS or Sycamore for the transfer of their pension to CAPITA OAK.
    • On 3.3.15 I received an undated letter in which it was stated that Its Your Pension had not traded and was a dormant company and that Nunn McCreesh had traded as an insurance brokerage between 2009 and 2012 when they entered into a verbal arrangement with TRANSEURO where in return for providing pension leads to JACKSON FRANCIS they received a commission from TRANSEURO.
    • Nunn McCreesh provided JACKSON FRANCIS with 100-200 leads per month which were provided by email and/or telephone for which they received £899,829.86 from TRANSEURO during the period 26.3.12 to 14.5.14.

    So, again, draw your own conclusions about those connected with Blackmore Global.  Nunn and McCreesh generated up to 200 leads a month to pension scammers in relation to a series of pension/investment scams which are now under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office.  This entailed £120 million worth of pensions being invested in Store First store pods which are now the subject of a winding up petition – and arguably worthless.

    When I first started investigating the Blackmore Global fund in 2016, I started with the brochure which makes all sorts of grand claims: “medium to long-term investment vehicle with a diversified investment portfolio
    under one structure. The Company allocates investment between four distinct protected cells, giving a true
    diversification of assets between property, sustainable, private equity and lifestyle”.  Yeah, right.  But what are the underlying assets?  Where is the audit?

    The Fact Sheet goes on to claim the fund’s NAV is £17.65 million and was launched on 1st May 2014.  So why no audit?  It also claims that the Investment Manager is a firm in Barcelona called Meriden Capital Partners.  I thought it a bit strange that a fund based in the Isle of Man would appoint an investment manager in Spain – especially one without a website.  So I called Meriden Capital Partners and asked them to confirm that they were the investment manager.  They claimed they had never heard of Blackmore Global.  Then one of the partners called me back and told me that some man who didn’t give his name had come to their office and asked them whether they would be interested in being the investment manager for Blackmore Global.

    The partner at Meriden Capital explained that they had declined because they were not licensed to provide investment management advice to a fund – only to private individuals.

    But then I discovered that that hadn’t been entirely true either. Meriden Capital had actually completed an application form to apply to become the investment manager to the fund on 4th April 2014.  So either Meriden Capital was lying or Blackmore Global was lying – or both.

    The Blackmore Global NAV Factsheet also states that there is a ten-year lock-in to the fund.  So why would anyone invest a pension in such a fund?  A pension saver has a statutory right to a transfer and might want to take his PCLS – 25% tax free withdrawal at age 55 – or retire, or even die.  What on earth is the point in using Blackmore Global for a pension at all?  Ever.

    As Grant Thorton is clearly having a little trouble with the audit of a five-cell investment fund, I will lay a wee trail of bread crumbs for them to look at.  Clearly they can’t even find the underlying assets – let alone value them:

    Swan Holdings PCC (controlled by Brian Weal)

    Kingston Capital Partners (Belize private equity vehicle controlled by Nunn & McCreesh)

    GRRE Invest – fund manager for aptly-named GRREIF fund (Green Renewable Redeemable Energy Investment Fund –

    GRRE Investment Fund – suspended by Anguilla FSC. (Brian Weal recently resigned as a director but still holds a controlling interest in the Fund – https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09132685/persons-with-significant-control)

    Spinaris 90 – UK sports spread betting (invisible – and what happened to Aria Invest?)

    Most of the victims of the Blackmore Global fund were initially cold-called by a firm called Aspinal Chase.  And all the victims were advised by unregulated investment advisers Square Mile Financial Services (an insurance license does not cover regulated investment advice).  But more worryingly, all of them were put into a QROPS in Malta or the Isle of Man.  So why were UK residents transferred to an offshore pension at all, and why were most or all of their pension funds invested in a UCIS which is illegal to be promoted to UK residents?

