Lothbury Pension Administration?

robmatic

Mancyouth wrote: »

From the research I've done and consulted with pension specialists, there is no other case like this- hence why there is so much divided opinion and assumptions. Once this is concluded i expect it will act as a test case for future similair scenarios.
The money would not be an unauthorised payment as it is not part of an existing pension (Lothbury never moved it to the offshore pension scheme). The legacy pension provider is detached from the money, so if HMRC do intend to hit us with the 55% tax then it will be on whatever the gross value of the overall payment we get back from the administrator (xx pence in the pound).
And on that basis, how can the pension funds be used to pay non-pension creditors (e.g outstanding rent, employees etc). The pension funds do not and should not form part of the company's assets.

The payment from the previous provider will become unauthorised when the Regulator rules that Lothbury isn't a registered pension arrangement. Then you will become liable for the tax charge based on the original payment (not the residual amount remaining after Lothbury's insolvency event).

Mancyouth

robmatic wrote: »

The payment from the previous provider will become unauthorised when the Regulator rules that Lothbury isn't a registered pension arrangement. Then you will become liable for the tax charge based on the original payment (not the residual amount remaining after Lothbury's insolvency event).

The incumbent pension provider is liable for not having carried out due diligence on Lothbury- so any losses will result in a claim.
I've spoken to both the pensions regulator and PAS, both gave consistent advice which is not in line with what you claim.

robmatic

Mancyouth wrote: »

The incumbent pension provider is liable for not having carried out due diligence on Lothbury- so any losses will result in a claim.
I've spoken to both the pensions regulator and PAS, both gave consistent advice which is not in line with what you claim.

What due diligence? If Lothbury was a registered pension scheme at the time of transfer then the incumbent pension provider won't be liable as long as they saw the registration letter and an instruction from the customer.

Try not to engage in too much wishful thinking - if you were trying to liberate your pension you will have to accept some responsibility and there will be a tax charge payable due to the unauthorised payment.

Mancyouth

robmatic wrote: »

What due diligence? If Lothbury was a registered pension scheme at the time of transfer then the incumbent pension provider won't be liable as long as they saw the registration letter and an instruction from the customer.

Try not to engage in too much wishful thinking - if you were trying to liberate your pension you will have to accept some responsibility and there will be a tax charge payable due to the unauthorised payment.

I appreciate you may some experience in this area, but you don't know the full facts or history. Pension experts, along with HMRC and pension lawyers all agree this is the first case of its kind, and will act as precedent once its all over. Listen to BBC Radio 4 Moneybox programme from last Saturday and you will understand the requirement for due diligence placed on pension providers (as explained by a pensions lawyer). When it is all over, pensions refunded and any tax bills received then please feel free to offer your opinion. Until then I suggest you wait for the court to rule on what the outcome should be and stop speculating.

robmatic

Mancyouth wrote: »

Until then I suggest you wait for the court to rule on what the outcome should be and stop speculating.

Perhaps you should take some of your own advice!

Mancyouth

robmatic wrote: »

Perhaps you should take some of your own advice!

Very difficult not to respond when the likes of you who are not part of this case come across all righteous and "told you so" attitude. What will be will be, and unil then it's all speculation.
If you really do have specific advice, feel free to PM me and I will gladly talk to you over the phone.
Unless you're part of this, you really have no idea how stressful the past 6 months have been.

chainbar_loyal

robmatic wrote: »

The payment from the previous provider will become unauthorised when the Regulator rules that Lothbury isn't a registered pension arrangement. Then you will become liable for the tax charge based on the original payment (not the residual amount remaining after Lothbury's insolvency event).

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: stick to the filing rob you are beyond keeping up ....in your defence if you are not involved in this personally you will not be able to and the fact your on here at 10 pm on a saturday night pontificating speaks volumes .....

wallpaperman

Mancyouth wrote: »

The incumbent pension provider is liable for not having carried out due diligence on Lothbury- so any losses will result in a claim.
I've spoken to both the pensions regulator and PAS, both gave consistent advice which is not in line with what you claim.

I alluded to this in a post much earlier in the thread, that it wouldn't surprise me in the least if it bounced back to some believing it to be the fault of the original ceding scheme, I was thinking along the lines of ambulance chasing firms getting involved and twisting it this way. Totally ridiculous of course.

Surely if this happens, in turn the pension providers could then take action against HMRC for not showing 'due dilligence' when issuing approval letters to these schemes like confetti.

The company I work for sends an information sheet out to all members who are looking to transfer to prospective liberation schemes and gets them to sign a declaration that they are aware of the risks and possible consequences. I guess they should be covered against any claims.

One things for sure, it is an almightly mess, but it may at least prove to be some sort of watershed moment in this whole circus.

wallpaperman

chainbar_loyal wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: stick to the filing rob you are beyond keeping up ....in your defence if you are not involved in this personally you will not be able to and the fact your on here at 10 pm on a saturday night pontificating speaks volumes .....

I'm sure Robmatic knows more about pensions that you ever will.

Mancyouth is very eloquent and informed on the subject unlike yourself who seems to have little clue what is going on other than blaming everyone such as the administrators and bank and taking little responsibility for your own daftness.

A bunch of smileys is about your best contributions to this topic.

Mancyouth

wallpaperman wrote: »

I alluded to this in a post much earlier in the thread, that it wouldn't surprise me in the least if it bounced back to some believing it to be the fault of the original ceding scheme, I was thinking along the lines of ambulance chasing firms getting involved and twisting it this way. Totally ridiculous of course.

Surely if this happens, in turn the pension providers could then take action against HMRC for not showing 'due dilligence' when issuing approval letters to these schemes like confetti.

The company I work for sends an information sheet out to all members who are looking to transfer to prospective liberation schemes and gets them to sign a declaration that they are aware of the risks and possible consequences. I guess they should be covered against any claims.

One things for sure, it is an almightly mess, but it may at least prove to be some sort of watershed moment in this whole circus.

A watershed moment is exactly what this should prove to be. Legislation needs to be introduced to close the various pension liberation loopholes. I heard that in 2012 there were 9000 new schemes registered with HMRC. And it's impossible to tell which ones are the dodgy ones at that stage. Investors, providers and the regulator needs clearer protection on this.
Lets hope an end is in sight.....