Lothbury Pension Administration?

gadgetmind

SippTechie wrote: »

Mperversely, we can get in trouble with regulators for "tipping off" that a financial crime may be happening

Who benefits from keeping quiet and letting is happen?

You? The FSA? The punter?

Or could it be the criminals?

Perhaps the FSA need to revisit who it is they represent?

Mancyouth

Gadgetmind- that's a great point.Also, these schemes do serve a purpose, people are obviously comfortable with losing 20,30,40,50% of their pension in commission/tax. So lets not be too judgemental and refer to this as "financial crime" (wallpaperman). The majority tick the immoral box rather than criminal.
It's the FSA who need to take a hold- this is exactly what happened with PPI and the whole principles based regulation which contributed to the 2008 crash. They need to get tough and make it much tougher to set up a pension scheme- and anyone who does set up a scheme should be FSA regulated.

wallpaperman

Mancyouth wrote: »

Gadgetmind- that's a great point.Also, these schemes do serve a purpose, people are obviously comfortable with losing 20,30,40,50% of their pension in commission/tax. So lets not be too judgemental and refer to this as "financial crime" (wallpaperman). The majority tick the immoral box rather than criminal.
It's the FSA who need to take a hold- this is exactly what happened with PPI and the whole principles based regulation which contributed to the 2008 crash. They need to get tough and make it much tougher to set up a pension scheme- and anyone who does set up a scheme should be FSA regulated.

Whether you agree or not with the legislation that prevent pensions being taken before 55 unless you are terminally ill is really irrelevant. HMRC class these as unauthorised payments , simple as that (I don't think I've used the term 'financial crime' anywhere).

Doesn't matter how much research you do and how persuasive and plausible the company are, the risk will be that you will be caught up with at some point, and be more in the financial mire. Fair enough, if people are comfortable with that level of risk.

Completely agree about the disgrace that is the ease that Pension schemes can be set up. From our Compliance Department I understand that it can be done in about 10 minutes. I can't understand why HMRC do not ask for evidence of the type of scheme that is being set up and monitor new schemes for a period. Yes, it would cost money, but surely worth it.

Out of interest, if money is recovered by the administrators on behalf of the investors, I take it this would have to be returned to the Pension companies who originally transferred the funds in the first place?

waggy307

Anyone else getting that sinking feeling regarding the administrators.They seem to want us to keep quiet while they drag this case on for months and months,all in the guise of recovering our money but in reality they're just creaming off as much as they can.
They're just as bad as the guy who put us here in the first place - only difference seems to be is that they're regulated robbers

waggy307

Well thats one day short of three weeks since the administrators swept into power and where are we - still waiting on barclays giving them the bank statements.
You'd think they would have made a bit more headway by now

Mancyouth

Statements for all 8 Barclays accounts have now been received by Wilson Field. At last some progress!!!!Next job is to find out exactly how much of our money Mr Mack has stolen.

waggy307

Lets hope that doesn't take another 3 weeks or this debacle could stretch till the next world cup!The administrators still haven't got the books from Mr Mack yet,big surprise that he's being evasive

Mancyouth

Mack has to cooperate - the administrator can take him to court if he refuses, he could end up being done for contempt of court and get banged up.
That said- does anyone think the books and documents relating to Lothbury are anything more than back-of-a-fag-packet records???
Bottom line is that Barclays have allowed him to spend our pension, and they should be making up our expected shortfall.

waggy307

Yeh maybe they should but i doubt they'll just roll over and hand WF a cheque for the shortfall.Even if thats a plausible outcome that could take months or even years.Last thing i heard was that Barclays still want the London court case to proceed.
Wonder how long it'll take them to transfer whats left of the money over,every step is gonna be a slow process

Mancyouth

Barclays wanted the march date so as to keep things quiet and allow a judge to decide what to do. The fact they have now handed over all 8 statements to WF means its down to WF to now decide- if they request the money we ain't going to court. Things should move quickly now.
Once we get a dividend we should be asking some serious questions of Barclays, they allowed this to happen so must be liable in some way.