Rowanmoor Ssas Ken Wilson Executive Pension Scheme · CAS-32056-R8Y5 — Pensions Ombudsman determination

CAS-32056-R8Y5, CAS-26935-Z1F9, CAS-78316- Z0K3, CAS-67444-D6J9, CAS-81703-B9J9, CAS- 71592-K0F5, CAS-64689-N5V4, CAS-93492-K8Q0, CAS-93492-K8Q0 CAS-77406-Q5G5, CAS-47730- T4B8, CAS-103263-R7Y6, CAS-105632-P7G3

Ombudsman’s Determination Applicants Mr KN, Mr AS, Mr VD, Mr DH, Mr ML, Mr GE, Mr PY, Mrs LY, Mr WK, Dr CR, Mr DL, Mrs SE and the applicants listed in Appendix 2 (collectively the Applicants)

Schemes The KN Executive Pension Scheme (Mr KN’s Scheme)

The AS 180866 Executive Pension Scheme (Mr AS’ Scheme)

The Widnes Vincent Executive Pension Scheme (Mr VD’s Scheme)

The Harrowgate Consulting Ltd Executive Pension Scheme (Mr DH’s Scheme)

The Clandon 1967 Executive Pension Scheme (Mr ML’s Scheme)

The Overton Way 1958 Ltd Executive Pension Scheme (Mr GE’s Scheme)

The Brady Bunch SSAS (Mr PY and Mrs LY’s Scheme)

The Brabrook Solutions Ltd Executive Pension Scheme (Mr WK’s Scheme)

The Clearwordz Executive Pension Scheme (Dr CR’s Scheme)

The Tina Tyler Asset Management Ltd SSAS (Mr DL’s Scheme)

The SavEnt Ltd Executive Pension Scheme (Mrs SE’s Scheme)

and the schemes listed in Appendix 2 (collectively the Schemes)

Respondent Rowanmoor Group plc (Rowanmoor), including specifically its subsidiary, Rowanmoor Trustees Limited (RTL)

1 CAS-32056-R8Y5 Complaint Summary

Dolphin Capital GmbH (later called Dolphin Trust GmbH, and thereafter the German Property Group (hereon referred to as GPG)) Akbuk Unity Bay (Akbuk)

Park First Limited (Park First)

Store First Limited (Store First)

2 CAS-32056-R8Y5

Summary of the Ombudsman's Determination and reasons

the investments in GPG, Vordere, Akbuk, The Corran, Strategic Placements, Manchester Airport Hotel, TRG, Park First or Store First, Quantum, HSCL, TRG, CHF Pip!, Chateau de la Cazine, Secret Hills (IOM) and Best Car Parks (collectively the 3 CAS-32056-R8Y5 Investments)

Detailed Determination Material facts

events is not in dispute, so I have only set out the salient points. I acknowledge there were other exchanges of information between all the parties.

Following an unsolicited telephone call, Mr KN was advised by an unregulated introducer, Piramos Ltd (Piramos), to invest in GPG, Akbuk and The Corran, via a Small Self-Administered Scheme (SSAS) with Rowanmoor. Piramos was dissolved on 13 March 2018.

On 27 February 2015, Mr KN completed an application (the Application) to establish the Scheme with Rowanmoor and to transfer his pension fund of some £100,000 with Legal & General (L&G) to it.

The Scheme is a SSAS, which is a type of Occupational Pension Scheme with fewer than 12 members, all of whom are trustees and take responsibility (together with any professional trustees appointed through the Scheme’s Trust Deed and Rules) for how scheme funds should be invested in accordance with the Scheme’s Rules. Mr KN is the only member of the Scheme.

The application showed that Piramos was providing advice to Mr KN in his role as the Member Trustee. The proposed investment was in overseas property through GPG and Akbuk, and also in The Corran. While a regulated intermediary, Caledonia Finance, signed the Corporate Verification Certificate and Identity Verification Certificate there is no evidence to show that it provided any advice to Mr KN in regard to the establishment of the Scheme.

On 2 March 2015, Mr KN as the Client, signed a Client Agreement (the Client Agreement) and this, in turn, was signed by Rowanmoor and RTL. The Client Agreement set out, amongst other things, the services to be provided to Mr KN. As well as those services to be provided by Rowanmoor, RTL would also provide “trustee services,” including specifically ongoing “professional responsibility as Independent Trustee for the Scheme.”

The Scheme was established by a Definitive Trust Deed and Rules (TD&R) dated 12 March 2015. This appointed Mr KN as Member Trustee, alongside RTL as the Independent Trustee.

4 CAS-32056-R8Y5 On 31 March 2015, Rowanmoor wrote to Mr KN regarding his proposed investment in The Corran (the Corran Risk Warning Letter). It said that it understood that he wished to invest in the investment. It then said:-

“Whilst we are able to inform you of the eligibility of such an investment under current pension legislation and the Trust Deed and Rules of the pension scheme, we do not endorse or recommend the services of any particular investment company, nor can we advise on the suitability of and risks attached to the proposed investment. In addition we cannot advise on the complexities of the legal process of acquiring property in an overseas territory or in relation to the contractual documentation. Nor are we able to advise on the developer’s title to the land.

As you will be aware, an investment of this nature carries a high risk: it is highly speculative and there is no recognised secondary market for this investment. Investors must have no need for liquidity and be able to withstand a total loss of investment. The loan notes are non-transferrable, and you will not be able to transfer your holding or sell il to a third party during the investment term. Whilst we are able to give you our opinion as to the eligibility of such an investment under current pensions legislation and the Definitive Trust Deed and Rules of the Scheme, we do not endorse or recommend any particular investment structure or provider, nor can we advise on the suitability of, and risks attached to, the proposed investment, ln addition we cannot advise on the complexities of the legal process of purchasing the loan notes or of Special Purpose Vehicles acquiring listed properties in Germany, or in relation to the contractual documentation. Further, the Pension Scheme may become liable for costs, charges, taxes and other liabilities relating to the loan notes of which you will not be aware at the time of the initial investment.

Also on 31 March 2015, Rowanmoor wrote to Mr KN regarding his proposed Akbuk investment (the Akbuk Risk Warning Letter). It said that it understood that he wished to invest in the investment and then went on to use an identical wording to that in the Corran Risk Warning Letter.

On 8 April 2015, Rowanmoor wrote to Mr KN regarding his proposed GPG investment (the GPG Risk Warning Letter). It said that it understood that he wished to invest in the investment. It then said:-

5 CAS-32056-R8Y5 “As you will be aware, an investment of this nature carries a high risk: it is highly speculative and there is no recognised secondary market for this investment. Investors must have no need for liquidity and be able to withstand a total loss of investment. The loan notes are non-transferrable, and you will not be able to transfer your holding or sell il to a third party during the investment term. Whilst we are able to give you our opinion as to the eligibility of such an investment under current pensions legislation and the Definitive Trust Deed and Rules of the Scheme, we do not endorse or recommend any particular investment structure or provider, nor can we advise on the suitability of, and risks attached to, the proposed investment, ln addition we cannot advise on the complexities of the legal process of purchasing the loan notes or of Special Purpose Vehicles acquiring listed properties in Germany, or in relation to the contractual documentation. Further, the Pension Scheme may become liable for costs, charges, taxes and other liabilities relating to the loan notes of which you will not be aware at the time of the initial investment.

Appended to the GPG Risk Warning Letter was a Member Declaration, signed by Mr KN and dated 10 April 2015, in which Mr KN confirmed that he understood that there were risks inherent in the proposed investment and that Rowanmoor would not be liable. He confirmed that he did not wish to appoint legal advisers.

It is not clear to me whether these letters were written by Rowanmoor as Administrator, in respect of RTL’s (a subsidiary of Rowanmoor) role as Independent Trustee or was intended to cover all aspects of Rowanmoor’s involvement. Certainly, there was no indication in the letter that any of the issues raised might also be something that should be considered by RTL as co-trustee.

On 25 March 2015, Mr KN signed a Property Development Information Schedule (PDIS) to confirm he wished to invest £57,231 in Akbuk and a second PDIS to confirm he wished to invest £17,500 in The Corran. A letter from Rowanmoor to Mr KN, dated 13 September 2018, indicates that the actual valuations in April 2015 were £55,575.00 and £17,000 respectively. The same letter shows the current value of the GPG investment at that time was £21,125.00.

On 2 April 2015, Mr KN completed and signed an acknowledgement to the Corran and Akbuk Risk Warning Letters in which he confirmed that he understood that there

6 CAS-32056-R8Y5 were risks inherent in the proposed investments and that Rowanmoor would not be liable. He confirmed that he did not wish to appoint legal advisers.

GPG was an Unregulated Collective Investment Scheme (UCIS). It was a German- based company which invested in the conversion and refurbishment of listed buildings (in Germany) for residential use.

On 8 October 2020, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) issued a joint statement about the GPG companies confirming that they had entered preliminary insolvency proceedings in Germany. The first insolvency administrator described it as a 'pyramid scheme' that collapsed after taking in €1.5bn from investors, much of it sold through unregulated introducers. At the time of insolvency, the properties owned by GPG were estimated to be worth no more than €150m collectively, meaning that investors, including Mr KN, stand to lose the bulk of their investment.

The Corran was a hotel development scheme situated in South Wales, owned by Kayboo Limited (Kayboo). This was an investment via a fractional ownership certificate entitling the investor to a share of the rent paid by Kayboo. The development failed to receive the necessary planning approval and Kayboo went into administration in October 2016. Investors are thought to have lost all of their money.

In respect of Akbuk, Mr KN is unable to sell the investment and it is effectively worthless.

Mr KN accordingly believes he has lost his pension fund.

Mr AS

Mr AS was advised by an unregulated introducer, The Property Investor Partnership Ltd (Property Investor), to invest in GPG and Strategic Placements, via a SSAS with Rowanmoor.

Mr AS completed an application (the Application) to establish the Scheme with Rowanmoor and to transfer his pension fund with Aviva to it.

The Application showed that Property Investor was providing advice to Mr AS in his role as the Member Trustee. The proposed investment was for approximately £20,000 in overseas property through GPG and approximately £32,000 in bonds issued by Strategic Placements.

7 CAS-32056-R8Y5 The Corporate Verification Certificate and Identity Verification Certificate were signed by Mr L, a regulated financial adviser with Insight Private Finance Limited (Insight). Mr L was also a director with Property Investor and Strategic Placements.

On 1 August 2014, Property Investor emailed Rowanmoor to confirm that Mr AS was happy to proceed with the transfer of his Aviva Personal Pension to the Scheme.

On 12 August 2014, Rowanmoor wrote to Mr AS regarding his proposed GPG investment (the GPG Risk Warning Letter). It said that it understood that he wished to invest in the investment. It then said:-

“As you will be aware, an investment of this nature carries a high risk: it is highly speculative and there is no recognised secondary market for this investment. Investors must have no need for liquidity and be able to withstand a total loss of investment. The loan notes are non-transferrable, and you will not be able to transfer your holding or sell il to a third party during the investment term. Whilst we are able to give you our opinion as to the eligibility of such an investment under current pensions legislation and the Definitive Trust Deed and Rules of the Scheme, we do not endorse or recommend any particular investment structure or provider, nor can we advise on the suitability of, and risks attached to, the proposed investment, ln addition we cannot advise on the complexities of the legal process of purchasing the loan notes or of Special Purpose Vehicles acquiring listed properties in Germany, or in relation to the contractual documentation. Further, the Pension Scheme may become liable for costs, charges, taxes and other liabilities relating to the loan notes of which you will not be aware at the time of the initial investment.

Also on 12 August 2014, Rowanmoor wrote to Mr AS regarding his proposed investment in Strategic Placements (the Strategic Placements Risk Warning Letter). It said that it understood that he wished to invest in the investment. It then said:-

“As you will be aware, an investment of this nature carries a high risk: it Is highly speculative and there is no recognised secondary market for this investment. Investors must have no need for liquidity, and be able to withstand a total loss of Investment. You should note that the bonds are not transferable to a third-party and the bonds do not pay any interest. Therefore you will not be able to sell your holding 8 CAS-32056-R8Y5 during the investment term and any returns will only be payable when the bonds are redeemed. This may affect your ability to lake pension benefits. If Strategic Placements Wood Street Green Limited has failed to reach Its fund raising target as at 30 June 2016, it shall redeem the Bonds at 85% of their Issue-price.

Whilst we are able to give you our opinion as to the eligibility of such an Investment under current pensions legislation and the Definitive Trust Deed and Rules of the Scheme, we do not endorse or recommend any particular investment structure or provider, nor can we advise on the suitability of, and risks attached to, the proposed investment. In addition we cannot advise on the complexities of the legal process of purchasing the bonds, or in relation to the contractual documentation. Further, the Pension Scheme may become liable for costs, charges, taxes and other liabilities relating to the bonds of which you will not be aware at the time of the Initial investment.

