In the wake of widespread pension transfer scandals—many involving unregulated overseas schemes and unqualified advisers—a fundamental legal question arises: who is responsible for ensuring pension transfer advice is lawful, regulated, and safe?
This is not a hypothetical debate. Real victims have lost life savings. These cases expose regulatory cracks across the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC), the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), and international jurisdictions. They also reveal a disturbing pattern: fraudulent actors gaining access to pension funds while regulators stand aside.
⚖️ The Legal Framework: Pension Transfers and Regulated Advice
Under UK law, pension transfers—particularly those involving defined benefit (DB) schemes or overseas transfers such as QROPS (Qualifying Recognised Overseas Pension Schemes)—must be advised on by a financial adviser who is:
- Authorised and regulated by the FCA, and
- Specifically qualified as a Pension Transfer Specialist (PTS).
These are not optional protections. They are legal safeguards grounded in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA) and enforced through FCA rulebooks. The requirement to use a PTS became mandatory following a series of pension scandals and regulatory reforms.
However, evidence has surfaced of advisers operating without FCA authorisation, lacking the required qualifications, and misrepresenting credentials (e.g., falsely claiming to hold the G60 pension transfer qualification). These advisers facilitated transfers into QROPS schemes that ultimately led to the loss or dissipation of pension assets.
🧾 Where the System Fails
In several known cases:
- The adviser was not regulated by the FCA.
- The firm had no PTS approval.
- The scheme received HMRC QROPS registration despite red flags.
- FCA-regulated ceding providers released funds without confirming adviser permissions.
- DWP and HMRC provided no safeguards, despite assertions that only approved advisers would be allowed to transfer pension funds.
Regulators then passed the buck:
- FCA said it was not responsible for overseas advice or QROPS regulation.
- HMRC denied regulatory duty, citing its role as a tax authority only.
- DWP made no meaningful intervention, despite its involvement in pension oversight.
The result? Fraudsters exploited the grey space between authorities, with no regulator willing to accept responsibility.
🔍 Who Should Be Responsible?
A clear accountability chain exists in law:
| Entity | Duty | Breach Consequence |
|---|---|---|
| Adviser / Firm | Must be FCA-authorised and PTS-qualified | Criminal/civil liability |
| Ceding Scheme Provider | Must verify adviser authorisation | Possible negligence/failure of duty |
| Receiving Scheme (QROPS) | Must comply with UK and local law | Potential for delisting or sanction |
| FCA | Must regulate UK firms and protect consumers | Judicial review, public law breach |
| HMRC | Must ensure QROPS criteria are enforced | Tax penalties, delisting |
| DWP | Has duty of oversight in pensions | Parliamentary scrutiny |
This legal infrastructure exists to prevent precisely the type of abuse that has occurred—yet has been systematically ignored or deflected by those charged with upholding it.
🧨 The Consequences of Regulatory Passivity
What is especially alarming is that UK-registered firms were involved in facilitating these transactions, including:
- Offering terms of business to unregulated advisers,
- Selling trustee firms co-cited in litigation,
- Failing to investigate the use of false qualifications.
Despite extensive correspondence sent to the FCA, HMRC, and the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), little to no action was taken—even where there was clear evidence of:
- Falsified adviser credentials,
- Misuse of CII qualifications,
- Undeclared conflicts of interest,
- Overseas schemes breaching UK regulatory approvals.
💥 The Bigger Issue: A Crisis of Trust
This situation is not merely administrative failure—it’s a collapse of regulatory accountability. Victims are left without recourse, regulators deflect responsibility, and the perpetrators continue operating with impunity.
There are echoes of other financial scandals here: accountability blurred, enforcement absent, and victims dismissed. Worse still, state institutions approved acquisitions and transactions involving implicated firms, putting future investors, shareholders, and international buyers at further risk.
🛠️ What Must Happen Now
There is an urgent need for:
- A Parliamentary inquiry into regulatory failings surrounding QROPS and pension transfer fraud.
- A joint redress scheme between HMRC, FCA, and DWP for victims misled by false adviser approvals.
- Stronger gatekeeping by pension providers to block transfers not supported by verified, qualified FCA advisers.
- A database of revoked and fraudulent adviser claims, maintained publicly, to prevent future impersonation or deception.
🧭 Conclusion
The UK financial system markets itself on integrity and consumer protection. But when a pension transfer requires FCA-regulated advice and an unqualified, unauthorised adviser is allowed to handle it, someone failed in their duty.
The question is not just “how did this happen?” but “why was it allowed to happen—repeatedly—and who will be held accountable?”
Until clear answers are given and restitution is offered, public trust in UK financial oversight will remain fundamentally shaken.
Your Money or Your Life
Unmask the highway robbers – Enjoy wealth in every area of your life!
By Steve Conley. Available on Amazon. Visit www.steve.conley.co.uk to find out more.
Academy of Life Planning 