Tag: Pensions Ombudsman

British Steelworker – SIPPS Pension Scam Victim

I am saddened to write about the first (but probably not the last) British Steelworker who has fallen victim to an investment scam as well as a pension scam. The British Steelworker was persuaded to transfer his DB pension AND invest £35,000 of his personal saving into an unregulated fund – Dolphin Trust (in Germany).

More and more, we are seeing innocent, hardworking individuals falling victim to pension scams due to their pension funds being invested in unregulated, high-risk, illiquid investments. It is just a matter of time before these unsuitable investments leave victims’ pension funds in tatters.

Mike Pickett, a British Steelworkers, had his savings loaned to an unregulated German property development company called Dolphin Trust. This was courtesy of (now collapsed) IFA firm Active Wealth. Mike not only transferred his pension fund, but also his life savings. His pension funds went into a SIPPS which then found their way to Gallium Fund Solutions.

Mike’s non-pension savings then went through Active Wealth into Dolphin Trust GmbH, which specialises in the development of German-listed buildings and promises 10% returns on investment. He says he was unaware that he was signed up to a fixed term payment (minimum 2 years) and of the associated 5% exit penalty to withdraw money from Gallium early.

Dolphin Trust IS NOT regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.

The way victims were lured into this scheme is more than a little questionable. It is also somewhat confusing as to who was actually responsible for investing Mike’s funds. Much little like an traditional fable, the storyline seems to shift to ensure the blame can be passed where necessary.

It all started with a presentation made to British Steel Workers via Celtic Wealth. How on earth are these people were able to make a presentation to innocent victims-to-be for an UNREGULATED investment is beyond me. Especially when Celtic Wealth was not authorised to provide investment advice.

And here’s where Active Wealth came in. Celtic Wealth claimed “All regulated advice in relation to pensions and investments is given by Active Wealth (UK) Ltd.”

After the presentation by Celtic Wealth, Mike Pickett claims to have spoken to Active Wealth adviser Andrew Deeney, and says he was visited at his home shortly thereafter by Deeney and a representative of Celtic Wealth. He had three meetings with Active Wealth in total – two of which he said were with Deeney.

Active Wealth has now surrendered its pension transfer permissions following FCA action in relation to advice given to steelworkers. Andrew Deeney, now sole director and shareholder of regulated IFA firm Fidelis Wealth Management, claims he has no relation to these investments.

No one wants to take the blame for these mis-sold investments. Yet all involved would have contributed to the demise of the pension funds – and earned fees and commissions along the way.

Transfers into self-invested personal pensions (SIPPS) dominated the pension transfer market in 2017, accounting for 51 percent of all transfers. It is worrying to consider what percentage of that figure is being transferred into unregulated, toxic investments.

The problem with pension scammers is that they are very good at disguising themselves. They wear smart clothes, they are friendly, knowledgeable and very very persuasive. They have a series of different scams disguised as a great investment – when one collapses they move onto another, just as Andrew Deeney has and the infamous Stephen Ward.

The first way of avoiding a possible scam is to reject all cold calling.

Never take a ‘free’ review on your pension.

Always check that the advisers and companies are regulated

Make sure you know ALL the facts

Low-risk high return investment – THEY DO NOT EXIST

Too good to be true – it probably is

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

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.

April 12, 2018
OMI complaint
COMPLAINT TO OMI, THE ISLE OF MAN FINANCIAL SERVICES AUTHORITY, THE CENTRAL BANK OF IRELAND, FINANCIAL SERVICES AND PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN AND THE ASSOCIATION OF INTERNATIONAL LIFE OFFICES

ATTENTION:

Martin Middleton, CEO

Michael Hampson
Complaints Handler | Complaints Team | Old Mutual International

T: 44 (0) 1624 655451 | Int Ext: 75451
F: 44 (0) 1624 611715
E: omifmcomplaints@ominternational.com | W: www.oldmutualinternational.com

Isle of Man Financial Services Authority
PO Box 58
Finch Hill House
Douglas
Isle of Man
IM99 1DT

info@iomfsa.im

GeneralMailbox.ATG@gov.im

Central Bank of Ireland:

enquiries@centralbank.ie

Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman

Lincoln House, Lincoln Place, Dublin 2, D02 VH29. Tel: (01) 567 7000 Email: info@fspo.ie Website: www.fspo.ie

AILO – Association of International Life Offices

secretariat@ailo.org

COMPLAINT REGARDING OMI’S NEGLIGENCE, FAILED GOVERNANCE AND FACILITATION OF FINANCIAL CRIME – European Executive Investment Bond (EEIB)

OMI has facilitated financial crime over a period of many years; stood by while innocent victims’ retirement savings were destroyed; paid huge commissions to an unlicensed (and illegal in Spain) firm of scammers; continued charging crippling fees while victims’ funds dwindled away; extorted early exit penalties from victims unfairly and unreasonably; failed to take any action to stem the torrent of huge losses of millions of pounds’ worth of retirement savings for many years. And now it is failing to uphold the victims’ complaints.

OMI has been in receipt of a number of complaints (and will be in receipt of numerous further ones) regarding their negligence and facilitation of financial crime in offshore financial services. OMI has not upheld these complaints – and indeed has neglected to grasp the extent of their own multiple failings and errors.

