UK: Pensions Ombudsman Round Up: Pensions Liberation Cases

Last Updated: 5 March 2015
Article by Mark Howard and Laura Cooke

In this special update we focus on the first four Pensions Ombudsman determinations dealing with the high-profile issue of pensions liberation.

Pension liberation is a scam in which members are encouraged to transfer their pension savings to a bogus pension scheme, which may be set up in the name of a non-existent employer, with the promise of being granted access to their pension savings before the normal minimum retirement age for retirement laid down by law of age 55. Pensions liberation is often accompanied by illegal practices, and it will trigger tax charges which the member must declare and pay to HMRC.

It is not a new practice – having been around for over a decade in various forms - the Pensions Regulator and Financial Conduct Authority have taken steps to publicise the problem see our previous update.

There are currently around 140 cases with the Pensions Ombudsman concerning pensions liberation and the Ombudsman has just issued his first four determinations. The first concerns a member trying to transfer out of a pensions liberation scheme. The remaining three deal proposed transfers which were blocked by insurers because they believed that the transfer would be to a liberation scheme.

A key issue in all of the determinations to date is that members of pensions schemes have a statutory right to transfer under the Pension Schemes Act 1993.

The Capita Oak Scheme – Mr X (PO-3590)

Mr X, an NHS worker transferred his pension to a liberation scheme, the Capita Oak Scheme1, having apparently been persuaded that it offered investment returns of between 8% and 12%. The complainant said he received a "nonrepayable loan" of GBP 17,500 from Imperial Trustee Services Ltd (ITSL), the trustees of the scheme, who took a fee of 5% of the transfer value together with other deductions.

He became concerned about the security of his savings, which he was told had been invested in a storage company. When he notified ITSL of his wish to transfer back out of the scheme some four months after the initial transfer, there was no reply. A second letter a month later was also ignored. ITSL failed to respond to communications from the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman eventually received a letter from an accountancy firm which stated it had been asked by ITSL's director to investigate the scheme's finances. It also said Mr X's money could not be returned at present, as all the scheme assets were invested in the same storage company.


The Pensions Ombudsman decided that Mr X had failed to make a valid request to transfer under the Pension Schemes Act 1993. However, the Ombudsman clearly took a dim view of ITSL's failure to respond to Mr X's communications. Had the ITSL done so, the Ombudsman concluded, a full request would have been made within a month of the first letter being sent and a transfer to another pension within six months of the request.

ITSL has been ordered to pay the higher of: the cash equivalent value as at 30 September 2013 plus interest from that date to the date of payment, or the current cash equivalent value. The Ombudsman acknowledged that the complainant could enforce the ruling in the courts, but that he may ultimately fail to recover his investment - which was originally worth around GBP 370,000.

Transferring into a liberation scheme - Stobie (PO-3105) Kenyon (PO-1837) (Jerrard, PO-3809)

These three cases all concern members wishing to transfer out of personal pension schemes which were blocked by the insurers (Standard Life, Zurich and Aviva). The reasoning is similar in all three cases – indeed the first 10 pages of the Determinations, setting out the legal and regulatory background, are virtually identical.

The key issues concerned whether there was a statutory right to transfer under the Pension Schemes Act 1993. In turn, this required consideration of Pi Consulting (Trustee Services) Ltd v the Pensions Regulator [2013] EWCH 3181 Ch. Pi Consulting and Dalriada Trustees had been appointed by the Pensions Regulator as independent trustees to suspected pensions liberation schemes in order to protect the interests of the members. However, the question arose as to whether the pensions liberation schemes were "occupational pension schemes" as defined under section1 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993. It was held that there were two issues to be considered when determining whether a scheme satisfies the definition of an occupational pension scheme:

  • The purpose issue. Was the scheme established "for the purpose of providing benefits to, or in respect of, people with service in employments of a description or for that purpose and also for the purpose of providing benefits to, or in respect of, other people"?
  • The founder issue. Was the scheme established by, or by persons who included, a person to whom section 1(2) of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 applied when it was established?

Mr Stobie

Mr Stobie wished to transfer his accrued rights under a self-invested pension plan (SIPP) set up in 2004 by Standard Life (the Trustees and administrators). In May 2013, when he was 45, he wrote to the Trustees requesting that the proceeds of the SIPP be transferred to the Shredded Image Pension Scheme. He also asked to be informed if the request could not be carried out within five days.

The arrangement to which Mr Stobie wished to transfer had been established and registered less than three months before the date of his request. The sponsoring employer of the Scheme and the original trustee (respectively Shredded Image Limited and Redkite Fiduciary Services Limited) were both incorporated in early 2013. Shredded Images was registered at Mr Stobie's residential address, while Redkite was registered at another residential address in East Sussex, where various other companies were also registered.

Standard Life considered that the fact pattern bore many of the hallmarks of a suspicious pensions liberation scheme, as listed in guidance published by the Regulator (such as a request for a quick transfer). It rejected Mr Stobie's request and maintained its position despite subsequent letters of complaint from Mr Stobie.

In submissions to the Ombudsman, Standard Life reiterated its concerns about the arrangement and added that the request had not provided a plan number for Mr Stobie and that there was no indication how the money was to be invested. Nor was there any information about Shredded Image Limited.

Mr Stobie said had been working for himself for ten years. This explained why Shredded Image was registered to his home address, which was also his office. The scheme had been set up for self-investment in Shredded Life, a software  development and IT consultancy business, and to provide for his own retirement. As to the address of the trustee company, he explained this was the address of the trustees' accountants. As a one-man scheme, Mr Stobie pointed out, the Scheme is not required to have a plan number, or to be registered with the Pensions Regulator.