As with all complex investments, we would strongly recommend that before proceeding with this investment you take appropriate legal and other professional advice in the matter, as this may prevent issues going forward, and reduce the possibility of incurring unnecessary costs in the future. In particular we would also remind you that In accordance with the provisions of the Pensions Act 1995, the Trustees of the Scheme are required to lake investment advice before making any Investment…

… Rowanmoor Group plc excludes, to the maximum extent permissible by law, all liability in connection with your proposed purchase of the Investment or resulting from such purchase, having drawn your attention in this letter to potential issues involved. We also reserve the right to refuse further investments of this nature if we believe circumstances have changed.”

On 29 September 2014, Rowanmoor wrote to Property Investor to thank it for returning the documentation establishing the Scheme for Mr AS. It confirmed this had been executed on behalf of RTL.

On 2 March 2015, Mr AS as the Client, signed a Client Agreement (the Client Agreement) and this, in turn, was signed by Rowanmoor and RTL. The Client Agreement set out, amongst other things, the services to be provided to Mr AS. As well as those services to be provided by Rowanmoor, RTL would also provide “trustee services,” including specifically ongoing “professional responsibility as Independent Trustee for the Scheme.”

9 CAS-32056-R8Y5 A valuation report produced by Rowanmoor as at 1 June 2018 showed the value of Mr AS’ investment in Strategic Placements as £0.00 while his investment in GPG was valued at £20,000.

GPG was an Unregulated Collective Investment Scheme (UCIS). It was a German- based company which invested in the conversion and refurbishment of listed buildings (in Germany) for residential use.

On 8 October 2020, the FCA, the FOS and the FSCS issued a joint statement about the GPG companies confirming that they had entered preliminary insolvency proceedings in Germany. The first insolvency administrator described it as a 'pyramid scheme' that collapsed after taking in €1.5bn from investors, much of it sold through unregulated introducers. At the time of insolvency, the properties owned by GPG were estimated to be worth no more than €150m collectively, meaning that investors, including Mr AS, stand to lose the bulk of their investment.

Strategic Placements was an unregulated investment in a proposed property development on green belt land. The development failed to receive the necessary planning permission and could not proceed. Investors are thought to have lost all of their money.

Mr AS accordingly believes he has lost his pension fund.

Mr VD

On 13 February 2014, Mr VD completed an application (the Application) to establish the Scheme with Rowanmoor and to transfer his pension fund totalling £84,505.64 with Aviva, Legal and General (L&G) and Scottish Widows to it. A proposed transfer of his fund with Friends Life did not proceed.

The Application showed that Return on Capital Group Ltd (ROC), an unregulated introducer, was providing advice to Mr VD in his role as the Member Trustee. The proposed investment was in overseas property through GPG and Park First. A proposed investment in Windermere Hydro Hotel Limited did not go ahead.

On 3 March 2014, Mr VD as the Client, signed a Client Agreement (the Client Agreement) and this, in turn, was signed by Rowanmoor and RTL. The Client Agreement set out, amongst other things, the services to be provided to Mr VD. As well as those services to be provided by Rowanmoor, RTL would also provide “trustee services,” including specifically ongoing “professional responsibility as Independent Trustee for the Scheme.”

10 CAS-32056-R8Y5 The Scheme was established by an Interim Deed dated 14 February 2014. This appointed RTL as the first Trustee. A subsequent Deed of Appointment and Amendment, and Definitive Trust Deed and Rules (TD&R) appointed Mr VD as Member Trustee, alongside RTL as the ‘continuing trustee’. The TD&R was signed by Mr VD, both in his role as the sole director of the principal employer and in his individual capacity as the Member Trustee, and RTL as the continuing Independent Trustee. The TD&R replaced the Interim Deed as the governing documentation of the Scheme.

While a regulated intermediary, Midland Financial Advisers, signed the Corporate Verification Certificate and Identity Verification Certificate there is no evidence to show that it provided any advice to Mr VD in regard to the establishment of the Scheme.

On 18 February 2014, Rowanmoor wrote to Mr VD regarding his proposed GPG investment (the GPG Risk Warning Letter). It said that it understood that he wished to invest in the investment. It then said:-

…Rowanmoor Group plc excludes, to the maximum extent permissible by law, all liability in connection with your proposed purchase of the investment or resulting from such purchase, having drawn your attention in this letter to potential issues involved. We also reserve the right to refuse further investments of this nature if we believe circumstances have changed.”

Appended to the GPG Risk Warning Letter was a Member Declaration, signed by Mr VD and dated 25 February 2014, in which Mr VD confirmed that he understood that

11 CAS-32056-R8Y5 there were risks inherent in the proposed investment and that Rowanmoor would not be liable. He confirmed that he did not wish to appoint legal advisers.

A Loan Note offer signed by Mr VD and dated 25 February 2014, showed he had elected to invest £30,000 in GPG. A Registration Certificate issued on 10 April 2014 confirmed the investment.

On 11 June 2014, Rowanmoor wrote to Mr VD regarding his proposed investment in Manchester Airport Hotel (the Manchester Airport Hotel Risk Warning Letter). It said that it understood that he wished to invest in the investment. It then said:-

“As you will be aware, an investment of this nature carries a high risk: it is highly speculative and there is no recognised market for this investment. Investors must have no need for liquidity, and be able to withstand a total loss of investment. Whilst we are able to give you our opinion as to the eligibility of such an investment under current pensions legislation and the Definitive Trust Deed and Rules of the Scheme, we do not endorse or recommend any particular investment structure or provider, nor can we advise on the suitability of, and risks attached to, the proposed investment. In addition we cannot advise on the complexities of the legal process of investing in Manchester Terminal 2 Hotel Limited or in relation to the contractual documentation. Further, the Pension Scheme may become liable for costs, charges, taxes and other liabilities relating to the Investment which you will not be aware at the time of the initial subscription.

As with all complex investments, we would strongly recommend that before proceeding with this investment you take appropriate legal and other professional advice in the matter, as this may prevent Issues going forward, and reduce the possibility of incurring unnecessary costs in the future. You should also read the contents of the Investment Memorandum for Manchester Terminal 2 Hotel Limited dated 14th November 2012, particularly the section entitled "Risk Factors”. In particular we would also remind you that in accordance with the provisions of the Pensions Act 1995, the Trustees of the Scheme are required to take investment advice before making any investment…

On 18 June 2014, Mr VD completed and signed an acknowledgement to the Manchester Airport Hotel Risk Warning Letter in which he confirmed that he understood that there were risks inherent in the proposed investment and that Rowanmoor would not be liable. He confirmed that he did not wish to appoint legal advisers.

Mr VD and RTL completed an application form to invest in Manchester Airport Hotel via GDCV Investments Ltd (GDCV)) through the purchase of Fixed Rate Loan Notes. 12 CAS-32056-R8Y5 This showed that Mr VD intended to invest £28,000. The introducer for this investment is shown as being AGS Solutions UK Ltd (AGS). At the time of the investment AGS was not regulated.

On 1 July 2014, GDCV wrote to RTL. It enclosed an executed Loan Note Instrument and signed Bond Certificate and Share Certificate.

On 23 June 2014, Rowanmoor wrote to Mr VD regarding his proposed investment in Park First (the Park First Risk Warning Letter). It said that it understood that he wished to invest in airport car parking space investments. Rowanmoor explained that there was a two-year break clause (the Break Clause) in the lease agreements which would mean that Park First would be able to terminate the respective leases at that point, which would mean no further income from the investment unless Mr VD was able to find his own tenant, and that the overheads would still need to be met from the Scheme’s resources. The letters also asked Mr VD to consider how he would go about trying to find his own tenant.

Appended to the Park First Risk Warning Letter was a Member Declaration, signed by Mr VD and dated 1 July 2014, in which Mr VD confirmed that he wished to proceed with the proposed investment.

It is not clear to me whether the Risk Warning letters were written by Rowanmoor as Administrator, in respect of RTL’s (a subsidiary of Rowanmoor) role as Independent Trustee or was intended to cover all aspects of Rowanmoor’s involvement. Certainly, there was no indication in the letter that any of the issues raised might also be something that should be considered by RTL as co-trustee.

On 4 March 2014, Mr VD signed a Property Development Information Schedule (PDIS) to confirm he wished to invest £20,000 in Park First. Mr VD signed a second PDIS on 29 May 2014, but as this appears identical in every respect to the one signed on 4 March 2014 I consider it is reasonable to assume it is a duplicate.

On 4 August 2014, Rowanmoor wrote to Mr VD to confirm completion of his Park First investment on 29 July 2014. A Purchase Option Agreement dated 30 July 2014, confirms the purchase price of the investment as £20,000.

GPG was an Unregulated Collective Investment Scheme (UCIS). It was a German- based company which invested in the conversion and refurbishment of listed buildings (in Germany) for residential use.

13 CAS-32056-R8Y5 In 2016 the FCA declared the wider Park First investment arrangement an illegal collective investment scheme, and a number of Park First companies subsequently went into administration. The High Court ordered the winding-up of Store First on 15 July 2019. The holdings for fellow investors in Park First and Store First were deemed to be worthless by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme in May 2021. However, the FCA is currently seeking the recovery of funds owed to various Park First entities, and it is possible that a distribution to investors may take place at some point in future.

Manchester Airport Hotel was placed in administration on 25 April 2018 and was dissolved on 14 July 2021.

A valuation report for the Scheme as at 10 June 2020 showed the value of Mr VD’s investments in Park First and Manchester Airport Hotel as £0.00 while the value of GPG was shown as £30,000, the invested book value.

The transaction statement at the same date shows Mr VD took a Pension Commencement Lump Sum of £6,000 from the Scheme on 30 April 2020. Rowanmoor say he also took £16,000 as income.

Mr VD believes he has lost his pension fund.

Mr DH

Mr DH says he was advised by an unregulated introducer, Avantis Wealth (Avantis) to establish the Scheme and to transfer his final salary pensions to it.

On 23 October 2014, Blackstar Wealth Management A Limited (Blackstar), a firm regulated by the FCA, wrote to Rowanmoor regarding the conversion of Mr DH’s SOLO SSAS to a Full SSAS. It enclosed an Installation Questionnaire, a Member Questionnaire and an Adviser Fee Agreement.

The Installation Questionnaire (in effect an application form), signed by Mr DH and dated 18 October 2014, showed Mr DH as Member Trustee and Blackstar as his investment adviser in that role.

The Member Questionnaire showed that Mr DH intended to transfer his pension fund, valued at £322,037, from the ICL Group Pension Plan and his fund from the DB (UK) Pension Scheme, valued at £203,510.53, to the Scheme.

Rowanmoor has confirmed that Mr DH actually transferred a total of £759,291 from the two schemes.

The Adviser Fee Agreement showed Blackstar was appointed to arrange the Scheme, facilitate the transfer and provide ongoing advice to Mr DH.

On 28 January 2015, Rowanmoor wrote to Mr DH regarding a proposed GPG investment (the GPG Risk Warning Letter). It said that it understood that he wished to invest in the investment. It then said:-

14 CAS-32056-R8Y5 “As you will be aware, an investment of this nature carries a high risk: it is highly speculative and there is no recognised secondary market for this investment. Investors must have no need for liquidity and be able to withstand a total loss of investment. The loan notes are non-transferrable, and you will not be able to transfer your holding or sell it to a third party during the investment term. Whilst we are able to give you our opinion as to the eligibility of such an investment under current pensions legislation and the Definitive Trust Deed and Rules of the Scheme, we do not endorse or recommend any particular investment structure or provider, nor can we advise on the suitability of, and risks attached to, the proposed investment, ln addition we cannot advise on the complexities of the legal process of purchasing the loan notes or of Special Purpose Vehicles acquiring listed properties in Germany, or in relation to the contractual documentation. Further, the Pension Scheme may become liable for costs, charges, taxes and other liabilities relating to the loan notes of which you will not be aware at the time of the initial investment.

You should note that as this investment is not regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, most of the protections afforded under the UK financial services regulatory system do not apply to this investment and that compensation under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme may not be available.

As with all complex investments we would strongly recommend that before proceeding you take appropriate legal and other professional advice in the matter, as this may prevent issues going forward and reduce the possibility of incurring unnecessary costs in the future. In particular we would also remind you that in accordance with the provisions of the Pensions Act 1995, the Trustees of the Scheme are required to take investment advice before making any investment…

…Rowanmoor Group excludes, to the maximum extent permissible by law, all liability in connection with your proposed purchase of the investment or resulting from such purchase, having drawn your attention in this letter to potential issues involved. We also reserve the right to refuse further investments of this nature if we believe circumstances have changed.”

