Mis-sold Stirling Mortimer - IFA in default

Homergnu

My father has been placed in a nightmare of a financial situation thanks to the miss-selling of a completely unsuitable investment by his IFA.

I am not going to use the names of the companies and individuals in this post, as I am still trying to work out where to go - hence looking for help and advice please. Please do not reply that my father should not have agreed to this as I am acute aware (and heartbroken) that he did and it is one of the attributing reasons this has all happened but basically he trusted his IFA.

My father had a SIPP and was advised to do a drawdown and invest in a Stirling Mortimer property scheme (Majestic Village) - this was an UCIS. He is not a rich man and has no financial acumen. As a result 90% pension was invested - £200k.

The financial service ombudsmen as recently ruled that - Based on the evidence that is available we are satisfied that, where mis-selling can be proven, the IFAs can be held liable for any losses suffered by customers in relation to the three Stirling Mortimer funds.

The IFA's company then told my father they had merged with another company. Shortly after my father was then advised (when I meet with his IFA) that the original company was in default and as a result there was no company for us to claim mis-selling against. (We later found out that the IFA's original company that advised my father - was successfully proved to be miss-selling the stirling mortimer scheme by another client and they had to pay redress. As a result of these claims it appears they purposely transferred to a new company and closed the old along with peoples chances to claim)

So the IFA is now working for the other company and appears to be untouchable - despite stating that he agreed that my father should never have been sold the scheme that was in hindsight in appropriate.

I am going through the Financial Compensation Scheme - but understand this is limited to £50k total - vs my fathers losses of £200k.

Do we have any claim against the new company (that we have a letter stating had Merged with the original company) - or are we stuck due to the original company (the one that adivsed my father) being in default / liquidation?

Sorry for the long post - but my father is now living on £193 per month and it looks very bleak.

Thank you for reading and hopefully helping.

addedvaluebob

If you have been told the companies have merged then the new company should take responsibility. It is more likely that they have transferred the servicing rights and any income streams to the new company but have not transferred or accepted any liability for the actions or advice of the old company. Cannot say for sure unless you can post the wording from the letters.

Clearly the IFA in this case has just stalled for time to get out of facing their liabilities knowing that they intend to dump their clients and liabilities, this is bordering on fraud.

Post the names of the company and individuals, name and shame them as it may help other people looking for information who have lost money the same as your father

dunstonh

Those that sell these unregulated schemes are a disgrace. They also tend to be very aware of how to get rid of the liability for future complaint.

Do we have any claim against the new company (that we have a letter stating had Merged with the original company) - or are we stuck due to the original company (the one that adivsed my father) being in default / liquidation?

It is unlikely the firm will carry the liability of the old one. However, the FSCS will check this first before they look into it. So, you need to take no action at this time. Let the FSCS do it.

I suspect it was not actually a merger. it is more likely that the old company was shut down and the agencies transferred to the new company. The liability remaining with the old company. Where the regulator feels the adviser did this on purpose, they can take action against them. So, you may wish to raise it with the FCA.

Homergnu

Apologies for the delay in responding and thanks for the comments.

The wording in the letter was - "We are currently in the process of arranging for the servicing rights in respect of your pensions, investments and / or policies to be transfered over and there will be no impact on or current arrangements, apart from a change in name. We will continue to manage your financial affairs from this office for the foreseeable future and there is no need for any action on your part at this time."

The company was Broadbent Mawson Financial Consulting Ltd (Based in Ashton under Lyne) and they merged with Gudger and Singleton Financial services. The new company continued to operate out of the same premises until recently.

bigfreddiel

How do these rogue IFAs get to trade their advice?

Are they not regulated?

Makes you nervous to even get involved with one.

fj

dunstonh

lesleymoore wrote: »

Does anyone have any updates regarding mis-selling by Broadbent Mawson for sterling mortimer funds or any other property funds?

You would complain to the FSCS and they will look at each case on its merits. One of the advantages of regulated advice is that you get consumer protection.

LHW99

Would the original company have had to have insurance? If so, and a mis-selling case was proven during the time they were insured, would the insurers have any liability?

dunstonh

LHW99 wrote: »

Would the original company have had to have insurance? If so, and a mis-selling case was proven during the time they were insured, would the insurers have any liability?

No. It is not year of sale that matters. It is year of claim. At the point the complaint is made, the firm is meant to notify the PI insurer.

Malthusian

bigfreddiel wrote: »

Makes you nervous to even get involved with one.

With a rogue IFA? Well of course it should.

With the 99% of IFAs that are not rogue? Well that would be daft. But then if you are doing forum searches for "IFA" and "mis-sold" and trawling year-and-a-half-old threads for people who have been mis-sold duff investments by IFAs, then of course that's exactly what you'll get. It says nothing about IFAs, only about your prejudices.

brewerdave

Malthusian wrote: »

With a rogue IFA? Well of course it should.

With the 99% of IFAs that are not rogue? Well that would be daft. But then if you are doing forum searches for "IFA" and "mis-sold" and trawling year-and-a-half-old threads for people who have been mis-sold duff investments by IFAs, then of course that's exactly what you'll get. It says nothing about IFAs, only about your prejudices.

...I assume that bigfreddiel was commenting on a post by lesleymoore which seems to have vanished ??

Malthusian

Then I take the bit about trawling old forum threads back and apologise unreservedly.

Post 4 was from April 2015, Post 5 was bigfreddiel's and was November 2016, I took that and bigfreddiel's previous posting history and jumped to an incorrect conclusion.