The existing complaints do relate to serious regulatory breaches and fraud – as well as failing to adhere to OMI’s own terms and conditions. Much of the fraud was caused by the financial advisory firm: Continental Wealth Trust (which traded as Continental Wealth Management). However, the firm’s fraud was only successful because OMI facilitated it.

The complaints submitted to date include:
- That investments were made into high-risk professional-investor-only funds. Many of these failed and caused huge losses to victims’ funds.
- That OMI paid commissions/fees to CWM who not only held no investment licence – but also held no license of any kind.
- As a result of the huge, un-disclosed commission paid to CWM – an unlicensed firm – OMI imposes crippling early surrender charges on the victims.
OMI has responded that they are “very sympathetic to victims’ concerns” and has responded that it appreciates what a very worrying time this must be for those who have lost such huge amounts of their life savings.

OMI has also stated that the roles and responsibilities of all the parties involved with this fraud have got to be clarified. However, OMI claims – entirely disingenuously – it does not want victims to get the feeling it is trying to distance itself from the grievances.

In order to address what it refers to as “concerns”, OMI has attempted to “explain” matters. The use of the word “concerns” is obviously a really crass clanger on the part of OMI, since the victims are absolutely not just CONCERNED – they are furious, terrified and devastated at their dreadful losses. Some victims are suicidal, and many have had their health seriously compromised.

OMI has described the EEIB as being held by the trustee for the benefit of a member of their pension scheme, enabling policyholders to hold a “wide range of investments in one tax-efficient product wrapper”. OMI goes on to claim that policyholders and their investment advisers “have complete flexibility over the investments they place inside the EEIB”.

Some or all of the above may be true. However, that does not make it right that OMI has allowed unlicensed advisers to place clearly unsuitable investments inside their wrappers. Further, it does not make it right that OMI then stood by and watched the investments fail for many years AND DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING EXCEPT KEEP ON TAKING FEES BASED ON THE ORIGINAL VALUE – AND NOT THE REDUCED VALUE OF THE FUND.

OMI claims that it reviews all investments to ensure they meet Irish regulatory requirements, and their own administration requirements.

If this is indeed true, it is a very serious indictment of the Irish regulator if their requirements are so appallingly lax. What OMI seems to be claiming is that both the Central Bank of Ireland and OMI have such low standards that they will allow low-risk pension savers to have their retirement funds invested purely in high-risk, professional-investor-only structured notes. If this is true, then the regulator is as bad as OMI in condoning an investment strategy which has no regard for suitability, liquidity, diversity and risk tolerance.

In fact, the Central Bank of Ireland has stated that it carried out a review of suitability requirements in 2017 and found that: “governance structures for the identification and treatment of vulnerable clients were absent or ineffective”. The CWM victims were about as vulnerable as it was possible to get – as their retirement savings were systematically and inexorably destroyed. And OMI’s governance structure was about as absent and ineffective as it is possible to get while it stood by and didn’t even bother to raise a red flag on the whole disaster as it unfolded.

There was no jangling of alarm bells as OMI watched millions of pounds wiped out. There was no expression of concern that the same toxic structured notes which had failed in earlier years were bought again and again by the same unlicensed scammers. There was no governance to protect new vulnerable victims from having their funds destroyed from 2015 onwards in the same way hundreds of victims had suffered in previous years.

OMI has claimed that customers/their appointed advisers are responsible for the suitability assessment and selection of the investments held in the policy – and that “it is important that customers read the prospectus/offering documents of investments carefully, before making any investment decisions”. However, OMI watched wholesale destruction taking place inside its own wrappers and took no action. Had OMI asked a few simple questions they would have found the following:
1. The victims were being advised by a known firm of scammers which had been involved in cold calling in the Evergreen pension liberation scam in 2012
2. The victims were being advised by a firm which was not licensed at all – for anything
3. The victims had ALL insisted they wanted either low risk or no risk investments as they could not afford to lose any part of their retirement savings
4. The victims had no idea their retirement savings were being invested in high-risk, professional-investor-only structured notes
5. The victims’ signatures were repeatedly forged on the dealing instructions
6. The victims were duped into a false sense of security when losses started to be reported on their statements by the scammers claiming these were not genuine losses but only “paper losses”
7. The victims had no idea how high the charges and commissions were as these were not disclosed either by the scammers or by OMI
8. The victims were not consulted as to whether they wanted or needed an entirely useless and exorbitantly expensive insurance bond
9. The victims were unaware that tied agents are illegal in Spain
10. The victims were unaware of the huge fees and commissions which were concealed by both the scammers and OMI
OMI claims that term 12 of the EEIB policy terms states that it is the policyholder who bears the risk of investment. But then OMI goes on to assert that the policyholder was the trustee who would be classed as a professional investor.

So OMI has got to make up its mind – it has already stated that: “customers/their appointed advisers are responsible for the suitability assessment and selection of the investments held in the policy”. So who is the customer? The victim or the trustee? And whom did the adviser advise – the customer or the trustee? Or OMI?

OMI goes on to refer to term 11.4 of the policy which confirms that it may allow investment into professional or experienced investor funds because it owns the investments held within the EEIB, rather than the policyholder.

So, who gave the advice and to whom? OMI can’t seem to make up its mind who the customer is: the victim; the trustee or OMI itself. If OMI is the customer, why is it charging the victim fees?

OMI goes on to quote policy term 11.4.1 – which apparently clearly highlights that professional-investor-only funds carry a high degree of risk. So who is taking the risk? The victim, the trustee or OMI?

