Trustees Must Block Transfers to Pension Scams

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

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

The industry was, naturally, appalled.  But this matter left many questions unanswered:

  • Why was a singing teacher so desperate to transfer her £8,000 pension and have it invested in Cape Verde property? (Had she developed a passion for collapsible flats?)
  • Where did she get the many thousands of pounds it must have cost her to have a barrister represent her in the High Court?  (Considerably more than eight thousand quid I reckon).
  • How come the mighty Fenner Moeran QC (for Royal London) got so soundly defeated by a public access barrister?  (Was his sharp stick a bit blunt that day?)
  • What happened to the several hundred people queuing up behind Ms Hughes to have their pensions invested in Cape Verde flats?  (“Flat” being the operative word).

I could ask loads more pertinent and searching questions – like why did Ms Hughes’ public access barrister, Frances Ratcliffe of Radcliffe Chambers, think it was a good use of her considerable skills to defend an obvious pension scam?  How drunk was the judge on the day?  How many more people got scammed out of their pensions because of this abomination – and proof the law is not just an ass but a whole donkey farm?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pension Life Blog - Trustees Must Block Transfers to Pension Scams - ceding pension trustees - Predators Stalk Your Pension

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

Don’t let your pension become prey.

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

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

What to watch out for?

  1. Being approached out of the blue, over the phone or via text message
  2. Pushy advisers or ‘introducers’ who offer upfront cash incentives
  3. Companies that offer a ‘loan’, ‘savings advance’ or cash back’ from your pension
  4. Not being informed about the potential tax consequences

Five steps to avoid becoming a victim

  1. Never give out financial or personal information to a cold caller
  2. Find out about the company’s background through information online. Any financial advisers should be registered with the FCA
  3. Ask for a statement showing how your pension will be paid at retirement and question who will look after your money until then
  4. Speak to an adviser that is not associated with the proposal you’ve received, for unbiased advice
  5. Never be rushed into agreeing to a pension transfer

If you think you may have been made an offer, contact Action Fraud.

But, the Scorpion warning failed tragically in so many different ways:

  • The warning only talked about liberation.  Many victims thought this warning didn’t apply to them as they had no intention of liberating their pension fund
  • No information was given on how to find out about a company’s background – and how to establish whether it was regulated
  • The warning talked about advisers being FCA regulated – but ignored the question of offshore advisers who obviously wouldn’t be FCA regulated
  • The public was advised to contact Action Fraud – but did not disclose that Action Fraud would do absolutely nothing

Pension Life Blog - Trustees Must Block Transfers to Pension Scams - ceding pension trustees - In 2015, we went to see the Pensions Regulator to talk about the failings of the Scorpion campaign – as well as the failings of the Regulator.  Two Ark victims and I met the then Executive Director for Regulatory Policy – Tinky Winky.  Our intention was to explain to him how the Scorpion campaign had failed and how it needed to be made more robust and comprehensive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

2 thoughts on “Trustees Must Block Transfers to Pension Scams”

  1. Great blog. Good argument.

    At the heart of all this is the concept of “duty of care” – a legal obligation to act in the best interest of clients. This is something trustees sign up to. However I have learned – the hard way – trustees do not always step up and own this legal obligation.

    There is huge difference between “acting in the client’s BEST interest” and simply “doing what the client asks for”.

    Women have the right to an abortion but you don’t just walk in and ask for one and expect the doctor (with a duty of care) to respond “okidoki, on your back, open your legs”. The Doctor engages in a dialogue, a formal procedure to make sure the patient fully understands the wider consequences of what they are asking. Society and the law would expect nothing less. If the patient then insists, the procedure goes ahead.

    Trustees and TPA’s have long since argued they have a legal obligation to transfer the pension if the member insists on it and I don’t have an issue with that. However, their duty of care, surely obliges them to ensure their member understands what they are doing, especially if the TPA spots characteristics of the transfer as being a scam and likely to result in their member losing everything. They are not all doing even this and hundreds of people are unwittingly losing 40 years of hard earned savings!

    I cannot believe trustees and TPA’s cannot spot a scam when they see one. Every IFA I spoke to when I was trying to find one to help me out of the scam I got caught in said in a heartbeat: “I think you have been scammed and you’re unlikely to get any of it back mate” – words to that effect – the minute I said it had been transferred to a QROP. Some refused to take me on – claiming they knew nothing about QROPS but I suspect it had more to do with they felt I had lost all my pension and there was no point.

    Many TPA’s were (and still are no doubt) simply doing “what the client asks for” rather than alerting their members to the dangers of pension scams – basically just aborting the baby without any discussion of the consequences with the patient.

    A “duty of care” has ALWAYS been a legal obligation on trustees and didn’t just come into force in Feb 2013 with the launch of the Scorpion Campaign!

    The Ombudsman’s ruling is basically telling trustees to step up and own their “duty of care” or pay the consequence for their negligence but the Ombudsman’s argument was predicated on the guidelines of the Scorpion Campaign from Feb 2013.

    The next great leap forward would be to rule against a trustee for failing in their duty of care without reliance on the Scorpion Campaign but simply because they have a fiduciary obligation they failed to make good on! That would really be a precedent! Surely any common or garden blood sucking barrister could argue this?

    Begs the question why has this still not been tested?

  2. What was striking in the case of Mr. N and the Police Authority case was, there was an FCA regulated adviser, Gerard Associates advising Mr. N.

    In my case, the adviser was, as it now turns out from recent research, at the material time unregulated to do anything anywhere in the EU! Yet my ceding provider argues I was “given appropriate independent advice” – or so they told the receiving QROP in writing but later admitted to me that was a boiler plate letter and they hadn’t actually checked I had received “appropriate independent advice”. It seems the advisory firm conned both me and the trustee of my DB pension.

    Having an FCA authorised adviser, it is strange the Police Authority didn’t argue that Gerard Associates were at fault for the unsuitable advice. The Ombudsman has, in my opinion, set a surprising precedent. Placing the onus on the trustee irrespective of the regulatory status of the adviser and the suitability of the advice given.

    Not sure how this will play out – but if it gets redress for victims of scams and prevents future scams, then I am all for it.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top