Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Don't appeal. This is a well known scam site to us. It's even been exposed on national TV by Joe Lycett! The traditional route was that we'd push Starbucks to cancel the PCN but that hasn't been working as of late. You've got 2 options: 1. Pay the £60 and the matter goes away. 2. Ignore them and engage with us. We'd rather you choose option 2. We'll be with you every step of the way. The good news is that MET rarely goes to court with this, providing you engage with us properly. The times they have is when people have either come to us late or have ignored our advice. Many times, once defended properly with our advice, they claims are either discontinued by MET or struck out by the courts. Get reading up by using the search feature and searching "Southgate Park", go see how many cases we have here of this scam site, get used to the process. Get reading at least 20+ threads
    • As above so it is essential you don't appeal and accidentally reveal who was driving. Stay quiet to Met and their pet DCA unless you get a letter before claim.
    • Hello, welcome to CAG. Thank you for the information. To answer your question, we don't recommend appealing at all. It will be a waste of your time and you could end up outing the driver. Ask any questions that you have but basically you keep an eye on this, keep the correspondence and if MET ever they send a Letter Before Claim/Action. If you get to that stage, we'll suggest being proactive. Best, HB EDIT: Could we see the other side of the PCN please? Sometimes there is information that they've left off.
    • Hi All, Can ii get advice on this PCN received at the services near stansted airport. Picked someone up at night and went to grab coffee and snack in mc Ds, and didnt realise there was zones in this car park, it was late dark and pouring with rain so obvious u see the large 60mins parking free and dont stand around reading everything. My son and his mother were in the back of car still as he was sleeping. Ticket appears to be from CCTV camera   should i appeal, then see what they say (assume it will be rejected) then go to POPLA,   Thanks in advance     1 Date of the infringement 28/4/24 2 Date of issue  30/4/24 (says 14 days from date of letter) 3 Date received 4/5/23 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] N 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? pic car and n0 plate 6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] Not yet Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up N/A 7 Who is the parking company? MET Parking Services 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Southgate Park, Stansted     (parked on starbucks side which was shut) For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. cant see it If you have received any other correspondence, please mention it here   No other correspondence     pcn.pdf
    • The 365-day notice account is being offered by saving and investing platform Prosper, in a deal that This is Money has secured exclusively for readers.View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Help re FSCS SIPP provider/advisor claim


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 484 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I've bolded the bits in post #24 that I think are relevant.

 

As I understand it, elsewhere in the TPO report it talks about the yield on your investment needing to be 7.5% or more to have a chance of getting more pension than in the scheme you were in. They weren't confident this could be achieved.

 

And I thought they made the point that for other advice, which seems to include investment funds, you should refer back to 1 Stop. You did say earlier that they recommended the funds.

 

Feel free to tell me that I've got something wrong.

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi The scheme I was in was frozen so manly accrued cost of living if I recall correctly.

 

As I saw it One Stop we’re not qualified to advise so sought advice from TPO. I assume as IFA would there be liability on TPO for not looking into proposal of international investment for SIPP.  The position of TPO isn’t very clear… why would One Stop need info from a second IFA

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I read it, I agree, One Stop weren't authorised to advise on pension transfers so they asked TPO to advise on the risks and rewards of transferring out of the scheme. I'm not convinced they advised on investment funds but maybe that's in the paperwork you've posted here.

 

What do you mean about your LGPS benefits being frozen please?

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds as if the defined benefit scheme was closed, this is common.

 

I'm not sure if it's relevant or not but you would need to look at what your benefits being 'frozen' meant with that particular scheme.

 

I'm concerned that the claims firm think that you might get money back from someone who wasn't responsible but maybe you could go back over the paperwork about who recommended the very specialised funds you were put into. If I can I'll have a look tomorrow but you know your case better than I do.

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes defined benefit scheme closed.

 

I cant see any specific recommendations, it appears to me Lifetime put together the portfolio that was accepted by me. I am puzzled that no one seems to be responsible for financial advice here. FSCS have payed the majority of claims against Lifetime and according to the claims firm TPO also,  there must be something amiss.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the FSCS claim document, it's very well written.

 

As I suspected, they said things about your investment and pensions knowledge that weren't accurate and and used this to say that you were making what is also called an 'execution only' transaction. It looked like an attempt at avoiding responsibility.

 

I also noticed that TPO mentioned you were a medium risk investor and this information obviously convinced the FSCS. I'd say this is one of the worst cases of 'fantasy investment management' that I've seen, especially for a medium risk investor.

 

Turning to TPO and Lifetime SIPP, it's interesting that you think there have been decisions against them and I thought it would be useful if you could show us why the FSCS decided against these firms.

 

Are you sure you need a claims company as you did the last one on your own. What would happen about the £20k fee you mention in post #1 if they didn't help you to win?

 

HB

 

 

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi HB

 

From FSCS website

 

"FSCS is accepting claims against this firm.

We’re aware that some Lifetime customers were advised by independent financial advisers to transfer existing pensions into a Lifetime SIPP. 

After the pension transfer, customers had their pension funds placed in high risk, non-standard investments. Some of these have since become illiquid, which means they can’t currently be sold or traded.

For FSCS to be able to pay your claim we must prove that Lifetime failed in its due diligence - in other words, did it do certain checks on the non-standard investments that would hold its customers’ pension funds, before accepting them into its SIPP investment portfolio? Did it make sure they were appropriate for a SIPP, and did it identify any potential issues with them? Also, if it did identify potential issues, did it tell the customer?"

 

Re TPO I inputted the company, product, advice date and start date and FSCS informbased on the information you've given, you can apply for compensation. 

 

I am happy to give these a go on my own and feel the case against Lifetime is the strongest. There are snippets re TPO as you point out. I do feel that these companies  all engaged with one another to facilitate their own gains, with the benefit of sound financial knowledge. I was merely a pawn in the whole exercise, misled and misinformed... awaiting to be taken.

 

Part of my portfolio was a crop growing scheme, see original FSCS claim doc. I have just noted FSCS are accepting claims against Highpoint Trustees Ltd (Citadel Trustees Ltd) company ref no 485414. As with TPO I have details of the agreement but nothing really to prove negligence, although the company must bear some responsibility. If I claim I guess this will have to be for FSCS to decide. It's such a shame that more info regarding SIPP claims is not shared on the GAG, it could prove an invaluable resource for many whose pensions were adversely affected.

 

I haven't thought about what to do with any compensation should I be successful but will certainly make a donation to this valuable resource The CAG

Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly think it's worth a try, presumably there's no cost if you go directly to the FSCS. Get together all the paperwork you can. 

 

Have you signed anything with the claims company?

 

Also you could have a look at the pensions or financial ombudsman website, I forget which, to see if there were decisions against the companies while they were still operating. Simmonds, the thread I linked to further up this one, found a load of decisions against his IFA.

 

If it's possible, it's worth checking if the regulators of the firms at the time insisted that clients should have independent advice before taking out a SIPP. I don't know one way or another but I'm still wondering why 1 Stop or TPO decided to say you had far more knowledge than you did and treated it as execution only. 

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking again at s48, it could be that it became operational after your transfer but the scheme trustees should have been aware of the new rules that were coming in.

 

Did they get involved at all after you requested a transfer out?

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi HB

 

No there was no further involvement or advice. Only when things started to go wrong... 16/01/2013 One stop wrote saying no longer authorised and regulated by FCA and it all went downhill from there really. I have an RBS bank statement indicating £130 411 . 64 (my pot) was transferred to Lifetime SIPP on 09/02/2012

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...