Let us ask ourselves, where did the original funds come from? Not the trustee; not OMI; but the victim.

OMI then procedes to claim that it will “only accept applications via regulated financial advisers”. But Inter-Alliance was not licensed to provide investment advice – or indeed insurance advice. CWM was not licensed either. So why did OMI accept applications from unlicensed advisors (who were also known scammers)? Also, OMI failed to identify that tied (insurance) agents are illegal in Spain – so it shouldn’t have been dealing with them at all – let alone paying them huge commissions.

OMI states that CWM was a member of Inter-Alliance WorldNet, and obtained their authorization to act via that membership. But this is not true – Inter-Alliance was not licensed and therefore neither was CWM. The application form may, in some cases, have confirmed the appointment of CWM as investment adviser with full discretion – but why didn’t OMI check that CWM was licensed? In fact, most of the victims were under the impression that they would be consulted on the investments and that their risk tolerance would be respected – but this never happened in any of the cases.

OMI goes on to claim that CWM was able to submit investment instructions directly to OMI, without consulting the trustees. But that isn’t true either: dealing instructions were sent to the trustees first, and then the trustees sent on new instructions. How can OMI not even know how its own internal systems work?

OMI concludes that it is sorry the complaining investor is “disappointed with the performance of some of the investments selected by CWM” and then goes on to claim the investments “met the criteria for a permitted asset under the EEIB policy terms”.

So who at OMI was responsible for writing and updating EEIB policy terms? Did this person not notice the losses repeatedly decimating the funds? Did this person not see the same investment failures repeating in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017? Did this person not question whether the policy terms ought to be revised somewhat? The answer to these questions is, inevitably, a resounding and disgraceful “NO”.

OMI is now refusing to refund or waive early withdrawal charges on the basis that CWM was an appointed investment adviser. This is because OMI initially paid a big chunk of commission to CWM – an unlicensed adviser and known scammer. If a victim wants to get out of the toxic, pointless insurance wrapper, in order to put a stop to the exorbitant fees taken quarterly out of the fund – and based on the original value rather than the decimated value of the fund – he basically has to refund the commission OMI paid to the scammers.

The victims remain dissatisfied with OMI’s response, and the complaint is now being referred to the Irish Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman. OMI has deliberately misunderstood and overlooked every aspect of the victims’ complaints and failed to address even the most basic issues surrounding OMI’s failures and negligence.

OMI has facilitated financial crime over a period of many years; stood by while innocent victims’ retirement savings were destroyed; paid huge commissions to an unlicensed (and illegal in Spain) firm of scammers; continued charging crippling fees while victims’ funds dwindled away; extorted early exit penalties from victims unfairly and unreasonably; failed to take any action to stem the torrent of huge losses of millions of pounds’ worth of retirement savings for many years. And now it is failing to uphold the victims’ complaints.
February 22, 2018
What is a Pension Scam?
There are many different types of pension scam – just as there are many types of genuine pension scheme. This can sometimes make it difficult to tell the difference so we are her to help you inform you about, what is a pension scam.

Fortunately, there are some common tell-tale signs that mean you could spot a scam and avoid it:
- Cold calling: always be suspicious of a cold caller. This can come as a text, phone call, email or even a smart-looking individual at your door!
  - Some cold callers may even imply that they are from the government or another government-backed organisation.
  - THIS WOULD NEVER HAPPEN!
- Hard sell: when your smart-looking/sounding “adviser” won’t take “no” for an answer and pressurises you into an on-the-spot decision
- No land-line contact phone number: the only contact they give consists of an email, mobile or PO Box address
- Use of words like ‘pension liberation’, ‘loan’, ‘loophole’, ‘free pension review’ or ‘one-off investment’
- Unrealistic claims:
  - You can unlock your pension before 55
  - Promises of tax advantages
  - investment is ‘unique’, ‘overseas’, ‘environmentally friendly’, ‘ethical’ or in a ‘new’ industry
- Low risk but high return investments (THEY DON’T EXIST!!)
What the scammers don’t tell you is that taking any part of your pension early (before 55 years of age) DOES result in tax charges. These charges can be up to 55% of the amount you take – even if you were told it was a “loan”.

With HMRC on your back for this tax demand, it will be hard to remember the pleasure of the money you received. Plus, whilst you are distracted with your tax demand from HMRC, it is likely that the rest of your pension fund is taking a nasty tumble.

Pension scams can involve various types of pension arrangements from QROPS and QNUPS to occupational schemes and SIPPS. These arrangements are not, in their own right, bad. However, if they are used for unsuitable investments, they most certainly can be. Know about these investments means you will know about what is a pension scam.

The investments inside the schemes can range from high-risk, professional-investor-only structured notes to toxic, illiquid, risky UCIS funds (Unregulated Collective Investment Scheme – illegal to be promoted to UK residents). Whilst these types of investments are not illegal in their own right, they are only suitable for certain people with deep pockets and sound investment experience. Or, alternatively, they are totally unsuitable for pension funds – full stop.

When taking advice on transferring your pension fund you should always ensure the adviser you choose is either based in the UK OR in the country you reside/plan to reside in. Alternatively, you must make sure the adviser is regulated and qualified for pension and investment advice in the jurisdiction where you reside.

