Adams v Options Sipp – regulatory feebleness towards SIPP providers

A recent judgment delivered by the High Court tackles another case where “consumers have been ripped off by unregulated introducers, as SIPP providers have stood idly by receiving their money”. Adam Samuel dissects “a nightmare judgment on inept regulation”, which may well be appealed.

Adam SamuelBA LLM DipPFS MCISI FCIArb Certs CII (MP&ER) Barrister and Attorney may be contacted atadamsamuel@aol.com.For links to where you can buy the second edition of ‘Consumer Financial Services Complaints and Compensation’, see www.adamsamuel.com/book.

Occasionally, the courts deliver a healthy reminder as to why the United Kingdom needs a Financial Ombudsman Service. Judges vary enormously in quality, a bit like ombudsmen. Unlike ombudsmen, they are detached from the frontline of financial services compliance. This can make them misunderstand the way important but complicated transactions are put together. The awful judgment of His Honour Judge Dight acting as a deputy High Court judge, in Russell Adams v Options Sipp UK LLP, [1] may reach the right result but displays a complete lack of awareness of how consumers have been ripped off by unregulated introducers, as SIPP (Self-Invested Personal Pension) providers have stood idly by receiving their money. In that respect, it resembles the court decision striking out the claim in Plevin, which was so spectacularly reversed by the Supreme Court. [2]