    The list of questions goes on and on.  And here, we get back to whether the unscrambling of these pension and investment scams is more about who you know rather than what you know.  One victim had his pension invested 75% in Blackmore Global and 25% in Symphony.  Symphony was a fund invested in derivatives and highly leveraged.  It was also a sub fund of the Nascent Fund run by Richard Reinert.  Under the Nascent “umbrella” (a structure for wannabe fund managers) was also the Trafalgar Multi Asset fund which was run by XXXX XXXX who was one of the main distributors behind Capita Oak, Henley and Westminster – all of which are being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office.

    Now we have gone round in a complete circle.  A catalogue of lies, deception, fraud, mis-selling, negligence and incompetence.

    I don’t envy Grant Thornton (if indeed they are the auditors) because they have got to unscramble this unholy mess. And I strongly suspect that, behind the scenes, there are certain parties who are busting a gut to ensure the audit is never published.  Two of these may well be John Ferguson and David Vilka of Square Mile in the Czech Republic who seem to have a strong vested interest in promoting this black hole of a fund.

    Meanwhile, the longer the victims are held back from transferring out of this toxic swamp of a fund, the more serious the complaints against the various parties involved will be.  These will include the cold-calling scammers; introducers; advisers; pension trustees and insurance companies such as Investors Trust who allowed this investment and the pensions transfers from unlicensed advisers.

    Finally, on the subject of Investors Trust, they showed not a shred of interest in the fact that they had facilitated financial crime in allowing UK residents to have their pensions invested in this UCIS, but when I published a photo of John Ferguson and David Vilka posing as a couple of gaudily-dressed spivs in Las Vegas, Investors Trust objected on the grounds the photograph was their property.

    pension-life.com/top-10-deadliest-pension-scammers-hmrc/

     

     

     

     

  • HYPOCRISY BY PARKER – HOLBORN ASSETS DUBAI – MONTFORT INTERNATIONAL

    HYPOCRISY BY PARKER – HOLBORN ASSETS DUBAI – MONTFORT INTERNATIONAL

    Holborn Assets’ Bob Parker commits a gloat too far.

    Holborn Assets Dubai – under the questionable leadership of Bob Parker – has been responsible for ruining quite a number of victims’ pensions.  With a deft waggle of the Holborn Assets magic wand, a pension transferred from a gold-plated final salary scheme can be reduced by at least 50% in just a couple of years.  Trouble is, the magic kind of runs out of steam if asked to work in reverse.

    Glynis Broadfoot and various other victims in Spain were “advised” by dodgy Holborn Assets’ advisers to transfer their pensions into a QROPS with Gower Pensions in Guernsey.  Then the victims’ pensions were invested in toxic, illiquid, high-risk, professional-investor-only funds and shrank relentlessly.  The problem was that Holborn Assets had no license to provide pension or investment advice in Spain.  This is the sort of scam that the CNMV, the Spanish investment regulator, refers to as being operated by “chiringuitos” (bar flies) which translates as “scammers”. And the UK Pensions Regulator clearly refers to scammers as criminals.

    Holborn Assets’ home – a low-rise advisory firm amongst the high-rise buildings

    So why is Bob Parker – from Dubai – gloating over Geraint Davies from Surrey?  OK, Geraint’s firm Montfort International has been sanctioned – and very publicly so.  And, knowing Geraint I believe he will take his punishment pragmatically and stoically.  He has fought back from other challenges in the past and he will fight back from this.  But at the end of the day, whatever other faults he may have, he does have respect for the establishment, the law, the regulators and the ethical sector of the financial advisory profession.

    I suspect – if Geraint saw Bob the Knob’s post on the LinkedIn QROPS group – he will have had an ironic chuckle at the Bible-thumper’s hypocrisy.  And if he had known that Bob’s response to his various victims’ distress and pleas for help had been “buzz off – case closed” he would most probably have been enraged that Parker the Not-So-Magic Marker should remark on the mote in Geraint’s eye and cynically gloss over the socking great forest in his own.