Some of the pension scams that we are aware of are Ark, Capita Oak, Evergreen QROPS, Henley Retirement Benefit Scheme, Westminster, Trafalgar Multi Asset Fund, Continental Wealth Management (CWM), London Quantum. The underlined scams are being investigated by the FCA.

The 5 pointers from the Pension Regulator are:
1. If you think you’ve been scammed – act immediately
2. Cold called about your pension? Hang up!
3. 3. Deals ‘too good’ to be true
4. 4. Using an adviser? Make sure they’re registered with the FCA
5. 5. Don’t let a friend talk you into an investment – check everything yourself
For more details please see their web page

Image from https://www.actionfraud.police.uk/news/scamproof-your-savings-mar15

If you’ve already signed something you’re now unsure about, contact your pension provider straight away. They might be able to stop a transfer that hasn’t taken place yet.

If you think you’ve been targeted by an investment scam, please report it to the FCA using their reporting form.

If you have lost money to a suspected investment fraud, you should report it to Action Fraud on 0300 123 2040 or online at www.ActionFraud.police.uk.

The FCA has launched a new campaign ScamSmart.

If you have doubts about what to do, ask The Pensions Advisory Service (TPAS) for help. Call them on 0300 123 1047 or visit the TPAS website for free pensions advice and information.

Beware of being targeted in the future, particularly if you lost money to a scam. Fraudulent companies might take advantage of this and offer to help you get some or all of your money back.

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

With out due diligence and knowledge you often won´t realise that you are the victim of a pension scam until its too late. Its best to have the knowledge so you can tell what is a pension scam and what is a genuine pension scheme.

Therefore, Pension Life has written a series of blogs about pensions, pension scammers and how to safe guard your pension fund from fraudsters. Please make sure you read as many as possible and ensure you know everything you should about your pension fund. If we can educated the masses about pension fraud we can stop the scammers in their tracks – worldwide.

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

Here at Pension Life we are noticing a new type of pension scam – Fractional Scamming – please read our blog about this type of scam.

Follow Pension Life on twitter to keep up with all things pension related, good and bad.
February 8, 2018
Why are so many working people losing their pension funds?

Debbie Abrahams takes a stand in parliament, raising the question of, “how many more pensions scandals does she (Esther McVey, Secretary of State, Work and Pensions) need before she introduces the robust regulatory oversight needed to protect peoples’ pensions for the future?“

Debbie Abrahams (pictured) has been a Member of Parliament for Oldham East and Saddleworth since her by-election victory in January 2011. Debbie was a member of the Work & Pensions Select Committee from June 2011-March 2015 , where she led the call for an independent inquiry into the Government’s punitive New Sanctions Regime. In June 2016 she was appointed Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

During Work & Pensions Questions, Debbie stated “100´s of 1000´s of ordinary working people have lost half of their retirement income.” Mentioning British Steel Pension Schemes (BSPS), Carillion, BHS and Capita, she goes on to highlight the government´s failure in tackling pensions governance.

BSPS were pushed into the Pension Protection Fund, the government lifeboat for failed schemes in December 2017. 122,000 members were given just months to make the decision of where to go with their precious pension funds. They had the choice to stay with the scheme, join a new one with reduced benefits set up by Tata Steel, or transfer to a personal pension plan. The Guardian reports further on this stating that, “those who do not make a decision will default into the PPF.”

The Independent released an article about the collapse of Carillion: Carillion was put into liquidation in January 2018 after racking up debts of around £900m and a pension deficit thought to be at least £587m.

The collapse of Carillion has left hundreds of workers redundant and their pension funds in tatters.

BHS had 19,000 members and a combined £571m deficit when the company went into administration in April 2016. Again reported by The Guardian, we can at least be thankful that:
Domonic Chappell is being prosecuted by The Pensions Regulator (TPR) in the latest fallout from the demise of BHS, which he bought for £1 from retail tycoon Sir Philip Green in 2015.

With all this pension turmoil, the path is paved with gold for the serial pension scammers, such as ex CWM employees.

The Financial Times reported that: The Financial Conduct Authority is investigating allegations that steelworkers at Tata UK’s plant in Port Talbot were being targeted by unscrupulous pension transfer advisers. British Steel pension fund trustees have received requests for around 11,000 quotes for pension transfers. With promises of low risk and high returns on the investments, who knows how many peope have fallen victim to these vultures already?

We at Pension Life would also like to know why the government has not put in place tighter regulations on pensions to combat pension scammers. New laws need to be introduced so hard working and trusting citizens aren’t left with decimated pension funds.

We can at least be thankful that the SFO and the Pensions Regulator are pushing forward at the High Court and bringing some pension scammers to justice.

February 7, 2018
Pension Scams: Investigations and prosecutions by SFO

The Serious Fraud Office has written to Frank Field – Chairman of the Pensions Select Committee. The SFO was responding to Frank’s request for details about pension fraud cases prosecuted by the SFO and about the fraudsters’ various scamming techniques.

It is obviously essential to recognise and understand these techniques so that police authorities, regulators, HMRC, the Insolvency Service and the government understand how these crimes work. They need to know how the criminals think, plan, scheme and execute their crimes. It is even more important to publish these details to educate and warn the public as to how to avoid becoming victim to existing and future scams.

The SFO reported two cases and described how they worked:

Sustainable Agroenergy (SAE) Plc, investors were told their investments were in biofuel products, that land was owned in Cambodia and planted with Jatropha trees – a tree with highly toxic fruit that could be used to produce biofuel.

