Greyfriars Asset Management directed client SIPP cash into its own toxic illiquid fund — the so-called 'Portfolio Six' — via unregulated introducer pipelines. Greyfriars is in FSCS default. If you were a Greyfriars SIPP client, FSCS compensation is available.
Start your free assessment →Greyfriars Asset Management was a SIPP operator and investment manager that directed client pension funds into its own in-house investments — most notably the illiquid 'Portfolio Six' — via unregulated introducer networks. Unlike most SIPP failures where the operator and the investment promoter were separate parties, Greyfriars was both the SIPP operator and the manager of the failing investments, creating a serious conflict of interest that went unchecked.
Clients were introduced to Greyfriars by unregulated broker firms and placed into 'Portfolio Six', which proved to be illiquid and subsequently worthless. The FSCS declared Greyfriars in default and is processing claims from eligible claimants.
Greyfriars is in FSCS default. Direct FSCS claims are open for eligible claimants relating to Portfolio Six and other illiquid investments directed into client SIPPs via unregulated introducer networks.
Up to £85,000Where losses exceed the FSCS cap or where unregulated introducers trigger FSMA s.27 rights, civil proceedings may recover the full uncapped amount.
Uncapped — court proceedingsFSCS claims are open following the Greyfriars default. The FOS absolute clock runs independently from the date of your original transfer. Obtain a formal assessment immediately to identify which routes remain available. 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.
Portfolio Six was an in-house investment fund managed by Greyfriars Asset Management. Client SIPP funds were directed into Portfolio Six via unregulated introducer networks. The fund proved illiquid and eventually worthless. Greyfriars' dual role as operator and investment manager created a conflict of interest that the FOS found was not adequately managed.
Yes. Greyfriars' role as both SIPP operator and investment manager makes it directly liable for the failure to protect client funds. This case does not depend on a third-party adviser — the regulatory failure sits with Greyfriars itself.
No obligation · No upfront cost · We will never cold-call you