    Of course, Geraint himself will certainly know that Parker’s top salesman is Paul Reynolds who has been sanctioned by the FCA (banned from regulated activities due to lack integrity and fined nearly £300k) and may even have had a wry smile to himself that a man who professes to be a devout Christian is prepared to employ a publicly-condemned pariah of the profession.  But, of course, Reynolds is Holborn Assets’ best salesman – flogging toxic assets to ruin their clients – so it is worth keeping him in order to keep the wheels of Parker’s Rolls Royce well oiled.

    So, am just wondering how the devout Christian Bob Parker is getting Holborn Assets’ DB pension transfers done now?  What dodgy outfit is he using?  Because it won’t be anything ethical or honourable.  And whichever firm it is, it will be helping Holborn Assets ruin hundreds – or even thousands – of victims have their pensions decimated by execrable, unregulated investment advice.

    Despite Parker’s hypocritical post on LinkedIn, I think Geraint Davies’ firm Montfort comes out of this considerably better than Holborn Assets.  I have no doubt Geraint will have more success in plucking the mote out of his eye than Parker will in taking a whole sawmill out of his.

  • WHAT IS WORSE? A SCAMMER OR A SCAMMER’S LAWYER?

    WHAT IS WORSE? A SCAMMER OR A SCAMMER’S LAWYER?

    Scammers are loathed by victims, regulators, police, ombudsmen and financial services professionals whose professional reputations are compromised by the nefarious practices of the scam merchants.  But however damning the hard evidence is about the scams and the various promoters, introducers, advisers, administrators behind them, the scammers still protest their innocence.

    Even when there are announcements and articles in the public domain confirming criminal investigations, winding up petitions, arrests, Pensions Ombudsman’s determinations, regulatory intervention and sanctions, the scammers still try to protest that they are innocent and that the damage done to the victims is everybody else’s fault but theirs.

    But as soon as I publish something on the Pension Life blog, to inform and warn the public, the scammers’ solicitors swoop like vultures with their cease and desist letters – threatening defamation proceedings.  Never mind the £ millions lost to hundreds or even thousands of victims – many of whom are worried sick about losing their pensions; never mind the tax demands which are driving the victims to complete despair and could result in HMRC making them bankrupt; never mind the heart attacks, strokes and other fatal illnesses brought on by stress and sleepless nights.  The scammers’ solicitors pull out all the stops – even going so far as to threaten the Pension Life web host and complain to Google about Pension Life’s website blogs.

    I’ve been through this with – among others – Stephen Ward of Premier Pension Solutions – who actually took me to court for upsetting his “picky” clients (Ward didn’t even turn up); Paul Baxendale-Walker, the disgraced former barrister (struck off) and porn star; XXXX XXXX of Global Partners Ltd and The Pensions Reporter (now under investigation by the SFO);and now Peter Moat of Fast Pensions (see Sam Brodbeck’s article of 1.7.2017).

    In fact all these solicitors – including DWF, Mishcon de Reya, Carter Ruck, Manleys Law, Molins & Silva et al, all bleat that the Pension Life blogs are harming their clients by “causing reputational damage generating huge financial damages and danger of losing business interests and opportunities”.  But not so much a squeak about the huge financial damages the scammers they represent cause to the victims who are in danger of losing their homes.

    And not a word about the crippling financial damages the scammers they represent cause to the victims who are in danger of losing their homes.

    Below is the email exchange between Peter and Sara Moat’s solicitor Monica Caellas and me dated 27th June 2017. Worth noting she has not responded.  Perhaps her website, email and telephones have been hit by the same virus as appears to afflict the Moats and Fast Pensions?

    Ms. Brooks:

    We hereby contact you in name and on behalf of our clients, Ms. Sara Grace Moat and Mr. Peter Daniel Moat, in connection with the statements set forth in the article “Peter Moat and Sara Moat – Fast Pensions” (hereinafter, the “Article”) included in the website https://pension-life.com/peter-moat-sara-moat-fast-pensions/ since May 18, 2017.  I am enormously relieved that you have contacted me and would be most grateful if you would be kind enough to act as intermediary in relation to many hundreds of victims who have been scammed out of their pensions.  As you can imagine, this is an extremely worrying time for these people and some of them are now receiving tax demands from HMRC as the Moats were operating pension liberation fraud as part of the “package”.