Investors were told there was an insurance policy in place to protect the investments if the crops failed. There was already documented research to show that the Jatropha tree, was not as fruitful as originally thought. Gary West, James Whale and Stuart Stone, were convicted of fraud and bribery offences and sentenced to a total of 28 years imprisonment. They were given confiscation orders totaling £1.36m – most of which has now been paid and distributed on a pro-rata basis to investors eligible for compensation. Details of compensation.

In the Arck LLP case (not to be confused with the ARK pension liberation scam) the fraudsters promised investments would be used for a scheme to develop holiday resorts in Cape Verde. With assurances that the funds were in secure bank accounts which would not leave the UK, Arck LLP later forged statements to mislead investors about the losses.

Clay and Clark – the Arck fraudsters – pleaded guilty to charges of fraud and forgery. Clay was sentenced to 10 years and 10 months in prison, while Clark, was sentenced to two years in prison. Confiscation Orders of £344,244.07 and £178,522 were made against Clay and Clark respectively. To date, the SFO has recovered over £500,000 and is currently identifying potential victims for compensation.

The SFO is also conducting investigations into Capita Oak Pension and Henley Retirement Benefit Scheme, various Self-Invested Personal Pensions (SIPPS) as well as other storage pod investment schemes. This investigation also includes the Westminister Pension Scheme and the Trafalgar Multi Asset Fund.

It is thought that over a thousand individual investors have been affected by this alleged fraud.

The amounts invested in these scams totals over £120m.

Around 300 victims of the Capita Oak scheme were given “Thurlstone” loans operated by scammer XXXX XXXX. Now victims face crippling tax bills from HMRC as the loans are deemed to be unauthorised payments.

The Henley Retirement Benefit scheme is the sister scheme to Capita Oak. Both schemes were administered by Stephen Ward of Premier Pension Solutions and Premier Pension transfers.

Westminister Pension Scheme: Stephen Ward AGAIN!

Trafalgar Multi Asset Fund: hundreds of victims have been affected by this toxic, high risk UCIS fund (Unregulated Collective Investment Scheme) which is illegal to be promoted to UK residents. All these victims were “advised” by unlicensed XXXX XXXX to transfer into an STM Fidecs QROPS and then invest 100% of their funds in Trafalgar – his own fund.

How, you may be asking, are these people getting away with scam after scam? Especially Stephen Ward. His company, Premier Pension Solutions(PPS) has close connections with ARK, Evergreen Retirement Trust Qrops, CWM, Headforte, Southlands, London Quantum to name just a few. Ward is a clever “chameleon”, hiding his past scams and reinventing himself each time with ever changing new skins.

A common feature in a number of these frauds is the offer to investors of an unrealistically higher or secured rate of return. Pension Life has many members who have suffered at the hands of not just the schemes listed above but also the repeat fraudsters operating them.

Some victims are facing more than a 73% LOSS! on their pension investments. Others are facing huge tax bills from HMRC.

Click here for more blogs by Pension Life on other groups involved.

January 9, 2018
Scorpion Campaign and Henry Tapper

The Scorpion Campaign was the Pensions Regulator’s attempt to warn the public and the industry against pension liberation scams. It wasn’t a bad try, but it failed. It was a bit like trying to stop a herd of stampeding elephants with a whoopee cushion.

Henry Tapper, pensions actuary and dedicated blogger on pensions, posted this:

https://henrytapper.com/2015/07/20/trust-me-im-a-scorpion/

The problem is that many pension trustees don’t take any notice. They didn’t back in 1999 when HMRC and tPR (then OPRA) first warned trustees about pension liberation fraud. They didn’t in 2003 when the first two liberation fraudsters – Steve Russell and William Ferguson – were jailed. They didn’t in 2010 and 2011 when the huge tide of Ark and Tudor Capital Management transfer requests into bogus occupational schemes were processed without so much the tiniest flicker of curiosity or interest. They didn’t in 2012 when 300 transfers into Capita Oak were made – even though the sponsoring employer didn’t exist. When the Scorpion Campaign was launched in February 2013, the trustees carried on making transfers into Capita Oak and the sister scam, Westminster (with the same non-existent sponsoring employer).

Now here’s the puzzling thing: didn’t the Pensions Regulator notice that their Scorpion Campaign was failing? Usually, when time, effort and money are invested in an important project, there is some sort of measuring process deployed to see how effective and successful the project is and to examine whether any improvements or reinforcements are needed. Clearly not in the case of tPR and Scorpion, because the same old same old scammers were allowed to keep registering pension schemes and becoming trustees and administrators of “occupational” scams obviously designed to defraud innocent victims.

Don’t take my word for it though. https://www.ftadviser.com/2016/07/05/pensions/pension-scheme-gets-dressing-down-from-regulator-bZo5EVFahYzEFkvNsF8jdK/article.html

In particular, the regulator issued a damning assessment of the scheme’s former trustee, Dorrixo Alliance, and its director Stephen Ward.

So, didn’t anybody at the Pensions Regulator (or HMRC for that matter) notice that Stephen Ward had become trustee of the doomed London Quantum “occupational” scheme (now in the hands of Dalriada Trustees)? Didn’t the memory of Ark, Evergreen, Capita Oak, Westminster and dozens of other liberation scams run by Ward and Dorrixo ring any bells? Didn’t London Quantum’s address: 31 Memorial Road, Worsley cause a sharp intake of breath?