Appended to the GPG Risk Warning Letter was a Member Declaration, signed by Mr DH and dated 30 January 2015, in which Mr DH confirmed that he understood that there were risks inherent in the proposed investment and that Rowanmoor would not be liable. He confirmed that he did not wish to appoint legal advisers.

On 6 March 2015, Rowanmoor wrote to Mr DH regarding the proposed investment in Quantum (the first Quantum Risk Warning Letter). It said that it understood that he wished to invest in the investment. It then said:-

“As you will be aware, an investment of this nature carries a high risk: it is highly speculative and offers a high rate of interest, and there is no recognised secondary market for this investment. Investors must have no need for liquidity, and be able to withstand a total loss of investment. You should note that the bonds are not transferrable and therefore you may be locked into this investment for the entire

15 CAS-32056-R8Y5 investment term without the ability to transfer out to another pension scheme or sell your holding during this period.

Whilst we are able to give you our opinion as to the eligibility of such an investment under current pensions legislation and the Definitive Trust Deed and Rules of the Scheme, we do not endorse or recommend any particular investment structure or provider, nor can we advise on the suitability of, and risks attached to, the proposed investment, including whether Quantum Residential Property LLP will be able to meet the terms of the bond and deliver the stated returns. In addition we cannot advise on the complexities of the legal process of purchasing the bonds or in relation to the contractual documentation. Further the Pension Scheme may become liable for costs, charges, taxes and other liabilities relating to the bonds which you will not be aware at the time of the initial subscription.

You should note that as this investment Is not regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, most of the protections afforded under the UK financial services regulatory system do not apply to this investment and that compensation under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme may not be available.

If a legal representative is not to be appointed, we would be grateful if all members would please kindly sign and return the enclosed copy of this letter in confirmation. You should also sign and return a copy of this letter as confirmation of your understanding of the position.

Rowanmoor Group plc excludes, to the maximum extent permissible by law, all liability in connection with your proposed purchase or the investment or resulting from such purchase, having drawn your attention in this letter to potential issues involved. We also reserve the right to refuse further investments of this nature if we believe circumstances have changed.

Nothing in this letter excludes Rowanmoor Group's liability for personal injury caused by its negligence or for any loss caused by its fraudulent acts or omissions.

Please be aware that after entering into the contract to purchase the bonds it may not be possible to obtain a refund of monies paid, nor to sell the bonds to another party. It is therefore strongly recommended that you take professional advice with regard to life assurance so that in the event of death there are sufficient monies to meet any relevant requirements or liabilities that may be outstanding under the contract.”

Appended to the first Quantum Risk Warning Letter was a Member Declaration, signed by Mr DH and his wife dated 13 March 2015, in which they confirmed that they understood that there were risks inherent in the proposed investment and that 16 CAS-32056-R8Y5 Rowanmoor would not be liable. They confirmed that he did not wish to appoint legal advisers and would not be taking out life assurance cover.

Also on 7 January 2015, Mr DH signed a Property Development Information Schedule (PDIS) to confirm he wished to invest £78,000 in Store First.

On 8 April 2015, Mr DH signed a declaration in which he confirmed that he wished to proceed with the investment in Store First.

On 8 May 2015, Mr DH signed a Property Development Information Schedule (PDIS) to confirm he wished to invest £60,000 in Park First.

On 26 May 2015, Rowanmoor wrote to Mr DH regarding the proposed Park First investment (the Park First Risk Warning Letter). It said that it understood that he wished to invest in car parking space investments. Rowanmoor explained that there was a two-year break clause (the Break Clause) in the lease agreements which would mean that Park First would be able to terminate the respective leases at that point, which would mean no further income from the investment unless Mr DH was able to find his own tenant, and that the overheads would still need to be met from the Scheme’s resources. The letters also asked Mr DH to consider how he would go about trying to find his own tenant.

Mr DH signed a declaration appended to the Park First Risk Warning Letter on 27 May 2015 to confirm that he wished to proceed with the investment.

On 7 January 2016, Rowanmoor wrote to Mr DH regarding a proposed Quantum investment (the second Quantum Risk Warning Letter). The wording was identical to the first Quantum Risk Warning Letter.

Appended to the Second Quantum Risk Warning Letter was a Member Declaration, this time signed only by Mr DH and dated 7 January 2016, in which Mr DH confirmed that he understood that there were risks inherent in the proposed investment and that Rowanmoor would not be liable. He again confirmed that he did not wish to appoint legal advisers and that he would not be taking out life assurance cover.

Rowanmoor has said that Mr DH made the following investments:

28/01/2015 Chateau de la Cazine £101,500

28/01/2015 The Corran £54,000

09/02/2015 GPG Loan Notes - Three year term £180,000

19/03/2015 Quantum £150,240

10/04/2015 Store First £47,821

06/05/2015 Akbuk £33,238

15/05/2015 Chateau de la Cazine £30,000

17 CAS-32056-R8Y5 01/06/2015 Park First £51,084

15/06/2015 GPG Loan Notes - Two year term £21,000

15/06/2015 GPG Loan Notes - Five year term £38,000

12/01/2016 Quantum £25,240

GPG was an Unregulated Collective Investment Scheme (UCIS). It was a German- based company which invested in the conversion and refurbishment of listed buildings (in Germany) for residential use.

In 2016, the FCA declared the wider Park First investment arrangement an illegal collective investment scheme, and a number of Park First companies subsequently went into administration. The High Court ordered the winding-up of Store First on 15 July 2019. The holdings for fellow investors in Park First and Store First were deemed to be worthless by the FSCS in May 2021. However, the FCA is currently seeking the recovery of funds owed to various Park First entities, and it is possible that a distribution to investors may take place at some point in future.

The Quantum investment was through Unsecured Bonds issued by Quantum Residential Property LLP. This company is now in liquidation, so the investment is assumed to be worthless.

Mr DH entered into a series of unwise investments, in which the apparent diversification was only amongst unsuitable investments. I consider a prudent trustee would not have permitted such investments.

Due to the involvement of Blackstar, a regulated financial adviser with additional expertise, and its own responsibilities, I have concluded that a different liability for RTL is appropriate and that RTL should be responsible for only 50% of any losses incurred by the GPG, Park First, Store First and Quantum investments. Therefore, the apportionment of liability set out in paragraph 12 of Appendix 1 will be amended from 80% to 50%.

In or around March 2017, Mr DH appointed Excel Pensions (Excel) as both Trustee and Administrator. The Scheme assets were subsequently transferred from Rowanmoor to Excel.

18 CAS-32056-R8Y5 Mr ML

On 25 July 2014, Mr ML completed an application (the Application) to establish the Scheme with Rowanmoor and to transfer his pension funds totalling some £55,347.83 with Aegon and Prudential to it.

The Application showed that High Street Contact Centre, an unregulated firm, was providing advice to Mr ML in his role as the Member Trustee. The proposed investment was in overseas property through GPG and also in HSCL. The Corporate Verification Certificate and Identity Verification Certificate were signed by a regulated intermediary, AWM Financial Services (AWM), which shared an address with High Street Contact Centre. There is no evidence to show that AWM provided any advice to Mr ML in regard to the establishment of the Scheme.

On 11 August 2014, Mr ML as the Client, signed a Client Agreement (the Client Agreement) and this, in turn, was signed by Rowanmoor and RTL. The Client Agreement set out, amongst other things, the services to be provided to Mr ML. As well as those services to be provided by Rowanmoor, RTL would also provide “trustee services,” including specifically ongoing “professional responsibility as Independent Trustee for the Scheme.”

On 26 August 2014, £50,538.51 transfer from Aegon was received into the Scheme and on 3 October 2014, transfer values of £4,781.91 and £1071.91 were received from Prudential.

Mr ML invested £39,400 in HSCL and £9,800 in GPG with the remaining £7,192.33 held in cash to cover fees.

A Deed of Appointment and Amendment, and Definitive Trust Deed and Rules (TD&R) dated 11 August 2014, appointed Mr ML as Member Trustee, alongside RTL as the ‘continuing trustee’. The TD&R was signed by Mr ML, both in his role as the sole director of the principal employer and in his individual capacity as the Member Trustee, and RTL as the continuing Independent Trustee. The TD&R replaced the Interim Deed as the governing documentation of the Scheme.

On 5 September 2014, Rowanmoor wrote to Mr ML regarding his proposed investment in HSCL (the HSCL Risk Warning Letter). It said that it understood that he wished to invest in the investment. It then said:-

19 CAS-32056-R8Y5 investment. You should note that the loan notes are not transferrable, except in very specific circumstances, and therefore you may be locked into this investment for the entire investment term without the ability to transfer out to another pension scheme or sell your holding during this period. Whilst we are able to give you our opinion as to the eligibility of such an investment under current pensions legislation and the Definitive Trust Deed and Rules of the Scheme, we do not endorse or recommend any particular investment structure or provider, nor can we advise on the suitability of, and risks attached to, the proposed investment. In addition we cannot advise on the complexities of the legal process of purchasing the loan notes, or in relation to the contractual documentation.

Further, the Pension Scheme may become liable for costs, charges, taxes and other liabilities relating to the loan notes of which you will not be aware at the time of the initial investment. For example, the loan notes are secured by way of a charge over the assets of High Street Commercial Finance Limited. These assets may include taxable property which, if the charge is called in, could lead to HM Revenue & Customs levying significant tax charges on the Pension Scheme and also on you, as a member of the Pension Scheme.

Before proceeding with the investment we require your written confirmation that:

• you have been provided with the Key Features - Information Memorandum document, and have read and understood it.

• the structure of the investment and all the associated investment charges have been fully explained to you.

• you have been made aware of the risks associated with the investment.

As with all complex investments, we would strongly recommend that before proceeding with this investment you take appropriate legal and other professional advice in the matter, as this may prevent issues going forward, and reduce the possibility of incurring unnecessary costs in the future. In particular we would also remind you that in accordance with the provisions of the Pensions Act 1995, the Trustees of the Scheme are required to take investment advice before making any investment.

Please sign and return a copy of this letter as confirmation of your understanding of the position, and to confirm whether a legal representative is to be appointed and that advice concerning this investment has been taken.

Rowanmoor Group plc excludes, to the maximum extent permissible by law, all liability in connection with your proposed purchase of the investment or resulting

20 CAS-32056-R8Y5 from such purchase, having drawn your attention in this letter to potential issues involved. We also reserve the right to refuse further investments of this nature if we believe circumstances have changed.”

Also on 5 September 2014, Rowanmoor wrote to Mr ML regarding his proposed investment in GPG (the GPG Risk Warning Letter). It said that it understood that he wished to invest in the investment. It then said:-

“As you will be aware, an investment of this nature carries a high risk: it is highly speculative and there is no recognised secondary market for this investment. Investors must have no need for liquidity, and be able to withstand a total loss of investment. The loan notes are non-transferrable and you will not be able to transfer your holding or sell it to a third party during the investment term. Whilst we are able to give you our opinion as to the eligibility of such an investment under current pensions legislation and the Definitive Trust Deed and Rules of the Scheme, we do not endorse or recommend any particular investment structure or provider, nor can we advise on the suitability of, and risks attached to, the proposed investment. In addition we cannot advise on the complexities of the legal process of purchasing the loan notes or of Special Purpose Vehicles acquiring listed properties in Germany, or in relation to the contractual documentation. Further, the Pension Scheme may become liable for costs, charges, taxes and other liabilities relating to the loan notes of which you will not be aware at the time of the initial investment.

As with all complex investments, we would strongly recommend that before proceeding with this investment you take appr9priate legal and other professional advice in the matter, as this may prevent issues going forward, and reduce the possibility of incurring unnecessary costs in the future. In particular we would also remind you that in accordance with the provisions of the Pensions Act 1995, the Trustees of the Scheme are required to take investment advice before making any investment.

Rowanmoor Group plc excludes, to the maximum extent permissible by law, all liability in connection with your proposed purchase of the investment or resulting from such purchase, having drawn your attention in this letter to potential issues involved. We also reserve the right to refuse further investments of this nature if we believe circumstances have changed.”

On 5 September 2014, Mr ML completed and signed an acknowledgement to both the HSCL and GPG Risk Warning Letters in which he confirmed that he understood 21 CAS-32056-R8Y5 that there were risks inherent in the proposed investment and that Rowanmoor would not be liable. He confirmed that he had taken investment advice and did not wish to appoint legal advisers.

In his acknowledgement to the HSCL Risk Warning Letter, he also confirmed that he understood that the loan notes were secured by way of a charge over the assets of HSCL and was aware that these assets may include taxable property which, if the charge were called in, could lead to HM Revenue & Customs levying significant tax charges on the Pension Scheme and also on him. He indemnified Rowanmoor against any such penalties raised.

