Berkeley Burke SIPP Administration (BBSAL) is the firm at the centre of the landmark 2018 High Court ruling that established the non-delegable due diligence duty of all SIPP operators. Berkeley Burke is in FSCS default. If you held a Berkeley Burke SIPP, you may be entitled to FSCS compensation up to £85,000.
Start your free assessment →Berkeley Burke SIPP Administration Ltd (BBSAL) accepted clients via unregulated introducers and invested their pension savings in unregulated plantation and storage pod schemes. When clients suffered losses and complained to the FOS, Berkeley Burke sought judicial review — claiming a SIPP operator acting on an execution-only basis had no duty to conduct due diligence on the underlying investments.
Mr Justice Jacobs dismissed the judicial review in 2018. He ruled that SIPP operators owe a non-delegable due diligence duty regardless of any execution-only contractual terms. This duty exists independently of any investment advice role. Berkeley Burke v FOS [2018] EWHC 2878 became the legal anchor for all subsequent SIPP operator claims — every FOS upheld decision against a SIPP operator since 2018 has cited Berkeley Burke as the primary legal authority.
Berkeley Burke subsequently failed and was declared in FSCS default. The FSCS is open to claims relating to Berkeley Burke's due diligence failures on its unregulated introducer networks and the underlying investments placed into client SIPPs.
The following decisions are a matter of public record held in the FOS decisions database. Summaries are factual and based on published ombudsman findings. Decision references can be verified at financial-ombudsman.org.uk.
The FOS upheld the original consumer complaint against Berkeley Burke, finding it was fair and reasonable for Berkeley Burke to have conducted due diligence on the investment before allowing it into the SIPP wrapper, and that if it had done so it would have refused to accept the investment. Mr Justice Jacobs dismissed Berkeley Burke's judicial review, confirming the FOS had applied existing regulatory principles correctly. The ruling established that execution-only contractual terms cannot override the operator's regulatory due diligence obligations.
Berkeley Burke is in FSCS default. Direct FSCS claims are open for eligible claimants. Claims relate to the firm's acceptance of unregulated investments — including storage pods and plantation schemes — without adequate due diligence on the introducers directing business to it.
Up to £85,000Where your Berkeley Burke SIPP losses exceed the £85,000 FSCS cap, or where your introducer was unregulated at the time of transfer, FSMA s.27 provides a civil court route for full uncapped recovery independent of the FSCS.
Uncapped — court proceedingsTime limits are the single biggest barrier to justice in SIPP claims. SIPP operators and their insurers know this — they rely on claimants not acting in time. The FOS applies a six-year absolute clock from the date of the transfer, and a three-year awareness clock from when you first knew or ought to have known about your loss. For Berkeley Burke clients who transferred between 2010 and 2018, the absolute clock may have expired for FOS — but the FSCS route, the FSMA s.27 civil route, and the awareness clock each have different rules. Do not assume the window is closed without a formal assessment. See redressadvisory.com/time-limits for the full limitation framework.
Figures are indicative only and based on typical case profiles. Your actual position depends on your specific circumstances, the transfer value, and the applicable claim route. Not a guarantee of outcome.
Berkeley Burke v FOS [2018] EWHC 2878 is the legal foundation of all SIPP operator claims. Before that ruling, SIPP operators routinely argued they had no duty of care because they acted on an execution-only basis. The High Court confirmed they do. If you have a claim against any SIPP operator, Berkeley Burke is the legal anchor that makes it viable.
Common investments included unregulated storage pod schemes, plantation schemes, and other non-standard, illiquid assets introduced by unregulated advisory networks. Many clients were cold-approached by commission-driven brokers with no FCA authorisation.
If you received FSCS compensation up to the £85,000 cap but your total loss is higher, a Route 4 civil claim may recover the balance. The FSMA s.27 route is a separate legal cause of action not limited by the FSCS cap.
Yes. Berkeley Burke as the SIPP operator has its own separate regulatory obligations independent of whoever gave you financial advice. You may have claims against both your IFA and Berkeley Burke simultaneously.
No obligation · No upfront cost · We will never cold-call you