The Ombudsman considered whether Mr Stobie had a statutory right to transfer, which in turn meant considering whether it satisfied the definition of occupational pension scheme following Pi Consulting. After reviewing the rules of the Shredded Image Pension Scheme, the Ombudsman concluded that it did.

However, the Ombudsman concluded that there was no statutory right to transfer because Mr Stobie was selfemployed and therefore not in any "employments of a description" in relation to the Shredded Image Pension Scheme.

The rules also gave Standard Life discretion to make a transfer and the Ombudsman found that they had not properly given consideration to that discretion. He therefore ordered that Standard Life reconsider whether to allow a transfer (if Mr Stobie requested), but there is a strong suggestion that Standard Life could – having properly considered it – decide that no transfer was appropriate.

Mrs Kenyon

Mrs Kenyon, who was 42 years old, had a personal pension with Zurich. She wanted to transfer her pension savings to Axiom Umbrella Pension Trust (Axiom UPT). The trust was established in August 2012 by a company based in Belize, Sartori Limited. Companies described in the trust deed as the "Original Trustees" and "the Protector" were also registered in Belize. It was registered with HMRC in September 2012, shortly before the transfer request was made.

Zurich received a letter in November 2012 from Business Law Ltd, a UK-registered company named in a deed of amendment to the trust as responsible for establishing and administering Axiom UPT. Two documents were enclosed: a transfer request signed by Mrs Kenyon but apparently dated by another person, and a transfer claim form requested from Zurich by Mrs Kenyon in an earlier telephone call. The latter form requested Mrs Kenyon's transfer payment to be made payable to Business Law.

Zurich wrote to Mrs Kenyon seeking confirmation she had not been offered a cash incentive by the Axiom UPT. She responded, asking them to process the transfer and stating that she had not received a cash incentive. Zurich said it could not proceed with her request because it could not  be certain the transfer would be treated as a "recognised transfer" under section 169 Finance Act 2004. Mrs Kenyon sent complaints to Zurich, which re-stated its position under the Finance Act.

In submissions to the Ombudsman, Zurich highlighted promotional material that claimed the Scheme allowed members access to their pension at any age, tax free, as well as negative reports in the press relating to the high fees charged by Axiom UPT.


The Ombudsman held that the correct approach was to ascertain whether Mrs Kenyon had a statutory right, and to inform Mrs Kenyon in its correspondence that it needed to confirm whether she was so entitled before proceeding. Zurich should have applied the tests laid down in Pi Consulting, from which they would have been able to satisfy themselves that Axiom UPT was not an occupational pension scheme. The Ombudsman's analysis on this point relies on technical flaws in the Axiom UPT's rules, which did not specify the employments in respect of which members were provided with benefits. As such, the Scheme failed the "purpose" test.

The Ombudsman therefore rejected the complaint, but was critical that Zurich did not apply a rigorous analysis to justify the conclusion that there was no right to transfer.

Mrs Jerrard

The Ombudsman again carried out a careful analysis of whether Mrs Jerrard had a statutory right to transfer. Considering the rules of the receiving scheme – the SCCL Pension Scheme - the Ombudsman concluded that it failed both the "purpose" and "founder" tests. The Ombudsman commented that in this case the scheme rules were drafted in such a way that he could not identify any employments, let alone "employment of a description".

However, again, although rejecting the complaint, the Ombudsman held that Aviva had not carried out the correct analysis to come to the conclusion that the transfer should not proceed.

Capita Oak Scheme - Pensions Ombudsman press release

On 28 January 2015, presumably in the light of the publicity of these decisions, the Pensions Ombudsman issued a press release. This confirmed that the Ombudsman was investigating one complaint by a member who had transferred to a pensions liberation scheme, but was now arguing that the transfers should have been blocked by the original scheme's trustees or managers. The Ombudsman was aware that other similar complaints were being considered (including in relation to the Capita Oak Scheme).

The Ombudsman indicated that his determination in that complaint should be issued in the first half of 2015. Although it would not be binding on other complaints it would give a good indication of the general approach. The Ombudsman confirmed that any new complaints on similar grounds would simply be "parked" pending his determination; but that he would not take the time from the press release until the determination is published into account when determining whether a complaint had been made to the Ombudsman in time.

Clyde & Co comment

The Ombudsman notes the difficulties that insurers and trustees face in dealing with these requests for transfers. Similarly the Ombudsman is walking a tightrope between the apparent statutory right to transfer and the concept of acting in the best interests of the members. It is clear from these decisions that in the Ombudsman's eyes the statutory right cannot be overridden by more general considerations of acting in the member interests or treating customers fairly.

So what should insurers or trustees do when faced with a potential transfer to a pensions liberation scheme? In addition to following the Pensions Regulator's guidance, it is clear that there should be a very careful consideration of the rules of the receiving scheme to see whether there exists any right to transfer – either statutory or a discretion under the existing scheme rules. If a transfer is refused a clear audit trail should be kept explaining the reasons why.

The acid test for the remaining determinations will be when there is a right to a transfer. Should it proceed even where there are concerns about liberation? These decisions would suggest it should and we perhaps already have an idea where the Ombudsman might head in the determination referred to in his press release. But a key issue may be whether the trustees or manager of the transferring scheme went through a robust due diligence process before allowing the transfer to proceed.



The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Mark Howard
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.