Lawyers representing embattled SIPP provider Berkeley Burke argued the firm would have needed to "peer into a crystal ball" to understand the level of due diligence the Ombudsman would come to require of it.
Speaking at a judicial review hearing taking place in London today (10 October), a lawyer representing the self-invested personal pension (SIPP) provider, Jonathan Kirk, suggested the firm would have needed a crystal ball to to know what the financial ombudsman service would ask of it years after an unregulated investment into one of its SIPPs was made. Berkeley Burke is fighting a 2014 Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) decision in which the ombudsman ruled the SIPP provider had to compensate a client after it failed to carry out appropriate due diligence on his investment. In June 2...
To continue reading this article...
Join Professional Adviser for free
Signup and gain exclusive members-only insights
- Unlimited access to real-time news, industry insights and market intelligence
- Stay ahead of the curve with spotlights on emerging trends and technologies
- Receive breaking news stories straight to your inbox in the daily newsletters
- Make smart business decisions with the latest developments in regulation, investing retirement and protection
- Members-only access to the editor’s weekly Friday commentary
- Be the first to hear about our events and awards programmes
