SIPP providers must compensate customers mis-sold by unregulated introducers, rules High Court

A recent decision in the second Options pensions case may conclude the court arguments about obligations of SIPP providers when dealing with non-mainstream investments and unregulated introducers. Adam Samuel analyses the judgment.

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', seewww.adamsamuel.com/writing.

On 21 December 2022, the Administrative Court hopefully ended at least the judicial role in one of the most embarrassing sagas in modern pensions history. It ruled that the Financial Ombudsman Service was within its powers to order providers of self-invested personal pensions (SIPPs) to compensate customers who had lost out by transferring their pensions to SIPPs on the advice of unregulated introducers and investing the money into assets of doubtful provenance. [1]