On 16 March 2018, Mr ML received a detailed report entitled ‘Loan Note Conversion Report’ (the Report) from Connected Financial Services Ltd, a regulated financial adviser.

The Report considered an offer from GPG to convert the loan notes in which he was invested, said to be valued at £13,892.00, to shares in Vordere, a UK public listed company on the London Stock Exchange (LSE). There is no evidence to show that Mr ML took up the offer.

HSCL was an investment through the purchase of loan notes issued by High Street Commercial Finance Limited. The company issuing the loan notes became insolvent in 2022. The HSCL Risk Warning Letter regarding this investment highlights that it was speculative, illiquid, and that investors needed to be able to withstand a total loss of their investment. It was clearly unsuitable for an individual in Mr ML’s position.

GPG was an Unregulated Collective Investment Scheme. It was a German-based company which invested in the conversion and refurbishment of listed buildings (in Germany) for residential use.

Mr ML accordingly believes he has lost the funds invested in GPG and HSCL.

22 CAS-32056-R8Y5 Mr GE

On 11 March 2014, Mr GE completed an application (the Application) to establish the Scheme with Rowanmoor and to transfer his pension fund with Aviva to it. Mr GE is the only member of the Scheme.

Mr GE transferred £138,532.45 from his personal pension with Aviva. It is not disputed that he subsequently invested £50,000 in GPG, £50,000 in HSCL and £25,850 in TRG.

The Application showed that High Street Contact Centre, an unregulated firm, was providing advice to Mr GE in his role as the Member Trustee. The proposed investment was in overseas property through GPG and TRG, and also in HSCL.

Rowanmoor says that Mr GE was introduced and advised by a regulated intermediary, AWM Financial Services (AWM). The Corporate Verification Certificate and Identity Verification Certificate were signed by AWM, which I note shared an address with High Street Contact Centre. However, there is no evidence to show that AWM provided any advice to Mr GE in regard to the establishment of the Scheme.

The Scheme was established by an Interim Deed dated 25 March 2014. This appointed RTL as the first Trustee and a subsequent Deed of Appointment and Amendment, and Definitive Trust Deed and Rules (TD&R) appointed Mr GE as Member Trustee, alongside RTL as the ‘continuing trustee’. The TD&R was signed by Mr GE, both in his role as the sole director of the principal employer and in his individual capacity as the Member Trustee, and RTL as the continuing Independent Trustee. The TD&R replaced the Interim Deed as the governing documentation of the Scheme.

Mr GE as the Client, signed a Client Agreement (the Client Agreement) effective from 25 March 2014 and this, in turn, was signed by Rowanmoor and RTL. The Client Agreement set out, amongst other things, the services to be provided to Mr GE. As well as those services to be provided by Rowanmoor, RTL would also provide “trustee services,” including specifically ongoing “professional responsibility as Independent Trustee for the Scheme.”

On 12 May 2014, Rowanmoor wrote to Mr GE regarding his proposed HSCL investment (the HSCL Risk Warning Letter). It said that it understood that he wished to invest in the investment. It then said:-

“As you will be aware, an investment of this nature carries a high risk: it is highly speculative and there Is no recognised secondary market for this investment.

23 CAS-32056-R8Y5 Investors must have no need for liquidity, and be able to withstand a total loss of investment. You should note that the loan notes are not transferrable, except in very specific circumstances, and therefore you may be locked into this investment for the entire investment term without the ability to transfer out to another pension scheme or sell your holding during this period. Whilst we are able to give you our opinion as to the eligibility of such an investment under current pensions legislation and the Definitive Trust Deed and Rules of the Scheme, we do not endorse or recommend any particular investment structure or provider, nor can we advise on the suitability of, and risks attached to, the proposed investment. In addition we cannot advise on the complexities of the legal process of purchasing the loan notes, or in relation to the contractual documentation.

Before proceeding with the investment we require your written confirmation that:

• you have been provided with the Key Features - Information Memorandum document, and have read and understood it.

• the structure of the investment and all the associated investment charges have been fully explained to you.

• you have been made aware of the risks associated with the investment.

As with all complex investments, we would strongly recommend that before proceeding with this investment you take appropriate legal and other professional advice in the matter, as this may prevent issues going forward, and reduce the possibility of incurring unnecessary costs in the future. In particular we would also remind you that in accordance with the provisions of the Pensions Act 1995, the Trustees of the Scheme are required to take investment advice before making any investment.

24 CAS-32056-R8Y5 Rowanmoor Group plc excludes, to the maximum extent permissible by law, all liability in connection with your proposed purchase of the investment or resulting from such purchase, having drawn your attention in this letter to potential issues involved. We also reserve the right to refuse further investments of this nature if we believe circumstances have changed.”

Also on 12 May 2014, Rowanmoor wrote to Mr GE regarding his proposed GPG investment (the GPG Risk Warning Letter). It said that it understood that he wished to invest in the investment. It then said:-

“As you will be aware, an investment of this nature carries a high risk: it is highly speculative and there is no recognised secondary market for this investment. Investors must have no need for liquidity, and be able to withstand a total loss of investment. The loan notes are non-transferrable and you will not be able to transfer your holding or sell it to a third party during the investment term. Whilst we are able to give you our opinion as to the eligibility of such an investment under current pensions legislation and the Definitive Trust Deed and Rules of the Scheme, we do not endorse or recommend any particular investment structure or provider, nor can we advise on the suitability of, and risks attached to, the proposed investment. In addition we cannot advise on the complexities of the legal process of purchasing the loan notes or of Special Purpose Vehicles acquiring listed properties in Germany, or in relation to the contractual documentation. Further, the Pension Scheme may become liable for costs, charges, taxes and other liabilities relating to the loan notes of which you will not be aware at the time of the initial investment.

As with all complex investments, we would strongly recommend that before proceeding with this investment you take appropriate legal and other professional advice in the matter, as this may prevent issues going forward, and reduce the possibility of incurring unnecessary costs in the future. In particular we would also remind you that in accordance with the provisions of the Pensions Act 1995, the Trustees of the Scheme are required to take investment advice before making any investment.

25 CAS-32056-R8Y5 Appended to the HSCL and GPG Risk Warning Letters was a Member Declaration, signed by Mr GE and dated 18 July 2014, in which Mr GE confirmed that he understood that there were risks inherent in the proposed investment and that Rowanmoor would not be liable. He confirmed that he did not wish to appoint legal advisers.

On 1 September 2014, Rowanmoor wrote to Mr GE regarding his proposed TRG investment (the TRG Risk Warning Letter). It said that it understood that he wished to invest in the investment. It then said:-

As with all complex investments we would strongly recommend that before proceeding you take appropriate legal and other professional advice in the matter, as this may prevent issues going forward and reduce the possibility of incurring unnecessary costs in the future. You should also ensure that before proceeding you have seen and read the purchase contract and associated documentation related to the investment. In addition you should be aware that in accordance with the provisions of The Pensions Act 1995, the Trustees of the scheme are required to take investment advice before making any investment.

To confirm your understanding of the position we would be grateful if you would please kindly sign and return the third page of this letter in confirmation of your instruction to proceed, ticking the appropriate boxes at the end of the letter as applicable. We will not proceed until this is received.

We wish to make it clear that Rowanmoor Group has not instructed local lawyers to investigate and report on the title of the underlying property title to be transferred to the company nor the strength of the covenant of the developer or company itself. If you do not instruct us to do so on behalf of your pension scheme then it may not be possible to ascertain whether a valid title can be obtained by the company or whether appropriate planning permission or other local consents have been obtained.

26 CAS-32056-R8Y5 Further, the pension scheme may become liable for costs, charges, property taxes and other liabilities relating to the property of which you may not be aware at completion of its purchase.

Rowanmoor Group excludes, to the maximum extent permissible by law, all liability in connection with your proposed purchase of the investment or resulting from such purchase, having drawn your attention in this letter to potential issues involved. Nothing in this letter excludes Rowanmoor Group liability for personal injury caused by its negligence or for any loss caused by its fraudulent acts or omissions.

Appended to the TRG Risk Warning Letter was a Member Declaration, signed by Mr GE and dated 9 September 2014, in which Mr GE confirmed that he understood that there were risks inherent in the proposed investment and that Rowanmoor would not be liable. He confirmed that he did not wish to appoint legal advisers. Mr GE also confirmed that he had read the purchase contract and that the details contained in it were correct.

It is not clear to me whether the Risk Warning Letters were written by Rowanmoor as Administrator, in respect of RTL’s (a subsidiary of Rowanmoor) role as Independent Trustee or was intended to cover all aspects of Rowanmoor’s involvement. Certainly, there was no indication in the letter that any of the issues raised might also be something that should be considered by RTL as co-trustee.

On 16 April 2019, Oakleaf Pensions wrote to Rowanmoor to say that the Trustees of the Scheme required Rowanmoor to be replaced by Oakleaf Trustees as the professional trustee and Scheme Administrator. It is not clear whether this replacement was completed but, regardless, I do not consider it material to Mr GE’s complaint as it is clear that RTL was co-trustee at the time of the original investments.

GPG was an Unregulated Collective Investment Scheme (UCIS). It was a German- based company which invested in the conversion and refurbishment of listed buildings (in Germany) for residential use.

HSCL was an investment through the purchase of loan notes issued by High Street Commercial Finance Limited. The company issuing the loan notes became insolvent 27 CAS-32056-R8Y5 in 2022. Rowanmoor’s letter to Mr GE regarding this investment highlights that it was speculative, illiquid, and that investors needed to be able to withstand a total loss of their investment. Mr GE has lost his investment. It was clearly unsuitable for an individual in his position.

In respect of TRG, Mr GE is unable to sell the investment and it is effectively worthless. Mr GE accordingly believes he has lost his pension fund.

Mr PY and Mrs LY

The Installation Questionnaire (in effect an application form), signed by Mr PY and Mrs LY on 7 August 2014, showed Mr PY and Mrs LY as Member Trustees and Fallon-Countrywide IFA (Fallon), a regulated intermediary, as their advisers in that role. Absolute Financial Planning (trading as Invest Northern Counties) (Invest), also a regulated firm, was noted as acting as investment adviser.

The Scheme was to be initially funded by transfers from Mr PY’s existing pension plans: £60,883.53 received on 16 October 2014 from Ritchie Group Retirement Scheme with Standard Life and £45,469.52 received on 18 November 2014 from Field Group Pension Plan, and from Mrs LY’s existing pension plans: £10,788.06 received from Halifax Life on 24 September 2014 and £19,220.02 received from Aviva on 30 September 2014.

The Scheme was established by an Interim Deed dated 2 September 2014. This appointed RTL as the first Trustee and a subsequent Deed of Appointment and Amendment, and Definitive Trust Deed and Rules (TD&R) appointed Mr PY and Mrs LY as Member Trustees, alongside RTL as the ‘continuing trustee’. The TD&R was signed by Mr PY and Mrs LY, both in their roles as director and secretary respectively of the principal employer and their capacity as the Member Trustees, and RTL as the continuing Independent Trustee. The TD&R replaced the Interim Deed as the governing documentation of the Scheme.

In a letter to Rowanmoor dated 1 September 2014, Mr PY and Mrs LY confirmed that they had been introduced to CHF Pip! by a friend and, following advice from Fallon, had decided to establish a SSAS in order to invest and to provide future opportunities for the development of their own business.

On 10 September 2014, Mr PY and Mrs LY as the Clients, signed a Client Agreement (the Client Agreement) and this, in turn, was signed by Rowanmoor and RTL. The Client Agreement set out, amongst other things, the services to be provided to Mr PY and Mrs LY. As well as those services to be provided by Rowanmoor, RTL would also

28 CAS-32056-R8Y5 provide “trustee services,” including specifically ongoing “professional responsibility as Independent Trustee for the Scheme.”

On 26 September 2014, Mr PY and Mrs LY, as Member Trustees, completed and signed an Unquoted Equity Application in which they applied to invest £118,000, initially representing 95% of the Scheme assets, in CHF Pip! They said that they had found out about the opportunity to invest through mutual colleagues in media who had already invested. In the Unquoted Equity Application Mr PY and Mrs LY declared:

“As member trustees of the scheme, we confirm that the information provided in this application is true, complete. and accurate to the best ot our knowledge.

We understand that if the purchase of shares proceeds on the basis of incorrect information provided in this application, we may be personally liable to significant tax penalties imposed by HM Revenue & Customs. Further tax penalties may also be levied on the scheme.

We confirm that there is no formal or informal agreement in place by which the Company will arrange for any of the advanced monies to be passed back, whether directly or indirectly, to any member of the scheme, or any person or company connected with a member.