The answer to all of the above is, of course, a resounding “no”. The Scorpion Campaign’s warnings were ignored 96 times in 2014 in the London Quantum case. Negligent, lazy and incompetent trustees handed over a total of £6.8 million to an obvious scam which had all the hallmarks of Ward’s handiwork – including the fact that it was registered to Ward’s UK address. But not a single one of the trustees heeded tPR’s Scorpion warning – including the trustees of the Police pension scheme.

My advice to the Pensions Regulator, is to put the whoopee cushion away. It doesn’t work. The stampeding elephants are too big and too determined. And don’t just knit a bigger whoopee cushion either – ban cold calling and put the scammers behind bars. Then spend some money on advertising (after all, the government found £10m to spend on the Remain campaign – which was arguably a complete waste of money).

And by the way, the Regulator’s “dressing down” was a complete waste of time. It might just as well have been a formal dressing gown for all the effect it had.

October 18, 2016
Justice Morgan’s Mad Mistake: Donna-Marie Hughes and Royal London Mutual Insurance Society
JUSTICE MORGAN’S MAD MISTAKE

(IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, CHANCERY DIVISION)

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

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

Dear Justice Morgan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards, Angie Brooks
October 13, 2016
Edward Troup HMRC’S Role in Six-Year Pension Liberation Fraud
Edward Troup 11^th March 2016

Chief Executive’s Office

HM Revenue & Customs

100 Parliament Street

London SW1A 2BQ

Dear Mr. Troup

HMRC’S ROLE IN SIX-YEAR PENSION LIBERATION FRAUD

Congratulations on your appointment as head of HMRC. I am sure you will have a great deal of work on your plate cleaning up the many problems left behind by your predecessor Lin Homer, but I must ask you to address the issue of HMRC’s involvement in pension liberation fraud/unauthorised payment tax as a matter of priority.

I have asked HMRC and government ministers on numerous occasions to address the question of a tax amnesty for victims of pension liberation fraud. The answer has always come back that this would not be considered as it would “send out the wrong message”.

I must point out that HMRC and the government have already sent out a very clear message to the British public that Homer’s long series of professional disasters and incompetence have been rewarded with her being made a Dame; avoiding being sacked; receiving a handsome pension of £2.2 million. This was not just a “wrong” message, but a disgraceful one.

Further, the recent scandal of major corporations such as J. P. Morgan, Amazon, Google, Starbucks and Netflix being let off £ billions in tax has not only undermined the principles of national fiscal responsibility, but it has also sickened the public and brought disgrace on both HMRC and the government. Another “wrong” message which harks back to Homer’s equally inept predecessor, Dave Hartnet, who was caught doing cosy “sweetheart” deals over lunches with tax dodging corporations.

The catalogue of HMRC’s numerous blunders and failures is too long to go into here, and of course the message for many years has been that HMRC have forgotten that they are public servants, and have ignored their own taxpayers charter: “We want to give you a service that is fair, accurate and based on mutual trust and respect. We also want to make it as easy as we can for you to get things right.” That would be the right message if it were true. But, sadly, it isn’t.

Turning to the question of the tax amnesty for victims of pension liberation fraud, HMRC’s role in facilitating this massive, international financial crime has been significant and culpable. HMRC registered all the scams in the first place, deploying zero due diligence, responsibility or common sense. Then, when HMRC realised that they had been responsible for greasing the scammers’ wheels, they did nothing to de-register the schemes and prevent victims from being scammed. There is substantial irrefutable evidence that HMRC was repeatedly registering occupational schemes to known scammers – without any regard whatsoever to the obvious fact that the scammers habitually used the term “HMRC approved” to dupe the victims into believing that the schemes were legitimate. The message that this has sent out to the British public is that HMRC has not only been profoundly inept and irresponsible, but has also fuelled the suspicion that HMRC may even have been deliberately complicit in the scams since they have potentially raised many £ millions in tax revenues. This sends out the message that in fact HMRC is no better and no less culpable than the scammers themselves.

On 21 February 2014, Lin Homer emailed me to assure me she would be investigating HMRC’s failings and promised she would be taking the matter very seriously. She undertook to get back to me the following week. That was the last I heard from her – despite me emailing her many times in the past two years.

I trust you will ensure that appropriate sanctions are imposed on Homer for her abject failures and a full investigation undertaken to establish whether she has in fact been in league with the scammers. This would, of course, explain why so many schemes were repeatedly registered to the same, habitual scammers.

It would also explain another mystery. In June 2014, I handed evidence of a large number of pension liberation schemes being run by Stephen Ward – including the pension trustee firm Dorrixo Alliance which had registered many schemes with HMRC over a long period of time. One of the occupational pension schemes registered by Dorrixo Alliance was London Quantum. But neither HMRC nor tPR did anything about London Quantum and it was not de-registered – as it clearly should have been immediately.

In August 2014, a serving Police officer lost his Police pension fund to London Quantum. But it was not for a further year that tPR placed the scheme in the hands of Dalriada Trustees. The scheme was filled with the usual toxic, illiquid assets which would have earned handsome investment introduction commissions for the trustees, administrators and promoters.

