Sipp provider Berkeley Burke lost a Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) decision last October. The firm is now expected to fight the decision in the Court of Appeal. We discuss the impact of the Berkeley Burke appeal on the industry.
Berkeley Burke decision
The landmark decision saw the FOS hand down a ruling that the firm failed to carry out appropriate due diligence on a client’s investment. The Sipp provider argued at the time that it was not responsible and maintains this. As a result, it will take the case to the Court of Appeal.
Berkeley Burke appeal
The Berkeley Burke appeal will likely focus on the firm’s original argument that it followed correct procedure at the time. It argued that the FOS placed undue responsibility during the case.
Therefore, it should not be held responsible on the grounds that they were following the rules in place at the time of the investment.
The firm appealed the FOS decision in the High Court, but the case was rejected.
Many mis-selling cases of our own were put on hold until the FOS came to a decision on the original case. This is because of the wider implications of the outcome on the industry.
In the Carey v Adams case, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) stated that there is a duty on a Sipp Operator not to accept into a Sipp an investment of a kind that is inappropriate for the individual.
Our clients are suffering due to this ongoing case. As many other cases are tied up in the outcome of the Berkeley Burke appeal, the litigation may once again be put on hold.
We believe that the original decision was founded on legal precedent. Therefore, we believe that the Court of Appeal will support the FOS decision.
If Berkeley Burke handled an investment you believe was unsuitable, get in touch. Our team of experts can offer support and advice.