We also understand that should any of the information provided on this application change after the scheme has acquired shares In the Company, the same tax charges could be raised against us personally and against the scheme. We hereby undertake to advise Rowanmoor Trustees Limited of any such proposed changes immediately, and undertake to arrange to sell the scheme's shareholding in the Company prior to such changes occurring if they would result in tax charges being incurred.

We hereby indemnify Rowanmoor Group plc against any tax penalties which may be levied against the scheme as a result of the share purchase being approved based on incorrect or incomplete information provided on this application, or as a result of the shares not being sold prior to any changes to the information provided taking place after the purchase.”

On 3 October 2014, Rowanmoor wrote to Mr PY and Mrs LY regarding their proposed investment in CHF Pip! (the CHF Pip! Risk Warning Letter). It said that it understood that they wished to invest in the investment. It then said:-

“As you will be aware, an investment of this nature carries a high risk: it is highly speculative and there is no recognised market for this investment. Investors must have no need for liquidity, and be able to withstand a total loss of investment. Whilst we are able to give you our opinion as to the eligibility of such an investment under current pensions legislation and the Definitive Trust Deed and Rules of the Scheme, we do not endorse or recommend any particular investment structure or provider, nor can we advise on the suitability of, and risks attached to, the proposed 29 CAS-32056-R8Y5 investment. In addition we cannot advise on the complexities of the legal process of acquiring shares in CHF Pip! plc, or in relation to the contractual documentation. Further, the Pension Scheme may become liable for costs, charges. taxes and other liabilities relating to the investment which you will not be aware at the time of the initial subscription.

You should note that as this investment is not regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, most of the protections afforded under the UK financial services regulatory system.do not apply to this investment and that compensation under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme may not be available.

As the shares are being acquired by your Pension Scheme, you will not be able to claim any of the Enterprise Investment Scheme tax benefits referred to in the Offer Document

Before purchasing shares in CHF Pip! plc, you should read the Offer Document and Terms & Conditions for the investment.

Before we purchase the shares, we require confirmation that:

You have received the CHF Pip! plc offer document and agree to the Terms and Conditions of subscription contained in the Appendix to the Information Memorandum and in the Application Form and the Articles of Association for CHF Pip! plc.

Having had the opportunity to read the offer document, you have had notice of all information and representations concerning CHF Pip! plc contained within that document

Appended to the CHF Pip! Risk Warning Letter was a Member Declaration, signed by Mr PY and Mrs LY on 11 October 2014, in which they confirmed that they understood that there were risks inherent in the proposed investment and that Rowanmoor would not be liable. They confirmed that they did not wish to appoint legal advisers; that 30 CAS-32056-R8Y5 they had received the CHF Pip! offer document and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of subscription; and having had the opportunity to read the offer document, they had had notice of all information and representations concerning CHF Pip! contained within that document.

CHF Pip! was placed into administration in March 2021 and has now been dissolved. Mr PY and Mrs LY accordingly believe they have lost their pension funds.

Mr WK

Mr WK says he received an unsolicited approach from Seren Independent Advisers Limited (Seren), a regulated intermediary. Following a review of his pension, he was advised to establish the Scheme with Rowanmoor. Seren was dissolved on 19 May 2015.

On 12 September 2013, Mr WK completed an Application (the Application) to establish the Scheme with Rowanmoor and to transfer his personal pension fund with Prudential to it.

The Application showed that Marcus James Commercial UK Ltd (Marcus James), an unregulated introducer, was providing advice to Mr WK in his role as the Member Trustee. The proposed investment was in overseas property in Chateau de la Cazine through Halcyon Developments (Halcyon), and also in Store First. The Corporate Verification Certificate and Identity Verification Certificate were signed by a regulated intermediary, Mr DS, who at that time was a director of Seren.

The Scheme was established by an Interim Deed dated 17 October 2013. This appointed RTL as the first Trustee. A subsequent Deed of Appointment and Amendment, and Definitive Trust Deed and Rules (TD&R) appointed Mr WK as Member Trustee, alongside RTL as the ‘continuing trustee’. The TD&R was signed by Mr WK, both in his role as the sole director of the principal employer and in his individual capacity as the Member Trustee, and RTL as the continuing Independent Trustee. The TD&R replaced the Interim Deed as the governing documentation of the Scheme.

On 12 November 2013, Mr WK as the Client, signed a Client Agreement (the Client Agreement) and this, in turn, was signed by Rowanmoor and RTL. The Client Agreement set out, amongst other things, the services to be provided to Mr WK. As well as those services to be provided by Rowanmoor, RTL would also provide “trustee services,” including specifically ongoing “professional responsibility as Independent Trustee for the Scheme.”

31 CAS-32056-R8Y5 The Scheme was funded by a transfer of £110,094.14 from Prudential, received on 17 October 2014.

On 7 December 2013, Mr WK had signed a Property Development Information Schedule (PDIS) to confirm he wished to invest £60,000 in Store First. He signed a later PDIS on 20 October 2014 to confirm he wished to increase his investment to £63,750.

Also on 20 October 2014, Mr WK signed a PDIS to confirm he wished to invest a total of £41,250 in five fractional shares in Chateau de la Cazine.

On 19 October 2014, Rowanmoor wrote to Mr WK regarding his proposed investment in Store First (the Store First Risk Warning Letter). It said that it understood that he wished to invest in the investment. Rowanmoor explained that there was a two-year break clause (the Break Clause) in the lease agreements which would mean that Store First would be able to terminate the respective leases at that point, which would mean no further income from the investment unless Mr WK was able to find his own tenant, and that the overheads would still need to be met from the Scheme’s resources. The letter also asked Mr WK to consider how he would go about trying to find his own tenant.

On 17 November 2014, Rowanmoor wrote to Mr WK regarding his proposed investment in Chateau de la Cazine (the Chateau de la Cazine Risk Warning Letter). It said that it understood that he wished to invest in the investment. It then said:-

“Whilst we are able to inform you of the eligibility of such an investment under current pension legislation and the Trust Deed and Rules of the Pension Scheme, we do not endorse or recommend the services of any particular investment company, nor can we advise on the suitability of and risks attached to the proposed investment. In addition we cannot advise on the complexities of the legal process in relation to the contractual documentation. Nor are we able to advise on the developer's title to the land.

As with all complex investments we would strongly recommend that before proceeding you take appropriate legal, financial and other professional advice in the matter, as this may prevent issues going forward and reduce the possibility of incurring unnecessary costs in the future. We would like to point out that these investments are not regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and are not therefore subject to the protections available on advised or regulated products, such as the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, or the Financial Ombudsman Service. In addition you should be aware that in accordance with the provisions of The Pension Act 1995, the Trustees of the scheme are required to take investment advice before making any investment.

You should also ensure that before proceeding you have seen and read the purchase contract and associated documentation related to the investment.

32 CAS-32056-R8Y5 …

In addition to the risks mentioned above we would highlight that this investment includes an option for the developer to sell your property for you in the specified year of the investment at a fixed price if you wish them to. In order to take advantage of this option you must apply for the sale 12 months before you require it to take place and if you miss this time frame you will not be able to exercise the option and will lose the ability to require the developer to sell the property at the fixed price. While they may subsequently agree to sell the property they would not be obliged to do so and would be free to offer whatever price they wished at the time which could be less than you paid for the property at the outset.

While you may be able to sell your unit to a buyer on the open market there is no recognised resale market for investments such as this and so finding a buyer may have its own difficulties.

We can offer you no advice on this matter and all of the above is mentioned only to highlight the strict timescale with which you will need to comply.

Rowanmoor Group excludes, to the maximum extent permissible by law, all liability in connection with your proposed purchase of the investment or resulting from such purchase, having drawn your attention in this letter to potential issues involved. Nothing in this letter excludes Rowanmoor Groups liability for personal injury caused by its negligence or for any loss caused by its fraudulent acts or omissions.”

On 28 October 2016, Rowanmoor wrote to Mr WK to advise him that Store First had given formal notification that it intended to exercise the Break Clause on his pods. It said that among the options open to Mr WK was to either sell the pods on the open market or to appoint Store First as his agent under a landlord Lettings Management Agreement, whereby Store First would undertake to let the storage units for him in return for 15% of rental income received. Another possibility was to let the unit himself or find a letting agent of his choice.

In 2016 the FCA declared the wider Park First investment arrangement an illegal collective investment scheme, and a number of Park First companies subsequently went into administration. The High Court ordered the winding-up of Store First on 15 July 2019. The holdings for fellow investors in Park First and Store First were deemed to be worthless by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme in May 2021. However, the FCA is currently seeking the recovery of funds owed to various Park First entities, and it is possible that a distribution to investors may take place at some point in future.

In 2018, Mr WK sought a refund of his investment under the terms of the purchase contract. Halcyon said a repayment was not possible as the funds had been invested. He accordingly believes he has lost his pension fund.

33 CAS-32056-R8Y5 Dr CR

Dr CR says she received an unsolicited approach offering a review of her pensions in early 2014. Following a review of her pension by Investaco, an unregulated firm, dated 19 March 2014 she was introduced to IPS, another unregulated intermediary. A representative of IPS visited her and suggested she establish the Scheme with Rowanmoor. The Scheme was to be funded by the transfer of funds from Dr CR’s existing personal pensions.

On 15 May 2014, Dr CR completed an Application (the Application) to establish the Scheme with Rowanmoor and transfer her pensions with Equitable Life and Fidelity, totalling approximately £46,000, to it.

The Application showed that Return on Capital Group Ltd (ROC), an unregulated firm, was providing advice to Dr CR in her role as the Member Trustee. The proposed investment was in overseas property through GPG and Best Car Parks.

The Scheme was established by an Interim Deed dated 19 May 2014. This appointed RTL as the first Trustee. A subsequent Deed of Appointment and Amendment, and Definitive Trust Deed and Rules (TD&R) appointed Dr CR as Member Trustee, alongside RTL as the ‘continuing trustee’. The TD&R was signed by Dr CR, both in her role as the sole director of the principal employer and in her individual capacity as the Member Trustee, and RTL as the continuing Independent Trustee. The TD&R replaced the Interim Deed as the governing documentation of the Scheme.

On 22 May 2014, Rowanmoor wrote to Dr CR regarding her proposed investment in GPG (the GPG Risk Warning Letter). It said that it understood that she wished to invest in the investment. It then said:-

“As you will be aware. an investment of this nature carries a high risk. It is highly speculative and there is no recognised secondary market for this investment. Investors must have no need for liquidity, and be able to withstand a total loss of Investment. The loan notes are non-transferable and you will not be able to transfer your holding or sell it to a third party during the investment term. Whist we are able to give you our opinion as to the eligibility of such an investment under current pensions legislation and the Definitive Trust Deed and Rules of the Scheme. We do not endorse or recommend any particular investment structure or provider, nor can we advise on the suitability of and risks attached to the proposed investment. In 34 CAS-32056-R8Y5 addition we cannot advise on the complexities of the legal process of purchasing the loan notes or of Special Purpose Vehicles acquiring listed properties in Germany, or in relation to the contractual documentation. Further. the Pension Scheme may become liable for costs, charges. taxes and other liabilities relating to the loan notes of which you will not be aware at the time of the initial Investment.

You should note that as this investment is not regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, most of the protections afforded under the UK financial services regulatory system do not apply lo this investment and that compensation under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme may not be available.

As with all complex investments, we would strongly recommend that before proceeding with this investment you take appropriate legal and other professional advice in the matter, as this may prevent issues going forward and reduce the possibility of incurring unnecessary costs in the future. In particular we would also remind you that in accordance with the provisions of the Pensions Act 1995, the Trustees of the Scheme are required to take investment advice before making any investment.

Appended to the GPG Risk Warning Letter was a Member Declaration, signed by Dr CR dated 2 June 2014, in which she confirmed that she understood that there were risks inherent in the proposed investment and that Rowanmoor would not be liable. She confirmed that she did not wish to appoint legal advisers and would not be taking out life assurance cover.

On 2 June 2014, Dr CR as the Client, signed a Client Agreement (the Client Agreement) and this, in turn, was signed by Rowanmoor and RTL. The Client Agreement set out, amongst other things, the services to be provided to Dr CR. As well as those services to be provided by Rowanmoor, RTL would also provide “trustee services,” including specifically ongoing “professional responsibility as Independent Trustee for the Scheme.”

On 22 July 2014, Dr CR signed a Property Development Information Schedule (PDIS) to confirm she wished to invest £27,000 in Best Car Parks.

