Significant Numbers of Employees Misled on Pension Transfers Resulting in Substantial Losses
A substantial number of current and former employees who hold their pensions with the Tayside Pension Fund have been mis-advised into transferring away their highly valuable final salary pensions. These precious inflation-proofed pensions come with huge benefits and guarantees that are lost immediately if moved. Losses can run into hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Participating employers within the Tayside Pension Fund include:
- Angus Council
- Dundee City Council
- Dundee & Angus College
- Perth & Kinross Council
- Perth College UHI
- Police Scotland (non-uniformed staff)
- Scottish Fire & Rescue Service (non-uniformed staff)
- Tayside Contracts
- And a range of other organisations that have applied to be part of the Fund
A total of 41 employers allow their employees to join the Tayside Pension Fund.
Leading Scottish financial claims management experts, Beat the Banks, continue to uncover multiple cases of inappropriate advice that have led to both current and former employees suffering considerable financial losses.
Mike Begg, Managing Director at Beat the Banks, said: “It’s a financial scandal right here on our doorstep and it’s being completely ignored.” He added: “Unfortunately, we continue to see unsuspecting members of former workplace final salary pensions lose huge amounts of money due to reckless and greedy financial advisers and simply shocking pension transfer advice.”
Beat the Banks have identified three main culprits:
- Purely Financial Limited (previously known as Purely Pensions Limited). Based in York, you may have been introduced to them by the Arlo Group UK Limited. Ongoing advice for your pension may have since been transferred to AAF Financial Ltd.
- Harbour Rock Capital Limited (previously known as Portafina Investment Management Limited) and based in Rochester, Kent.
- Capital & Income Solutions. Based in Leeds, they used Mike Connelly, a previous director of The Mortgage Finance Store, to provide pension transfer advice, despite him not being authorised or regulated. Clients Beat the Banks have represented have suffered calculated losses of more than £3.5 million.
Members of the Tayside Pension Fund who have taken pension transfer advice from any of these firms should urgently review the advice they were given. Even if pension holders insisted on transferring and were happy with the advice they received at the time, it still makes no difference if the regulatory rules and guidance were not correctly followed by these companies.
To illustrate the severe impact of the inappropriate pension transfer advice given to Tayside Pension Fund members, we present three real cases of mis-advice, all right here on our doorstep. These cases highlight the financial losses and the deceptive practices employed by certain financial advisers. Each case underscores the critical importance of regulatory compliance and the devastating consequences when it is not adhered to.
Case Study One:
Amount won: £85,000
Our client, a 63-year-old former council employee, was advised by Mike Connelly to transfer her Tayside Pension Fund pension into a personal pension with Royal London. She was misled into believing this would allow her more financial flexibility, but instead, she suffered significant financial losses. The FSCS calculated her losses at £116,656.26 but capped the compensation at £85,000.
Case Study Two:
Amount won: £85,000
In 2011, another client transferred his Tayside Pension Fund pension and two personal pensions into a Standard Life pension plan following advice from Mike Connelly. This move, which was supposed to consolidate and improve his pension performance, led to significant losses. The FSCS calculated his losses at £165,471.49 but capped the compensation at £85,000.
Case Study Three:
Amount won: £22,562.81
A 65-year-old client, still working for the local council, was advised to transfer her Tayside Pension Fund pension into a personal pension with Royal London. Misled by Mike Connelly, she faced substantial losses. Initially rejected, her claim was later upheld by the FSCS, which calculated her losses at £22,562.81.