     

    Some of the statements of the Article are extremely serious and could be constitutive of various crimes sanctioned by the Spanish Criminal Code; among them, serious offences of defamations and calumnies.  I do not agree that the Moats’ actions include defamation and calumnies – but they certainly involve pension, tax and investment fraud.

     

    FAST PENSIONS is a UK Limited Company licensed by HMRC. No it is not.  HMRC do not license companies in the UK.  HMRC registers pension schemes, but this implies no approval or license.  

    Ms. Sara Moat is the sole Director and the sole shareholder of FAST PENSIONS. Her husband, Mr. Peter Moat is the owner and administrator of Blue Property Group, a Group of corporations that has nothing to do with FAST PENSIONS. From a corporate point of view you are correct, however, Peter Moat was the controlling mind behind the company and has been masquerading as “James Porter” in his communications with the victims to attempt to conceal his involvement.  Also, I think you will find that Blue Property Group has gone bust and owes money to creditors all over the Costa Blanca.

     

    With the Article you have caused serious confusion against third parties and it is hurting my clients and their companies. I regret that neither the victims nor I will have any sympathy whatsoever with any hurt your clients are experiencing.  They have hundreds of victims’ pensions in limbo – and despite numerous Pensions Ombudsman’s determinations, no transfers out (which is a UK citizen’s legal right) have been facilitated.  The victims of this scam include several deaths whereby the deceased pension member’s family has not been able to benefit from the pension fund as required by law in the UK.

    In particular, the Article expressly and roundly states “There have been a number of Pension Ombudsman determinations which expressed concerns about the maladministration of the unlicensed firm [Fast Pensions] owned by the Moats”. Yes.  This is in the public domain on the Pensions Ombudsman’s website.

    In this sense, you claimed that a number of very distressed and worried members of the Fast Pensions scheme had contacted you, while those four hundred worried members have not directly contacted FAST PENSIONS itself. I cannot comment on how many worried members have directly contacted Sara and Peter Moat (masquerading as “James Porter”) direct.  Many may have attempted to do so but the Moats have made this impossible by disabling their website and emails and not answering their phones.  Their claims that the website, email and phone number have all been hit by a “mystery virus” are simply not credible.

    As a consequence of the alleged existing claims you contacted Mr. James Porter, the person in charge of leading with any pension queries for Fast Pensions and that has nothing to do with Mr. Moat, despite your suggestions of identifying them as the same person.  That is not correct.  Peter Moat contacted me, pretending to be “James Porter”.

     

    Anyhow, and after being correctly assisted by Mr. Porter, you claimed that he takes days to respond and you interpreted that as a “deliberate attempt to make it difficult to contact anyone at Fast Pensions”, which is untrue, since all queries have been responded to and dealt with quickly. I am afraid you do not know the facts.  Numerous victims have attested to the fact that their desperate pleas to transfer out have been ignored.

    If there were clients with concerns they would contact FAST PENSIONS in the First instance to get these resolve.  Why don’t you try contacting Fast Pensions and let me know how “fast” they respond?  A journalist tried to contact them just now and got this response: Your message wasn’t delivered to james.porter@fastpensions.co.ukbecause the domain fastpensions.co.uk couldn’t be found.

     

    Moreover, in the Article you have made several statements that make Mr. Peter Moat, Ms. Sara Moat, FAST PENSIONS and all of Mr. Peter Moats companies look like a scam. Then I have done my job properly.  They are all a scam.