On 30 July 2014, Rowanmoor wrote to Dr CR regarding her proposed Best Car Parks investment (the Best Car Parks Risk Warning Letter). It said that it understood that she wished to invest in the investment. It then said:- 35 CAS-32056-R8Y5 “Whilst we are able to Inform you of the eligibility of such an investment we do not advise on the suitability of and risks attached to the proposed investment. In addition we cannot advise on the complexities of the legal process of acquiring property in this overseas territory or in relation to the contractual documentation or seller’s title for the acquisition and it is recommended that appropriate legal and other professional advice is taken In respect of this investment as is the case with all property purchases.

Further, investments in overseas property could mean that the pension scheme may become liable for costs, charges, property taxes and other liabilities relating to the property of which you will not be aware at completion of its purchase. Whilst Rowanmoor Group has not been made aware of any costs associated with this investment any such costs are the responsibility of the SSAS member and not Rowanmoor Group.

Rowanmoor Group excludes, to the maximum extent permissible by law, all liability in connection with your proposed purchase of the property or resulting from such purchase.

You should note that as this Investment is not regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, most of the protections afforded under the UK financial services regulatory system do not apply to this investment and that compensation under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme may not be available.

If a legal representative Is not to be appointed, we would be grateful you would please kindly sign and return the enclosed copy of this letter in confirmation.”

Appended to the Best Car Parks Risk Warning Letter was a Member Declaration, signed by Dr CR dated 5 August 2014, in which she confirmed that she understood that there were risks inherent in the proposed investment and that Rowanmoor would not be liable. She confirmed that she did not wish to appoint legal advisers.

It is not clear to me whether this was written by Rowanmoor as Administrator, in respect of RTL’s (a subsidiary of Rowanmoor) role as Independent Trustee or was intended to cover all aspects of Rowanmoor’s involvement. Certainly, there was no indication in the letter that any of the issues raised might also be something that should be considered by RTL as co-trustee.

GPG was an Unregulated Collective Investment Scheme (UCIS). It was a German- based company which invested in the conversion and refurbishment of listed buildings (in Germany) for residential use.

36 CAS-32056-R8Y5 were estimated to be worth no more than €150m collectively, meaning that investors, including Dr CR, stand to lose the bulk of their investment.

Best Car Parks was an unregulated overseas investment which is now worthless.

Dr CR accordingly believes she has lost the funds invested in GPG and Best Car Parks.

Mr DL

On 10 January 2014, Mr DL completed an Application (the Application) to establish the Scheme with Rowanmoor and transfer his pension with AXA Wealth to it.

The Application showed that Stevenson Pride, at that time an unregulated firm, was providing advice to Mr DL in his role as the Member Trustee. The proposed initial investment was in overseas property through GPG.

The Scheme was established by an Interim Deed dated 13 January 2014. This appointed RTL as the first Trustee. A subsequent Deed of Appointment and Amendment, and Definitive Trust Deed and Rules (TD&R) appointed Mr DL as Member Trustee, alongside RTL as the ‘continuing trustee’. The TD&R was signed by Mr DL, both in his role as the sole director of the principal employer and in his individual capacity as the Member Trustee, and RTL as the continuing Independent Trustee. The TD&R replaced the Interim Deed as the governing documentation of the Scheme.

On 13 January 2014, Mr DL as the Client, signed a Client Agreement (the Client Agreement) and this, in turn, was signed by Rowanmoor and RTL. The Client Agreement set out, amongst other things, the services to be provided to Mr DL. As well as those services to be provided by Rowanmoor, RTL would also provide “trustee services,” including specifically ongoing “professional responsibility as Independent Trustee for the Scheme.”

Mr DL’s investment in GPG Loan Notes matured on 18 September 2017.

On 18 September 2017, Mr DL wrote to Rowanmoor to advise that he wished to invest £100,000, representing 94% of the Scheme’s assets, in Vordere, a company that at that time was listed on the London Stock Exchange (LSE). He enclosed a completed application to this effect.

There is little documentary evidence relating to the investment in Vordere, but Rowanmoor has confirmed that it was aware of it. As it was a Scheme investment, I consider RTL, in its capacity as co-trustee under the TD&R, effectively agreed to it

37 CAS-32056-R8Y5 (and even if it did not, should have been involved in considering and agreeing the investment in accordance with its duties under the TD&R).

Vordere is currently an active company. However, on 5 July 2019, the shares were suspended from trading by the LSE.

RTL has argued that Mr DL’s complaint should be considered out of time for the purpose of my jurisdiction, as it should have been clear to him that Vordere was in trouble in 2019 and as he did not complain until 16 March 2023, more than three years had elapsed. I do not agree. While I acknowledge that the performance of the asset and the suspension of shares would have been a cause for concern, I do not consider it would be sufficient on its own to prompt Mr DL to immediately lodge a complaint.

Mrs SE

On 11 June 2014, Mrs SE completed an application to establish the Scheme with Rowanmoor (the Application).

The Application showed that Mrs SE was advised by Ms DS representing Lucesco Limited (Lucesco) to invest in GPG, Secret Hills (IOM), Store First and Akbuk. While Lucesco was not a regulated intermediary, I note that at the time Ms DS was an FCA authorised individual and was also a Director of Regency Financial Resources Limited (Regency), a regulated intermediary. Both Lucesco and Regency are now dissolved.

The Scheme was to be initially funded by a transfer of funds from three of Mrs SE’s existing pensions. According to Mrs SE, a total of some £333,838 was transferred from pensions with United Utilities, Prudential and National Australia Group.

Mrs SE says she invested a total of £128,000 in GPG, £38,942 in Store First in June 2015, £85,475 in Akbuk in October 2014 and £21,000 in Secret Hills (IOM) in November 2014. A Certificate dated 10 December 2014 confirms she invested £13,000 in GPG, a Certificate dated 15 December 2014 confirms she invested a further £100,000 in GPG and a Certificate dated 20 January 2016 shows she invested a further £13,000 in GPG.

On 19 June 2014, Rowanmoor wrote to Mrs SE regarding her proposed investment (the GPG Risk Warning Letter). It said that it understood that she wished to invest in the investment. It then said:-

“As you will be aware, an investment of this nature carries a high risk: it is highly speculative and there is no recognised secondary market for this investment. 38 CAS-32056-R8Y5 Investors must have no need for liquidity, and be able to withstand a total loss of investment. The loan notes are non-transferrable and you will not be able to transfer your holding or sell it to a third party during the investment term. Whilst we are able to give you our opinion as to the eligibility of such an investment under current pensions legislation and the Definitive Trust Deed and Rules of the Scheme, we do not endorse or recommend any particular investment structure or provider, nor can we advise on the suitability of, and risks attached to, the proposed investment. In addition we cannot advise on the complexities of the legal process of purchasing the loan notes or of Special Purpose Vehicles acquiring listed properties in Germany, or In relation to the contractual documentation. Further, the Pension Scheme may become liable for costs, charges, taxes and other liabilities relating to the loan notes of which you will not be aware at the time of the initial investment.

As with all complex investments, we would strongly recommend that before proceeding with this investment you take appropriate legal and other professional advice in the matter, as this may prevent Issues going forward, and reduce the possibility of incurring unnecessary costs in the future. In particular we would also remind you that in accordance with the provisions of the Pensions Act 1995, the Trustees of the Scheme are required to take investment advice before making any investment…

On 25 June 2014, Mrs SE completed and signed an acknowledgement to the GPG Risk Warning Letter in which she confirmed that she understood that there were risks inherent in the proposed investment and that Rowanmoor would not be liable. She confirmed that he did not wish to appoint legal advisers.

The Annual Return submitted on behalf of Secret Hills (IOM) on 22 October 2018 shows that Mrs SE’s adviser, Ms DS, was appointed a Director on 1 July 2015 (after Mrs SE had made her investment).

39 CAS-32056-R8Y5 GPG was an Unregulated Collective Investment Scheme (UCIS). It was a German- based company which invested in the conversion and refurbishment of listed buildings (in Germany) for residential use.

The High Court ordered the winding-up of Store First on 15 July 2019. The holdings for fellow investors in Park First and Store First were deemed to be worthless by the FSCS in May 2021.

On 27 April 2022, Secret Hills (IOM) was struck off the Isle of Man companies register, although I note that a company registered in England and Wales, Secret Hills, of which Ms DS is also a Director, is still in existence although appears dormant.

Mrs SE entered into a series of unwise investments, in which the apparent diversification was only amongst unsuitable investments. I consider a prudent trustee would not have permitted such investments.

As explained above, the Schemes are governed by the TD&R. The TD&R defines ‘Independent Trustee’ as RTL and ‘Member Trustees’ as the trustees of the Scheme other than the Independent Trustee. In these Schemes the meaning given to ‘Trustees’ is “the Member Trustees and the Independent Trustee collectively for the time being appointed.

Clause 3 of the TD&R appoints Rowanmoor Group plc as the sole Administrator of the Scheme.

Summary of Rowanmoor’s position

Case PO-25984 set out my detailed analysis of the role and responsibilities of Rowanmoor and RTL as Administrator and Trustee respectively (some of which I repeat below), in relation to the correct approach to a decision to make an investment in accordance with the rules of that scheme, overriding legislation and relevant case law. That case also dealt with an investment in TRG. It was one of a number of complaints that my office has received in relation to SSASs where Rowanmoor and

40 CAS-32056-R8Y5 RTL act as Administrator and Trustee, although many have different underlying investments that resulted in that complaint being made.

As a result, there are a considerable number of cases which share material facts, such that a decision to uphold the complaint in one would mean that the others in that category would also be upheld. Here, the cases involved investments in GPG, Vordere, Akbuk, The Corran, Strategic Placements, Park First, Manchester Airport Hotel, Store First, Quantum, HSCL, TRG, CHF Pip!, Chateau de la Cazine and Best Car Parks, and share key, material facts.

Accordingly, the outcome of this case shall also apply to those cases listed in the Appendix to this Determination.

The Break Clauses and jurisdiction

Rowanmoor has argued that, for the purposes of assessing whether complaints involving the Park First and/or Store First investments have been brought within time, in accordance with Regulation 5 of The Personal and Occupational Pension Schemes (Pensions Ombudsman) Regulations 1996 (the Regulations), the appropriate point at which the Applicant should be deemed to have been aware of the issue complained of should be the date on which they first received a letter from Rowanmoor advising that Store First or Park First wished to exercise the two-year Break Clause under the lease connected to the investment. However, I disagree with Rowanmoor’s argument. The Applicant had been advised by Rowanmoor of the existence of the two-year Break Clause prior to taking out the investment, and proceeded with the investment anyway, thereby indicating that they were not unduly concerned that it might be exercised in future and that it was not an unexpected moment in the ‘life’ of the investment. The letter itself explained the position regarding the Break Clause to the Applicant, but there was no suggestion that the underlying investment was at risk, and I do not therefore consider that the Applicant was on notice that there was a serious issue with their pension fund until such time as they first received a further letter warning them of either the potential winding-up of Store First, or Park First going into administration.

In brief, the applicants for whom this was a live issue have argued that they had no cause for complaint when they received the letter from Rowanmoor advising that Store First or Park First wished to exercise the two-year Break Clause under the lease connected to the investments. They have argued that that they were aware of the Break Clause and the potential consequences for investment income in the event that the Break Clause should be exercised, therefore they had no cause for complaint when they were informed the Break Clause was being exercised. However, they were unaware that the investments were structured in a way that could be deemed illicit and would additionally require them to be restructured. In addition to the known consequences of exercising the Break Clause on investment income, the restructuring of the investments triggered the adverse consequences for the capital investments themselves. The consequences of the restructuring were first made known in the letters regarding the winding up of Store First and Park First going into 41 CAS-32056-R8Y5 administration. I find it is appropriate that the date of issue of these letters should, in these cases, be taken as the appropriate point at which the applicants should be deemed to have been aware of the issue about which they have complained.

The principles in relation to the date when a claimant in court proceedings should be considered to have acquired constructive knowledge of an actionable cause, particularly where that cause arises in respect of a problematic investment, were examined in Mr Justice Nugee’s Judgment in the case of Cole v Scion Limited [2020] EWHC 1022 (Ch). In brief, those principles are that:

In the case of Park First or Store First, receipt by the applicants of notification that the two-year Break Clause was to be exercised was a known risk, the impact of which was on the expected income to be generated by the investments. In other words, the investments would no longer work as expected. However, this alone did not amount to an indication that the applicants might be worse off, as a result of the Break Clause being exercised, than if they had never invested at all.

Rather, in my view, it was the letters regarding the winding up of Store First and Park First going into administration that introduced the warning of a risk to the underlying capital investments themselves. The risk of the loss of the actual capital investments themselves would have alerted the applicants to the possibility that they could have been better off if they had never invested in Store First or Park First. Accordingly, it was at this stage that the applicants either knew (or ought to have known) about Rowanmoor’s default and looked to them for redress.