In the case of the Store First store pod pension investment scandal, well over a thousand victims lost their pensions totalling over £100 million to a number of pension scams – including Capita Oak which was administered by Stephen Ward. Approximately half of this was paid out in commissions. But, instead of hounding the scammers who received these commissions, or Store First’s owner Toby Whittaker who paid them, HMRC will be pursuing the victims who liberated part of their pensions in the form of “loans”. Not only does this send out the wrong message, but it also raises the question as to what extent HMRC were indeed complicit in all of this financial crime.

I have sent out a questionnaire to hundreds of pension liberation scam victims asking them why they believed their pension loans were legal and tax compliant. The answers were pretty much all identical (and I will be sending you a summary separately): they were told there was no connection between the pension transfer and the loan and that the transaction would not trigger an unauthorised payment charge as it used a legitimate tax “loophole”. Many were told that the scheme was approved by HMRC and of course the HMRC registration certificate gave credence to that claim. The parties who “advised” the victims to enter into these scams included regulated and unregulated IFA’s; practising solicitors and accountants; various introducers and promoters; debt management consultants; mortgage and insurance brokers; and Stephen Ward – government consultant, former pensions examiner and author of Tolleys Pensions Taxation.

The claim by the government and HMRC that a tax amnesty for victims “would send out the wrong message” is absolute nonsense and an insult to all those who are existing victims of scams and all those who will now become victims as a result of Justice Morgan’s recent ruling. I know of not a single person who deliberately and consciously set out to liberate their pension in the full knowledge that it was not a tax-compliant transaction. Furthermore, ruining thousands of fraud victims with crippling tax liabilities will force many into bankruptcy and they will lose their homes. These people will then become dependent on State benefits for the rest of their lives – and the unauthorised payment tax collected will last a mere couple of years before the Treasury is out of pocket. On top of this, there will be the vast cost to the NHS of the long-term health problems these victims will inevitably suffer.

Please let me know what date will be convenient for an urgent meeting to discuss this and agree a solution. Just to be clear, the agenda will be to agree a tax amnesty for victims of financial crime facilitated by HMRC and to seek compensation for the damage that HMRC’s negligence has caused. At this meeting we will need to examine in depth the various issues surrounding HMRC’s role in pension liberation fraud during the past six years and explore some appropriate remedies.

For the avoidance of doubt, I set out below the key items:
- 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).
- Why did HMRC fail to 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 of pension scam victims for tax on transactions which could – and should – have been prevented had HMRC acted diligently. HMRC’s negligence must be acknowledged and this anomalous, unjust situation must be put right in accordance with HMRC’s own charter.
Yours sincerely

Angela Brooks – Chairman, Pension Life

c.c. Justice Morgan (Chancery Division); Steve Webb (Royal London); Ros Altmann (Pensions Minister); Andrew Warwick-Thompson (the Pensions Regulator); Boris Johnson (Mayor of London); David Gauke (Treasury Secretary); George Osborne (Chancellor)
April 1, 2016

KJK Investments Ltd. & G Loans Ltd. Another Pension Scam Revealed

Pension scams have been a very clear and present danger since large-scale pension liberation fraud was unleashed on British pension holders on A day. Victims lose a life time of savings and face onerous unauthorised payment tax charges of up to 55% by HMRC. The latest one to come to our attention is a pension liberation scam involving two companies: KJK Investments and G Loans.

G Loans received loans from KJK Investments Ltd. The interest on the loans was accrued so G loans were never able to pay back the loans. The 209 pension holders were awarded loans from G Loans while their pension funds were used to purchase shares in KJK Investments. These shares were purportedly estimated to grow at 6%.

As loans to G Loans had their interest accrued, G Loans were unable to repay the loans. This meant the shares in KJK Investments did not grow by the estimated 6%. There were 209 pension holders who invested a total £11.9m in KJK Investments shares with the hope of 6% investment gain. They also liberated some of their pension under what they were told was a legitimate pension liberation. Furthermore because of the non-commercial nature of the loans, as well as the high fees and commissions paid there was never any possibility of regaining the pension funds which were initially invested.

This was a scam from start to finish and has now been wound up by the High Court. Furthermore the 209 pension holders who liberated funds from their pensions are now facing up to 55% unauthorised payment tax charges.

Pension-life.com is helping some of these victims and appealing the tax liabilities, as well as preparing to take action against the negligent parties.

If you have been likewise affected please make contact.

These are the significant share holders of the KJK Investments Ltd. It is yet to be revealed if these significant shareholders released their pensions to buy shares.

Top 20 Shareholders	Ownership (%)
OTHER	70.83%
Hd Sipp Re K. Stilwell	1.02%
Hd Sipp Re B. Edgar	1.31%
Guardian Sipp Re Susan Mason	1.08%
Guardian Sipp Re R. Martin	1.64%
Guardian Sipp Re Nigel Bastick	2.01%
Guardian Sipp Re K. Walsh	1.79%
Guardian Sipp Re Donna Mcconville	0.97%
C&p Sipp Re Webster	1.68%
C&p Sipp Re Taylor	1.59%
C&p Sipp Re S.j. Rennie	2.16%
C&p Sipp Re S. Varghese	0.94%
C&p Sipp Re Rennie	1.14%
C&p Sipp Re R.w. Rowland	1.45%
C&p Sipp Re Lonergan	0.98%
C&p Sipp Re J.n. Poots	0.99%
C&p Sipp Re Gill	2.44%
C&p Sipp Re Flahavan	1.50%
C&p Sipp Re D.r. Groudsell	1.22%
C&p Sipp Re D. Banks	1.74%

March 20, 2016

A Day – a Starting Point to Understanding How you got scammed out of Your pension

A DAY – The WHEN, WHAT, WHO, HOW, & WHERE

Pension tax simplification, often simply referred to as “pension simplification” and taking effect from A-day on 6 April 2006 was a policy announced in 2004 by the Labour government to rationalise the British tax system as applied to pension schemes.