    For example, by trying to link Mr. and Ms. Moat as well as FAST PENSIONS to Mr. Sthephen Ward. Also, and more seriously, you stated that you are afraid that the professional environment of Mr. and Ms. Moat “has undeniably got all the hallmarks of a typical, bog standard scam”. And you insisted: “It looks, feels, smells like a scam”.  And I stand by all of that.  And so does the Pensions Ombudsman.

     

    As a consequence thereof, there are actually a huge number of parties affected by the Article, Peter Moat and his associated companies, Ms. Moat and FAST PENSIONS. The unjustified reputational damage caused by the Article is generating huge financial damages and is putting Mr. Peter Moat and his companies in danger of losing business interests and opportunities.  Perhaps you would like to ask some of the victims how they feel about poor Mr. and Mrs. Moat losing business interests and opportunities?

     

    Based on all the foregoing, and without prejudice to the express reservation of legal actions that correspond to my clients, through this communication you are FORMALLY REQUIRED TO IMMEDIATELY REMOVE THE ARTICLE FROM THE WEBSITE AND STOP DISSEMINATING IT THROUGH INTERNET.  I will happily reach an agreement with you Monica: you get Sara and Peter Moat to return all the victims’ pensions to them immediately  – in full plus interest – and I will remove the article.

     

    Otherwise, we will be forced to exercise the corresponding judicial actions, especially criminal ones, to protect our clients in defense of his freedom and other rights that protect them.  I hope you will exercise criminal judicial actions against your clients who have scammed hundreds of victims out of their pensions.  Meanwhile, a little friendly advice – as a Spanish lawyer you clearly do not understand UK law, so please tread very carefully.  You clearly do not know the facts and are in danger of defending a party which has clearly contravened UK law and compromising your own standing as a legal practitioner in Spain.

     

    Sincerely,

     

    Mònica Caellas

    Advocada

     

    Aribau 198, planta 5                 José Abascal 56, planta 6

    08036 Barcelona                       28003 Madrid

    Tel. 0034 934 152 244              Tel. 0034 913 103 008

    Fax 0034 934 160 693              Fax 0034 913 915 158

     

    www.molins-silva.com

     

  • HOW TO SPOT A SCAMMER (FOR DUMMIES)

    HOW TO SPOT A SCAMMER (FOR DUMMIES)

    Al Rush, Henry Tapper, Darren Cooke, Steve Webb and Michelle Cracknell

    Knowing how to spot a scammer is half the battle in the fight against pension and investment scams.  And my idol and hero in this fight is Darren Cooke of Red Circle Financial Planning.  Armed with his petition calling for a cold-calling ban, he quickly became a t.v. star and National celebrity.

    UPDATE: Cold-calling has still not been fully banned!! (20/11/2018)

    Last week, on Monday 19th June 2017 (the week of the dreaded Ark trial) I had the privilege to attend the Great Pension Transfer Debate in Peterborough – organised by the amazing Al Rush and chaired by the awesome Henry Tapper.  There I met a few people I already knew but also got to meet Darren Cooke in person and tried hard not to graze my knees as I groveled humbly before him.  I also met some other wonderful professionals and heard some wonderful speakers – not the least of which were Sir Steve Webb and Michelle Cracknell.

    But – and I mean no disrespect to the event and it’s organisers – all the excellent things which were said during the presentations depended entirely on the quality and honourability of the advice given.  With only one notable exception, the event was attended by the ethical, qualified, regulated cohort of the profession.  But, of course, out in the field there are sharks and shysters by the dozen – both in the UK and offshore.

    In fact, this event was a world away from the world I live and work in.  The attendees of this event were the cream of the financial services profession; those who pride themselves in being ethical, honest and conscientious.  Most of the people there already had reputations for maintaining the highest possible standards of professional excellence, respecting the law and regulations, and actually caring about their clients.  But I felt like a fish out of water, because generally I am dealing with criminals who have deliberately and callously ruined thousands of lives – some of whom are now, thank goodness, under official investigation by the SFO.