Rowanmoor has said that this position is inconsistent with a jurisdiction decision made by my office in relation to an Akbuk complaint. While I acknowledge that there are similarities between the cases, the Akbuk complaint received a first stage, delegated decision that it was out of my jurisdiction. The applicant in that case did not 42 CAS-32056-R8Y5 appeal the decision and so the case was closed. However, I did not review the case, and no final decision was made on jurisdiction. Having considered the documentation in this case, I find that the letter which Rowanmoor seeks to rely on as reasonably making the applicants aware that there was an actionable issue with the investment did not give rise to knowledge of a potential complaint.

Conclusions

Rowanmoor as Administrator

The TD&R states that “Rowanmoor Group plc will be the sole Administrator with effect from the commencement date”, while the Client Agreements entered into between the Applicants, Rowanmoor and RTL states that Rowanmoor will provide administration services. I shall therefore address my conclusions as to the role of the Administrator to Rowanmoor.

Under the terms of the Client Agreement, “RGPLC shall provide establishment, actuarial, administrative and consultancy services and RTL shall provide trustee services to the Client. These services are specified in Schedules 1 and 2”.

Schedule 1 of the Client Agreement sets out the services included in the establishment of the Scheme; Schedule 2 details the services included in the Annual Administration Fee; and Schedule 3 specifies the Additional Services not covered by that fee.

The Annual Administration Fee in Schedule 2 covers:

“Ongoing responsibility as the Independent Trustee for the Scheme.

Ongoing responsibility as Scheme Administrator.

Routine administration of the Scheme including executing allowable investment instructions…

Processing a request to make a direct investment (basic)…

Guidance on the day to day running of the Scheme, the acceptability of investments (other than those to be held offshore or overseas), interpretation of the Trust Deed and HMRC practice…”

Having carefully considered the role and responsibilities of the Administrator under the Client Agreement and the TD&R, I find that Rowanmoor discharged its responsibilities in this aspect in a broadly satisfactory manner, and I therefore do not uphold the Applicants’ complaint against Rowanmoor insofar as it relates to the overall administration of the Scheme.

RTL as Trustee

However, in these cases, there is more than just the role of Administrator to consider.

43 CAS-32056-R8Y5

The role and duties of RTL as Independent Trustee under the TD&R

In PO-25984, I set out the legislative obligations, and the common law duties and standards expected of an independent trustee such as RTL and then analysed whether it had achieved these. After careful consideration, I concluded that it had not. My reasoning for this conclusion was set out in paragraphs 71-90 of that Determination. Given that the facts of these cases, the role of RTL and the Scheme documentation are to all intents and purposes the same as in PO-25984, I have applied the same reasoning and have reached the same conclusion; that RTL has not met its legislative obligations, common law duties and standards expected of an independent trustee. Therefore the analysis in PO-25984 is adopted here and should be considered in conjunction with this Determination.

Investment loss

Having found that RTL has not fulfilled the duties and obligations that attach to it as a Trustee of the Scheme, I will also consider whether the Applicants have suffered any loss. As a part of this, it is necessary to consider whether or not the actual investment made was one which no other reasonable trustee might make (Nestle v National Westminster Bank PLC 1993, 1WLR 1260).

44 CAS-32056-R8Y5 In my view, there are a number of reasons why, in the circumstances of these cases, had RTL properly applied itself to its trustee duties, it, and no other reasonable trustee, would have made the Investments. As such, it was in breach of the duty of care owed by RTL as Trustee and fell below the standard of care owed by RTL to the Applicants.

First, as with any assessment of this type, it is necessary to look at the economic and factual circumstances of the time. Although the risks of the Investments are well known now, it would be wrong to apply that knowledge with hindsight to an investment made at the time in question.

To assist with this, I have considered what knowledge was available at the time the Investments were made.

In deciding whether they amounted to reasonable investments, one should consider the context – and in particular, the circumstances of the individual member and the nature of a pension scheme. One should also have regard to the requirement to consider diversification of investments.

The Investments

GPG

GPG was a German-based Unregulated collective investment scheme (UCIS), which invested in the conversion and refurbishment of listed buildings in Germany for residential use. Investment was in a Fixed Rate Loan Note of varying investment terms purportedly promising an annual investment return of 13.8%, and a further £10,000 in a Fixed Rate Loan Note purportedly promising a 10% annual return.

In some instances where the investment term of the loan note was relatively short the investor may well have made a profit. However, the fact that this was an unregulated overseas property investment made through loan notes should have immediately marked it out as a high risk and therefore potentially unsuitable investment for unsophisticated investors. The promised annual returns of up to 13.8% regardless of market conditions should also have served as a warning to a prudent professional trustee.

The circumstances are such that, in my view, a trustee exercising its powers in the best financial interests of the beneficiaries would not have invested in GPG. In my view speculative investments of this type, having regard to those circumstances, were clearly inappropriate.

Vordere

Vordere is classed as an active, UK based property investment and development company, shares in which were offered to some GPG investors once their loan notes had matured. It is focused primarily on the German residential market (and has purchased some properties from GPG). In July 2019, Vordere shares were

45 CAS-32056-R8Y5 suspended from trading by the LSE. According to its latest set of accounts (at 31 March 2024) it looks to have minimal share value.

While at the time the shares were offered on the LSE, when the underlying business was examined (as the trustees should have done as a part of their due diligence) in my view it was clearly a speculative, potentially high risk investment which was unsuitable as a pension investment and I find that no other reasonable trustee would have made such an investment except perhaps as a small part of a diversified portfolio.

Akbuk

The Akbuk investment was an overseas hotel development company, whereby the investor purchased fractional ownership of a hotel property in Turkey by way of membership of a UK Limited-by-Guarantee Company.

In my view, there are a number of reasons why, in the circumstances of this case, had RTL properly applied itself to its trustee duties, it, and no other reasonable trustee, would have made the investment in Akbuk.

Notably, as is set out in paragraph 91 in PO-25984, it was known that fractional hotel investment opportunities represented a high-risk investment that would be, in the vast majority of cases, an unsuitable investment for the beneficiaries of these SSASs. As such, it was in breach of the duty of care owed by RTL as Trustee and fell below the standard of care owed by RTL to those beneficiaries.

The Corran

The Corran Resort & Spa investment, owned by Kayboo Limited (Kayboo), was a hotel development scheme situated in Laugharne, South Wales.

This was an investment via a fractional ownership certificate entitling the investor to a share of the rent paid by the hotel operator. As set out in my lead case of PO-25984, it was clear that fractional hotel investment opportunities represented a high risk, speculative investment (see paragraph 91 to 107 of that Determination). So it transpired, as issues with planning permission halted the development, as the site, situated on a floodplain, was deemed to be of special scientific interest.

Kayboo went into administration in October 2016 and investors are thought to have lost all of their money.

This was an unregulated high-risk investment in property, which was unsuitable as a pension investment. A small amount of due diligence would have revealed the lack of planning permission, and therefore the existential risk to the development

Strategic Placements

This was an unregulated investment in a proposed property development on green belt land. It failed to receive planning permission and could not proceed.

46 CAS-32056-R8Y5 The investment was to purchase bonds issued by a company called Strategic Placements Wood Street Green Limited, and although the property development did not proceed, the company is still classed as active.

The investment appears to have been valued at £0 by Rowanmoor at one point. It was clearly a high-risk, speculative, unregulated investment in a property development.

Manchester Airport Hotel

This investment was through the purchase of loan notes issued by a company which had purchased an existing hotel. Investment was therefore in the company and not the hotel itself. The hotel subsequently became insolvent.

Mr VD appears to have received one interest payment and one dividend from the Administrators, which was only a small percentage of the original investment.

In my view, this was a high risk, unregulated investment that was unsuitable for Mr VD.

Store First & Park First

As I set out in detail in my Determination of CAS-44560-Q1C8, Store First and Park First involved the purchase of individual storage units and car parking spaces on long term leases. There was an initial guaranteed level of income of 8% following which the income would be dependent on usage or they could be sold, assuming there was a market for them. This was in my view a speculative investment.

The speculative nature of these investments which were in my view clearly inappropriate, are such that I find that a trustee exercising its powers in the best financial interests of the beneficiaries would not have allowed these investments to proceed. In my view speculative investments of this type, having regard to those circumstances, were clearly inappropriate.

Quantum

This investment was in unsecured bonds issued by Quantum Residential Property LLP.

Quantum Residential Property LLP is now in liquidation, so the investment would appear to now be worthless.

In my view, this was a high risk, unregulated investment that was unsuitable for Mr DH.

HSCL

Rowanmoor’s own letter to the applicant regarding this investment highlights that it was speculative, illiquid, and that investors needed to be able to withstand a total loss of their investment.

47 CAS-32056-R8Y5 The company issuing the loan notes became insolvent, and subject to any dividend that may be received from the liquidators. The applicants have lost their investment, which I find was clearly unsuitable for them.

TRG

TRG was an overseas hotel development company, whereby the investor purchased fractional ownership of a hotel suite in Cape Verde by way of membership of a UK Limited-by-Guarantee Company.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has since at least April 2013 warned of the risks of purchasing property in Cape Verde: “Many British nationals have experienced serious problems when buying property in Cape Verde. Before buying property anywhere on the islands, you should seek independent qualified legal advice”.

As is set out in paragraph 91 in PO-25984, it was known that fractional hotel investment opportunities represented a high-risk investment that would be, in the vast majority of cases, an unsuitable investment. As such, it was in breach of the duty of care owed by RTL as Trustee and fell below the standard of care owed by RTL to the applicants

CHF Pip!

This investment was in shares in a TV production company which went into administration and has now been dissolved. It was clearly a speculative, high risk investment, which was not a prudent pension investment.

RTL assert that the applicants in this case sought a pension scheme to facilitate a substantial investment in a new enterprise in an area where they acknowledge they had great expertise and knowledge and to that extent they were insistent on proceeding with the investment.

While Mr PY and Mrs LY appear to have been determined to invest in it, in my view it was not a prudent pension investment, particularly given the need for diversification. RTL was a co-trustee with obligations to obtain and consider advice (see paragraph 80 of PO-25984), and the power of investment in the TD&R lay with the Trustees as a whole (including RTL). The member trustees determination to invest is not sufficient to absolve RTL of its own obligations. As such, I find that a trustee exercising its powers in the best financial interests of the beneficiaries would not have allowed the investment to proceed.

Due to the involvement of a regulated financial adviser with additional expertise, and its own responsibilities, I have concluded that a different liability for RTL is appropriate and that RTL should be responsible for only 50% of any losses incurred by the CHF Pip! investment. Therefore, the apportionment of liability set out in paragraph 12 of Appendix 1 will be amended from 80% to 50%.

48 CAS-32056-R8Y5 Chateau de la Cazine

This was fractional ownership investment via a limited company, Chateau de la Cazine Fractional AA limited (one of a number of such fractional ownership companies) in a hotel complex in France. As set out in my lead case of PO-25984, it was clear that fractional hotel investment opportunities represented a high risk, speculative investment (see paragraph 91 to 107 of that Determination).

The hotel website indicates that the hotel is still functioning, and the limited company appears to be still in existence. Investors may not necessarily have lost all their Nonetheless, this was a high risk, unregulated investment in overseas property, and so was unsuitable as a pension investment.

Secret Hills (IOM)

Little is known about this company which was incorporated in the Isle of Man on 22 October 2012. The company was struck off on 27 April 2022 and the asset appears to now be worthless.

Mrs SE has lost her investment. It was clearly unsuitable for an individual in her position.

Best Car Parks

This was an unregulated overseas investment. The asset is now worthless.

In my view, this was a high risk, speculative, unregulated investment that was unsuitable for Dr CR who has lost her investment. It was clearly unsuitable for an individual in her position.

Where liability rests

Having now decided that RTL failed to meet its obligations as Independent Trustee, by failing to perform its duties or meet the standard of care required of it and found that the Investments were ones that no reasonable trustee would have made, it is now necessary to decide where the liability for those errors sits.

Although the Applicants are bringing their complaints as beneficiaries of the Schemes, they are also Member Trustees. RTL and the Applicants are jointly the Trustees and exercise the power of investment together. So, in order for the Applicants to succeed with their complaints, they need to be able to hold liable the professional trustee in relation to an investment they agreed to make; and any resulting redress must either be directed on a joint and several basis against the trustees (including, of course, themselves) or apportioned between them.

In PO-25984, at paragraphs 108-126, I examined the issues outlined in the preceding paragraph, and I concluded that I have the power to direct a specific apportioned contribution by a trustee responsible for breach of trust, and not simply fall back on the joint and several liability between trustees. The position of the parties in this case 49 CAS-32056-R8Y5 is substantially the same as that in PO-25984, and therefore apportionment of contributions, rather than joint and several liability, is accordingly appropriate in these cases as well.