The aim was to reduce the complicated patchwork of legislation built up by successive administrations which were seen as acting as a barrier to the public when considering retirement planning. The government wanted to encourage retirement provision by simplifying the previous eight tax regimes into one single regime for all individual and occupational pensions.

What happened after A day ?

The first thing to understand is that retrospective legislation is not desirable and would be open to challenge. In other words, many of the previous pension regimes provided better pension options than the new simplified rules. In these cases, investors were allowed to keep the previous benefits earned before 2006, with only their post 2006 benefits being automatically affected.

In practice, this means those with a foot on either side of 2006 can opt for the post 2006 on all their benefits if this suits them.

A word of caution

We would refer to A Day as adding a layer of simplification, not removing previous layers of complication. The interaction of the new rules and those with protected benefits – both pre 2006 and after – is extremely complex and the advice requirements are stiff.

Who are the players in pension transfers?

Outside the UK, any man and his dog can claim to be a pensions expert. Of course, there are genuine pension specialists outside the UK who have the necessary competencies to undertake pension transfer advice. The public need to undertake their own checks on their advisers to make sure they are regulated and qualified.

In the UK, this is straightforward. The FCA register shows the permissions of each firm.

Outside of the UK, advisers do not need any qualifications if they only undertake money purchase transfers or transfers with guaranteed benefits valued at lower than 30,000 GBP.

For transfers of schemes with guarantees (such as final salary schemes and policies with guaranteed annuity rates) that are valued over 30,000 GBP, then only a UK IFA with the correct FCA permissions can advise.

However, many money purchase schemes that do not require qualifications for transfer advice also straddle the pre 2006 and post 2006 rules. Namely, occupational money purchase schemes such as CIMPS/COMPS, Sec 32, EPP and SSASs. An unqualified adviser is unlikely to know all the rules and transfer advice may be inappropriate from such an individual.

To be safe, people should only take advice from holders of AF3 and G60 pension qualifications – always ask to see the adviser’s certificate.

Who are the regulators of pensions

In the UK, there are two:

Financial Conduct Authority – FCA – for personal pension schemes

The Pensions Regulator – TPR – for company pension schemes

Outside the UK, not all jurisdictions have pension regulators and, even if they do, if the pension is not a local pension it will not be of interest to the regulator (i.e. someone living in Spain with a pension in New Zealand, where the advice was given in Spain, is unlikely to get much help from the regulator in New Zealand).

Pension Scams

Since A Day, the old HMRC approval system came to an end. Each scheme is now registered only and not approved in any way. Thousands have been registered, many of them being bona fide schemes, but also – because of the absence of due diligence by HMRC and tPR – many also being bogus and/or scams.

A Day opened the door to unethical salesmen and scammers to set up fraudulent schemes with the sole intention of stealing pension funds or milking victims for fees with ludicrously high commissions on toxic and illiquid investments. Often, the assets are high risk and toxic and the victims face a total loss. If the advice was unregulated, there is no recourse to the Statutory Compensation Scheme (FSCS).

Cartoon blog – Don’t be the next pension scam victim

Pensions were also targeted for liberation scams. Here the promoters provided “loans” to members from their own scheme or from an associated source, or just cashed in part or all of their pension prior to the age of 55. Many thousands now face financial ruin as HMRC will tax them 55% of the funds they took early (unauthorised payment tax). Despite the fact that the investors acted in good faith and were the victims of fraud as well as negligence on the part of HMRC, tPR and the ceding providers, HMRC will still make every effort to enforce the tax.

Meanwhile, the government sits idly by and does nothing. Pensions Minister Ros Altmann merely says that the victims are “fools”.

International Investment interview with Pension Life´s Angie Brooks

March 16, 2016
Pensions Ombudsman Squashed by High Court

Loading…

February 26, 2016
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

Tag: Pensions Ombudsman

More and more, we are seeing innocent, hardworking individuals falling victim to pension scams due to their pension funds being invested in unregulated, high-risk, illiquid investments. It is just a matter of time before these unsuitable investments leave victims’ pension funds in tatters.

With out due diligence and knowledge you often won´t realise that you are the victim of a pension scam until its too late. Its best to have the knowledge so you can tell what is a pension scam and what is a genuine pension scheme.

Debbie Abrahams takes a stand in parliament, raising the question of, “how many more pensions scandals does she (Esther McVey, Secretary of State, Work and Pensions) need before she introduces the robust regulatory oversight needed to protect peoples’ pensions for the future?“

The collapse of Carillion has left hundreds of workers redundant and their pension funds in tatters.

The Serious Fraud Office has written to Frank Field – Chairman of the Pensions Select Committee. The SFO was responding to Frank’s request for details about pension fraud cases prosecuted by the SFO and about the fraudsters’ various scamming techniques.

The SFO reported two cases and described how they worked:

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