    I asked the question “could all the scammers identify themselves” – and while this produced a few chuckles, it produced not a single (or the single) hand.  And thereby lies the problem: how does the public distinguish between the ethical guys and the scammers?  The scammers wear the same clothes; talk the same talk; have the same leather-bound portfolios and briefcases and sport the same smart hair cuts.  They probably have more go-faster stripes and fluffy dice on their Aston Martins, but other than that they are indistinguishable from the good guys.

    So, those in the know probably understand how to check qualification and regulation at the drop of a hat – but how does the ordinary man in the street – or on the Clapham Omnibus – know how to do that?  Does the public know that there are a few – very few I would add – regulated and qualified firms and individuals in the UK who are scammers?  (Ok, there are masses offshore, but let’s concentrate just on our mainland for the time being).

    And even if a member of the public does know how to do that, do they have any idea what else to check or verify? Again, the answer is: of course not.  So why don’t we start with the basics: the FCA register.  That ought to tell the enquirer whether a firm is regulated – but that is part of the problem: regulated for what exactly?  A firm which is regulated for insurance mediation is not regulated for pension or investment advice.  But the ordinary man in the street does not understand that.  Then you’ve got qualifications; looking up an individual on the CII register might show up a “student” member, but a member of the public might not know that is not the same thing as a qualified member.

    But then you have firms which are FCA regulated but which are still scammers – albeit very few to my knowledge (but still enough to cause sufficient damage to large numbers of victims).  And, of course, offshore it is simply “open season”.

    The creepy crawlies of the financial services world (ugh!)

    Rather than trying to figure out how to spot a scammer, perhaps we should have a go at deciding what constitutes a scam and work backwards from there.  The Cambridge dictionary defines a scam as “an illegal plan for making money, especially one that involves tricking people“

    The Business Dictionary defines a scam as “A fraudulent scheme performed by a dishonest individual, group, or company in an attempt to obtain money or something else of value. Scams traditionally resided in confidence tricks, where an individual would misrepresent themselves as someone with skill or authority, i.e. a doctor, lawyer, investor”

    The classic financial services scam consists of an individual who purports to be a qualified adviser who is part of a firm which is licensed in the appropriate jurisdiction to provide the advice required – normally something to do with pensions and/or investments.  Then the adviser, who has by now claimed to be “fully” qualified and regulated, will sell the unsuspecting client a scheme and/or investment which is not appropriate for their agreed risk profile.  Often the word “independent” has gone out of the window, because the adviser will merely invest the client into whatever pays the adviser himself the most commission – and sometimes that is even his own fund for which he is promoter or distributor.

    There are many variations on this theme – and many peripheral scammers providing cold-calling, lead generation and marketing services and loan facilities as well as spurious “introducers” which pose as quasi advisers.  And then there are the accountants who sell tax-avoidance investment schemes and employee benefit trusts – resulting in heavy losses and tax liabilities.  And then there are the UCIS providers peddling such rubbish such as collapsible holiday flats in an obscure part of Africa; oblong bits of tarmac not too far from an airport; truffle tree plantations; recycling inventions and empty tin cans.

    If we keep it simple for now: how does the ordinary man in the street or on the Bakerloo Line check out a UK-based financial adviser?  First check his qualifications; second check out that his firm is regulated by the FCA to provide the service being sought i.e. pension and/or investment advice; third ask for evidence of professional indemnity insurance; fourth check the solvency of the firm.

    If the advisory firm goes bust and the client loses a large amount of money, the maximum the client can claim from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme is £50,000 for investments.  The best place to check solvency is Companies House where you can look up a company’s accounts and see how profitable and solvent it is.  And then ask yourself whether you want to take financial advice from a firm which can’t even look after it’s own finances.

    One example is an advisory firm in Guildford which has been trading for 21 years.  For twelve of those years the company has made a loss.  On total turnover of £11 million since it started trading, it has made a total profit of £36 thousand during the entire period.  Would you want that firm to advise you on your finances?