Exonerations and Indemnities

Having found the Trustees in breach, we should now turn to whether they are afforded any protection. In particular, the Trustees benefit from exoneration and indemnity provisions in the TD&R. The substantive provisions of the TD&R in this case are identical to those in PO-25984, and from my perusal of those TD&R I concluded at paragraphs 127-136 that that the exoneration and indemnity provisions in respect of the Trustees (or RTL specifically under the Risk Warning Letters) were not effective in relation to that case, and so by extension they are not effective here.

Quantification of the loss

The final issue to address is whether the Applicants have suffered a quantifiable loss which is capable of remedy and apportionment.

The Investments appear to have been effectively lost. RTL as co-trustee and a professional trustee, for reasons given previously, had a duty to ensure that the investment was suitable and should not have agreed to it if it found it was not. RTL failed to do so, and I find this to be a breach of duty and maladministration.

However, I am mindful of the fact that the Applicants are co-trustee of the Schemes, and as sole members, they are required to agree to any proposed investment and so I must consider whether an apportionment of liability for any loss that the Applicants have suffered is appropriate. There are other case specific circumstances which may influence this which I have set out in the Appendix.

Despite the Applicants’ position as co-trustees of their respective schemes, and the need for them to agree to investment choices as Member Trustees under the TD&R, had RTL fulfilled its professional trustee responsibilities in an appropriate manner, it would have been fully engaged in the process of selecting Scheme investments, and would have liaised with the Applicants as co-trustees in the process. Had it done so, it would have become apparent at an early stage that these were inappropriate investments in all the circumstances.

Given this, and the fact that under Clause 8 of the TD&R “Decisions at Trustee meetings must be unanimous”, RTL was uniquely placed, both in terms of its being able to apply its professional judgment as to the suitability of the proposed investment for the Member, and to prevent the investment from proceeding in the event that it determined that it was not suitable. Although the Applicants were of course also trustees, they was not in a position and did not have the knowledge and understanding to be able to appropriately assess the suitability or otherwise of the

50 CAS-32056-R8Y5 proposed investment, and so I do not consider that they should be deemed equally responsible for the position he now finds himself in.

Furthermore, this is not a case where RTL tried but failed to do enough to fulfil its duties; rather it seems to me that it failed to understand its duties and make any attempt to meet them, notwithstanding that it appeared to continue to charge for those services.

To conclude, having considered all the evidence and relevant case law, I find that the appropriate apportionment of responsibility – taking into account RTL’s status as a professional trustee with considerable experience of SSAS management and trusteeship – to be 80% for RTL and 20% for the Applicants.

This position differs for Mr DH where, for the reasons set out in paragraph 97, apportionment shall be 50% each between RTL and Mr DH; and for Mr PY and Mrs LY where, for the reasons set out in paragraph 260, apportionment shall be 50% each between RTL and Mr PY and Mrs LY.

I therefore uphold the Applicants’ complaints against RTL.

Directions

intention in these Directions is to, as far as possible, put the Applicants back into the position they would have been in had the Investments not taken place, recognising the Applicants’ partial liability as trustees of the Schemes. As a part of that, the Applicants should largely recover the costs and taxes paid in respect of the Investments and should not be left with any ongoing liability for costs and charges relating to the Investments in the future. Furthermore, their continued presence as investments in the Scheme should not in any way prevent or delay their ability to transfer their funds away from the Scheme to another arrangement should they wish to do so.

In some cases, set out in earlier paragraphs, I have found that a particular investment shall not be included in the loss calculation, as that complaint has not been brought in time.1

RTL shall follow the methodology outlined in Appendix 1 to this Determination to determine the sum payable to the Schemes.

Finally, RTL shall pay the Applicants the sum of £1,000 each to reflect the materially significant distress and inconvenience that they have suffered as a result of its failure to discharge its duties as co-trustee in relation to the selection of suitable investments. This is the same sum as I awarded in the similar case of PO-25984 in February 2024. It might be argued that the Applicants have not encountered the same level of distress and inconvenience as the Applicant in that case, but given

1 See paragraphs 4 and 11

51 CAS-32056-R8Y5 RTL’s failure to apply the principles that I clearly established in PO-25984 to other similarly impacted customers, I consider the award appropriate in the circumstances.

Dominic Harris

Pensions Ombudsman

20 March 2026

52 CAS-32056-R8Y5 Appendix 1

This is a lead Determination for a group of linked cases listed in Appendix 2, where each Applicant transferred their pension to a Rowanmoor SSAS, and then incurred financial loss as a consequence of investing in unsuitable investments. The material facts of the cases are similar, such that if I were to determine each one separately, I would uphold them on the same basis as the present case. As such my findings and directions in these cases apply equally to all the cases listed in Appendix 2 (although, of course, RTL will need to contact different transferring arrangements, in order to ascertain the notional value for the purposes of paragraphs 1 and 2, below), and RTL shall apply the appropriate remedy for each.

Methodology

Within 28 days of the date of this Determination, RTL shall contact the administrator of each arrangement from which a transfer was paid into the SSAS scheme to obtain a notional value for the former policies as at the date of this Determination, assuming that: (i) they continued to be invested in the same funds that they were at the point they were transferred out, (ii) charges continued to be deducted from the funds. This figure shall be the Value of Former Policies as at the Date of Determination.

To the extent that it is not known already, RTL shall also ask the administrator of each arrangement from which a transfer was paid into the SSAS scheme to confirm the value of those former policies as at the date the transfer was made to the SSAS scheme. This figure shall be the Value of Former Policies as at the Date of Transfer.

RTL shall, within 7 days of receiving those figures, calculate the Notional Return Factor, which will be:

Value of Former Policies as at the Date of Determination ________________________________________________

Value of Former Policies as at the Date of Transfer

Although I am unable to direct the Applicant to take any particular steps, I am sure they will appreciate that they may be asked to give RTL their authority to enable it to obtain this information to assist in assessing their loss.

It is now my intention to ascertain what the Investments would have been worth today, had they instead remained invested in the former policies. This will be the Notional Value of the Investments as at the Date of Determination. This should be calculated as the sum originally invested in the Investments, multiplied by the Notional Return Factor.

53 CAS-32056-R8Y5 Finally, in order to determine the loss suffered by the Applicants, it is also necessary to calculate the Actual Value of the Investments as at the Date of Determination. Clearly, because of the nature of these investments, this is not an easy process. Accordingly, the Actual Value of the Investments as at the Date of Determination will be calculated in accordance with paragraphs 8 to 11 below.

The Actual Value of the Investments as at the Date of Determination shall be deducted from the Notional Value of the Investments as at the Date of Determination to arrive at the Applicant’s initial loss amount (the Initial Loss Amount).

RTL shall establish the current commercial value (if any) of the Investments, and then pay this sum into the Scheme with RTL taking ownership of the investment.

If a valuation is not possible, the Investments shall be valued collectively at £1 and purchased by RTL. That £1 shall be paid into the Scheme.

If RTL is unable to purchase the Investments, then it may seek to sell them on the open market, with any proceeds of the sold investments being paid into the Scheme.

If RTL elects not to, or is unable to sell the Investments on the open market within 90 days of the date of this Determination, then the Investments shall remain in the Scheme and RTL shall:

a) Value the Investments at nil in calculating the Applicant’s loss and take such steps as may be required to ensure that neither the Scheme nor the Applicant personally incurs any further costs, charges, expenses or other liabilities in relation to the Investments; and

b) Give notice that the Applicant may, within 45 days of such notice being given, decide if RTL should take ownership of the Investments so that the Scheme may, if the Applicant so wishes, be closed.

Whichever option is followed, if the Actual Value of the Investments as at the Date of Determination, including any amount paid in under paragraphs 8 to 11 above, is less than the Notional Value of the Investments as at the Date of Determination, RTL shall pay into the Scheme a sum equivalent to 80% of the Initial Loss Amount (or as specified in paragraph 278 and Appendix 2). The payment should also allow for any available tax relief, subject to the sum actually paid into the Scheme equating precisely to the sum equivalent to 80% (or as specified in Appendix 2) of the Initial Loss Amount.

Given that the FCA is currently seeking the recovery of some Park First assets with the intention of distributing these to investors, then where

54 CAS-32056-R8Y5 full payment has been made by RTL to the Scheme in accordance with paragraph 12 above, any sums later recovered from the Store First Investments shall be payable to RTL. Where payment has not been fully made by RTL to the Scheme in accordance with paragraph 12 above, any recovery received under this paragraph 13, up to the amount in paragraph 12 that has not been paid, shall be payable to the Applicant, and the residual recovery, if any, shall be payable to RTL.

Given that the insolvency process for GPG has yet to be concluded, and a distribution to investors for that investment is accordingly still possible, then once full payment has been made by RTL to the Schemes in accordance with the preceding paragraphs, any sums later recovered from GPG shall be payable to RTL.

In cases where RTL is no longer the Trustee of the Scheme, the Applicant may be asked to obtain the Actual Value of the investments from the current Trustee and to provide it to RTL.

55 CAS-32056-R8Y5 Appendix 2 – Linked cases

The Applicants’ complaints are effectively the same as the cases listed below, where each applicant transferred their pension to a Rowanmoor SSAS, and then incurred financial loss as a consequence of investing in high-risk investments. The material facts of the cases are similar, such that if I were to determine each one separately, I would uphold them on the same basis as the present case. As such my findings and directions in this case apply equally to all the cases listed below, and RTL shall apply the appropriate remedy for each.

Rowanmoor has raised jurisdiction arguments in respect of some of the complaints listed below. I have addressed these where relevant.

TPO Case Transferred from, amount and other arguments Reference Transfers to the Grenada Lang Ltd SSAS of £89,259 from CAS-14335-F2G9 – Prudential and £1,581 from Reliance Mutual in August 2014. Mr GG Invested £14,500 in GPG and £71,000 in Strategic Placements.

Transfers to the SN SSAS of £95,236.46 from Aegon personal pensions on 29 April 2015. Invested £49,408 in Akbuk and £34,000 in GPG in May 2015.

On 17 December 2018, Rowanmoor wrote to Mr SN setting out its concerns with the Akbuk investment. RTL has argued that Mr SN’s complaint should be considered out of time for the purpose of my jurisdiction, as it should have been clear to him that Akbuk CAS-92627-B5D1 – was in trouble in 2019 and as he did not complain until 16 March Mr SN 2023, more than three years had elapsed. I agree that Mr SN would have been aware of problems with Akbuk in December 2018 and therefore ought to have been aware of Rowanmoor’s breach by hosting and proceeding with investments in Akbuk in the first place. Consequently this element of his complaint is brought out of time.. I have not considered this investment in this decision and for this reason Mr SN’s Akbuk investment should be excluded from the redress calculation.

Transfer to the Greensill Cannock Limited SSAS of £152,507.77 from Goodyear Dunlop Pension Scheme in May 2014. Invested CAS-73799-V4D5 – £43,013 in Akbuk in June 2014 and £120,000 in Store First in Mr CL April 2015.

Two transfers from Mr DL’s existing personal pensions with ReAssure totalling £52,802.60 in March 2014 and from Scottish Life amounting to £6734 in January 2014 were paid to the Snashall SSAS. £15,000 invested in GPG, £27,888 in Akbuk CAS-92150-P1V9 – (£27,888) and £10,000 in Alpha Business Centre (ABC) Mr DL Corporate Bonds.

RTL has argued that Mr DL’s complaint about Akbuk should be considered out of time for the purpose of my jurisdiction, as it wrote to him in December 2018 explaining that the future of the 56 CAS-32056-R8Y5 Akbuk investment was uncertain and that he should take urgent action. Mr DL brought his complaint to The Pensions Ombudsman in August 2022 and it was therefore not brought within three years of the December 2018 letter. I agree with RTL and consequently this element of Mr DL’s complaint is brought out of time. I have therefore not considered this investment in this decision and for this reason, Mr DL’s Akbuk investment should be excluded from the redress calculation. This jurisdiction decision was previously notified to Mr DL on 9 September 2024.

RTL has also argued that Mr DL’s complaint about ABC should be considered out of time for the purpose of my jurisdiction. On 2 February 2017, Best Asset Management wrote to Mr DL to confirm that ABC had been placed into administration. It confirmed that the joint Administrators were trying to recover outstanding monies and that it was unable to confirm whether Mr DL’s capital was safe. RTL says Mr DL ought reasonably to have been aware of concerns regarding the level of due diligence undertaken in relation to ABC in February 2017. I agree with RTL and consequently this element of Mr DL’s complaint is brought out of time. I have therefore not considered this investment in this decision and for this reason, Mr DL’s ABC investment should be excluded from the redress calculation. This jurisdiction decision was previously notified to Mr DL on 9 September 2024.

Full determination