• news-banner

    Expert Insights

Adams v Carey - What does this mean for SIPP providers?

The regulation of SIPP providers is an area that would welcome greater clarity. While SIPP providers are Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) authorised, their regulatory duties are relatively light touch, with most material on their duties contained in a number of guidance papers issued both by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) and the FCA. The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) is frequently dealing with complaints in this area, and looks to case law to assist with its interpretation of SIPP provider duties. Since there is not much material on this subject, the decision in Adams v Carey has been long awaited; in fact it took a number of years for the Court to hand down its decision.

The claim was brought by Mr Adams, who saw an advertisement for C&P Brokers (an unregulated firm), who were offering an investment into self-service rental storage pods. CL&P recommended that Mr Adams place his storage pod investment within a SIPP provided by Carey. Mr Adams went on to set up a SIPP with Carey and instructed Carey to purchase the storage pod investment be held within his SIPP. Unfortunately, the storage pod investment did not perform well and effectively became worthless. Mr Adams took action against Carey as the only regulated entity in the arrangement and argued a number of claims, the key aspects of which are highlighted below.

What was particularly interesting with regard to this case is the fact that the FCA made their own submissions to the Court relating to their interpretation of various FCA rules and pieces of relevant legislation. As a general point, in issuing its judgment, the Court largely disagreed with the FCA’s interpretation. However, it is worth mentioning that the Court deliberately excluded from its consideration guidance materials published by the FCA since the events that gave rise to the claim (from 2013 onwards). This meant that important FCA guidance as to the duties of SIPP providers was excluded. The Court also found that Mr Adams was unable to rely on the Financial Services Authority’s recommendations in its 2009 report on the findings of a thematic review of SIPP operators in order to interpret the scope of Carey’s duty under COBS 2.1.1R. As a consequence, much of the material as to the duties of SIPP providers was carved out.

Section 27 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000

S.27 of FSMA allows a court to effectively "unwind" an agreement entered into as a result of something said or done by someone carrying on a regulated activity (such as "advising on investments") without having authorisation from the FCA to do so (or relying on a relevant exemption).

Mr Adams argued that CL&P advised him to enter into the storage pods investment via a SIPP with Carey, and arranged for this to take place. The Court found that the SIPP was not entered as a result of CL&P “making arrangements”, while CL&P’s actions also fell short of “advising” on a SIPP, since CL&P simply directed Mr Adams towards a specific provider (which in the Court’s view did not constitute “advising” on the SIPP).

Further, the Court concluded that the contract at issue was that between Mr Adams and Carey and that it would not be fair in the circumstances to unwind this contract. This was on the basis that Carey was unaware of CL&P’s advice and also that Mr Adams had signed a document acknowledging that the storage pods were a high-risk and speculative investment. The Court further found that there were systems and controls in place on Carey's side to ensure that Mr Adams as an execution-only client had not been advised.

Breach of FCA Handbook Rules

Mr Adams argued that Carey had breached the general principle at COBS 2.1.1 R of the FSA Handbook (at the time) which stated that Carey must act "honestly, fairly and professionally in accordance with the best interests of the client”. As a consequence, Carey had a duty to ensure that systems were in place to ensure unsuitable investments were not placed within SIPPs. Mr Adams also argued that Carey were required to ensure that investments were not introduced by unregulated introducers (like CL&P). Again, the FCA was in support of Mr Adam's position.

The Court rejected Mr Adam's submission. The Court found that the starting point should be the contract between Mr Adams and Carey, which made clear that Mr Adams was acting on an execution only basis. The Court’s position was that Carey did not have a duty to consider whether the storage pods investment was appropriate for Mr Adams' SIPP, since investors should be taking responsibility for their investment decisions; Mr Adams was aware the investment was “high risk” but still decided to invest.

Claim in Negligence

Mr Adams also brought a claim in negligence which the Court rejected (Carey was not liable as a joint tortfeaser for the unsuitable investment advice provided by CL&P, on the basis that CL&P's recommendation fell short of a negligent misstatement).

What does this mean for SIPP providers?

While SIPP providers may welcome the decision, the judgment causes some confusion. It sits at odds to the decision in Berkeley Burke and runs contrary to the position of the FCA on the matters considered. It seems that the Court was making a statement as to retail investors taking more responsibility for their investment decisions, which to a certain extent cuts across the consumer protection objective of the FCA. We consider that there is a good chance Mr Adams will appeal and it will be interesting to watch how the case progresses. It will also be interesting to see how the FOS interprets the case, with so many of its complaints relating to the duties of SIPP providers.

However, perhaps this inconsistency means that it is time for the FCA to encode the duties of SIPP Providers more formally in its Handbook, rather than this sitting in various guidance papers. Their “Retirement Outcomes Review” looks to be introducing rules around non-advised drawdown, however some certainty when investments become placed within a SIPP could be very helpful to the industry and to consumers alike.