    So, my advice is check, check and check again.  And when you think you have exhausted all the checks, get a second opinion.  The information is out there – it is just a question of knowing where and how to look for it; what questions to ask and how to understand the answers.  And then you’ll be a man, my friend.  SMILEY FACE 🙂

    What is a Pension Scam?

  • HOLBORN ASSETS’ NEW CALCULATOR

    Holborn Assets’ Bob Parker needs a bit of help with his ‘rithmetic

    Holborn Assets has been trying to calculate how much victim Glynis Broadfoot is due in compensation for loss to her pension fund invested by them for the past five years.  But it is an uphill struggle and I am not entirely sure that poor old Bob Parker hasn’t either lost his marbles altogether, or never actually did maths in the first place. Either way I’ve decided to buy him a new calculator.

    Let’s look at the maths – they are quite straightforward.  When Holborn Assets first approached Mrs. Broadfoot, they promised her a “free” pension transfer from her final salary scheme with her local authority employer into a QROPS with Gower Pensions.  They assured her this was in her best interests.

    Five years and thousands of sleepless nights later, Mrs. Broadfoot has watched the value of her pension fund sink relentlessly while Holborn Assets has showed not a drop of concern and even refused to talk to her about it.  They have said “the case is closed”.

    To give them their due, Holborn Assets has now at last started coming to the table and have been making offers of compensation for Mrs. Braodfoot’s losses.  They started at thruppence and have now upped their offer to £35,000. But let’s have a look at the maths:

     

    Original cash equivalent transfer = £195,105

    Actual transfer = £146,379

    Big chunk of money inexplicably got lost = £48,726

    At a cautious low-risk growth of 4% per year, pension should now be worth £178,000

    But Mrs. Broadfoot has £106,730 left of her pension thanks to Holborn Assets

    So, even forgetting the £48k that Holborn “lost”, Mrs. Broadfoot needs £71,270 to put her back to where she should be.  And then there is compensation for the damage this has done to her health for five years.

    So come on Bob, do the maths!  We all know Paul Reynolds is making you a fortune so you can afford to pay proper compensation to your victim.

    And another thing, Holborn Assets is using cold-calling scammers in Manchester to sign up more victims.  Here in Spain, the leads generated by this scam are followed up by Holborn Assets salesman Jason Ryder who purports to have an office in Barcelona and another one in Marbella.

    Just hope it is not bank of Dunlop!

    Now, come on Uncle Bob, you know Holborn Assets has no license to operate in Spain or provide financial, pension or investment advice here.  That is how Mrs. Broadfoot got scammed in the first place and lost such a huge chunk of her pension.  So cold calling, scamming, destroying pensions, offering derisory compensation, ignoring a victim’s pleas for help…..not very nice.  Get your chequebook out mate!

    Finally, how is Paul Reynolds doing?  I met him at your office in 2015 you know.  He is quite handsome.  I hear he is your best salesmen which is why you won’t get rid of him – he is making you so much money.

    And what about your 40+ other “consultants”?  Don’t any of them care about your firm’s professional reputation?

     

     

     

     

  • STM GROUP: THE TRAFALGAR MULTI ASSET PENSION INVESTMENT SCAM

    STM GROUP: THE TRAFALGAR MULTI ASSET PENSION INVESTMENT SCAM

    No image for now.

    It is rare for me to say nothing.  On this occasion, STM Group has stated they are going to stick their heads in the sand and zip their lips. They have facilitated a financial crime…….OK, enough said.  For now. I will leave it to STM Group/Fidecs to decide what goes into this blog.  They have until close of play tomorrow, Friday 26th May.  Then we can either deal with this discreetly and privately – or we can do it all publicly.  With every sordid detail exposed in the public domain, to the regulators, the police (who are already investigating, with victims making their reports to the Serious Fraud Office) and the press.  And, of course, the Stock Market.  Your call STM.  Silence is not golden.  It is distinctly brown.  Get your lawyers to talk to me if you want, but let these victims have some answers if you have any conscience.