For more information, please contact Jessica Arrol.

Our thinking

  • IBA Annual Conference 2023

    Charlotte Ford

    Events

  • UAE Polishes Federal Arbitration Law

    Peter Smith

    Quick Reads

  • Is the opening up of Nexity's services division capital a consequence of the difficulties facing the French property sector?

    Dimitri-André Sonier

    Quick Reads

  • Charles Russell Speechlys expands presence in Greater China with the arrival of Litigation and Dispute Resolution Partner Stephen Chan

    Stephen Chan

    News

  • A Labour government: what might be in store for personal taxation?

    Sarah Wray

    Quick Reads

  • China Daily, and other titles, quote Silvia On on trends affecting Chinese HNWIs

    Silvia On

    In the Press

  • City AM quotes William Garner on Chase UK banning crypto transactions

    William Garner

    In the Press

  • New Hong Kong crypto regime: trading platforms falling foul already?

    Patrick Chan

    Insights

  • Spears quotes Piers Master on the potential exodus of UHNW non-doms from the UK ahead of a potential Labour government

    Piers Master

    In the Press

  • Investment Week quotes Julia Cox on the proposed scrapping of inheritance tax

    Julia Cox

    In the Press

  • Heritage property and conditional exemption

    Sarah Wray

    Insights

  • Vanessa Duff writes for Wealth Briefing on how the Bank of Mum and Dad can help young people get on the property ladder

    Vanessa Duff

    In the Press

  • Sarah Higgins and David Wells-Cole write for Wealth Briefing on the pitfalls of using unregulated legal services

    Sarah Higgins

    In the Press

  • 5 top tips to make estate administration easier for your executor

    Jessica Dawkins

    Quick Reads

  • Financial Reporter quotes Rhys Novak on a new FCA review into the treatment of PEPs

    Rhys Novak

    In the Press

  • South China Morning Post quotes Lisa Wong on Hong Kong's surrogacy rules

    Lisa Wong

    In the Press

  • First time buyers relief and trusts

    Sarah Wray

    Insights

  • The Financial Times quotes Julia Cox on tax planning under a potential Labour government

    Julia Cox

    In the Press

  • The Family Fund: Bank of Mum & Dad 2.0

    Vanessa Duff

    Quick Reads

  • The Financial Times quotes James Riby on London’s reputation as ‘divorce capital’ of the world

    James Riby

    In the Press

  • Inside Britney and Sam’s $10m prenup

    Shivi Rajput

    Quick Reads

  • The i quotes Katie Talbot on the merits of putting a life insurance policy into a trust

    Katie Talbot

    In the Press

  • Oops!....I did it again - Britney's third divorce

    Charlotte Posnansky

    Quick Reads

  • NSPCC urges Government to protect children from domestic abuse during holidays

    Shivi Rajput

    Quick Reads

  • A brief look at HMRC v A Taxpayer [2023] UKUT 00182 (TCC)

    Dominic Lawrance

    Quick Reads

  • An exceptionally harsh judgment? Exceptional circumstances revisited

    Dominic Lawrance

    Insights

  • Record success for Charles Russell Speechlys in Chambers High Net Worth 2023 directory

    Piers Master

    News

  • Charles Russell Speechlys advises Puma Private Equity on its £5m investment into Pockit Limited

    David Coates

    News

  • ATED and the farmhouse

    Sarah Wray

    Quick Reads

  • Recognising financial abuse in a relationship

    Vanessa Duff

    Quick Reads

  • Million Dollar Footballer With No Assets?

    David Carver

    Quick Reads

  • eprivateclient quotes Sarah Higgins and David Wells-Cole on the CMA’s investigation into will-writing and quickie divorce legal services

    Sarah Higgins

    In the Press

  • Are Parental Rights Equal for All Families?

    Vanessa Duff

    Quick Reads

  • Atonement and post separation endeavour: wife keeps £1m gift from husband after his affair and will receive a share of his business’ future profits

    Sophia Leeder

    Quick Reads

  • Pensions: change is in the air once again

    Sarah Wray

    Quick Reads

  • Don’t push it… Quincecare duty clarified

    Caroline Greenwell

    Quick Reads

  • Pandora Papers: HMRC nudge taxpayers to come out of their box

    Hugh Gunson

    Quick Reads

  • Making BitCoin a BitClearer

    Charlotte Posnansky

    Quick Reads

  • Can a financial claim in divorce proceed after the death of either party?

    Sarah Higgins

    Quick Reads

  • Second Time Weddings - Family Law (I) dos and don’ts

    Miranda Fisher

    Quick Reads

Back to top