Pension Advice Specialists Limited, trading as Ashworth Wealth, was a Pension Transfer Specialist firm declared in FSCS default on 26 March 2024 (FRN: 792927). The FOS upheld complaint DRN-4037181 finding PAS gave unsuitable DB transfer advice — failing the compelling reasons test for a client with reduced life expectancy and low/medium capacity for loss. The receiving SIPP provider, DAC Pensions, also failed — creating a potential dual FSCS claim.
Start your free assessment →Pension Advice Specialists Limited (PAS), trading as Ashworth Wealth, was a specialist pension transfer adviser firm — specifically authorised as a Pension Transfer Specialist (PTS). As a PTS firm, Ashworth Wealth was engaged specifically to provide the required sign-off on defined benefit pension transfers, countersigning recommendations where the transfer value exceeded £30,000 under Pension Schemes Act 2015 s.48.
The firm was declared in FSCS default on 26 March 2024 (FRN: 792927) following its inability to meet compensation liabilities arising from unsuitable DB pension transfer advice. Complaints against Ashworth Wealth focus on its failure to demonstrate compelling reasons for clients to give up guaranteed defined benefit pension rights — the standard the FCA requires PTS firms to clear before recommending a transfer.
PAS was frequently introduced business by third-party introducer firms. The FOS upheld complaint DRN-4037181 demonstrated that PAS accepted a client referral from Walker Murray Limited — a firm that was not itself authorised to advise on DB pension transfers. This raises a significant FSMA s.27 question: where an unregulated introducer arranged the client relationship and PAS countersigned the resulting transfer, the SIPP contract may be unenforceable and the full transfer value recoverable through civil proceedings.
It is also notable that DAC Pensions Limited (Davies & Co Pensions), the SIPP provider used in at least one PAS case, was itself declared in FSCS default in February 2023. Where both the advising firm (PAS) and the receiving SIPP operator (DAC) have failed, separate FSCS claims may be available against each entity.
The following decision is a matter of public record and verifiable at financial-ombudsman.org.uk.
The ombudsman upheld the complaint and found that PAS had not demonstrated compelling reasons for the client (Mr B) to transfer his defined benefit pension, which carried a CETV of approximately £101,000 at the time of transfer in February 2019. The FOS found PAS had failed to properly account for: the client’s reduced life expectancy; his assessed capacity for loss (low/medium); the absence of financial dependants; and the fact that his stated income gap was modest and could have been met through other means. The investigator concluded the client was likely to receive a substantially lower overall value from the new SIPP arrangements than his DB scheme would have provided in retirement. PAS had offered only £5,000 in settlement, which the estate rejected, correctly requiring proper FCA DISP Appendix 4 methodology for the loss calculation. The ombudsman upheld the complaint in full.
In DRN-4037181, the FOS noted that Walker Murray Limited (WML) introduced the client to PAS for DB transfer advice specifically because WML was not itself qualified to advise on defined benefit pension transfers. Where an unregulated or non-authorised firm introduces a client to a PTS for DB transfer advice, the subsequent advice arrangement may trigger FSMA s.27 — particularly where WML was involved in structuring the client’s overall pension arrangements in a way that exceeded its regulatory permissions. This is a civil court route to the full uncapped transfer value, independent of the FSCS £85,000 cap.
Davies & Co Pensions Limited (DAC Pensions, FRN: 77472) was the receiving SIPP provider in at least one PAS/Ashworth Wealth case. DAC Pensions was declared in FSCS default in February 2023. Where both your advising firm (PAS) and your SIPP operator (DAC Pensions) have failed, you may have separate FSCS claims against each entity — up to £85,000 from each. A formal assessment will identify whether this applies to your specific case.
Ashworth Wealth was declared in FSCS default on 26 March 2024. FSCS claims are open for eligible claimants whose DB pension transfer advice from PAS was unsuitable. The FSCS assesses loss using FCA DISP Appendix 4 methodology.
Up to £85,000DAC Pensions Limited was declared in FSCS default in February 2023. A separate FSCS claim against DAC as SIPP operator may be available where DAC failed its own due diligence obligations under Berkeley Burke [2018].
Up to £85,000Where Walker Murray or another unregulated introducer arranged your client relationship with PAS, FSMA s.27 may provide a civil court remedy for the full uncapped transfer value. This is independent of both FSCS claims.
Uncapped — s.27 FSMAFSCS default declared 26 March 2024. The FSCS claim window is open. However, the FOS six-year absolute clock on the original DB transfer advice runs independently. For clients advised by PAS between 2017 and 2019, this clock is now at or near expiry for the FOS route. The three-year awareness clock and FSMA s.27 civil route have different limitation rules. If you received advice from PAS or Ashworth Wealth, obtain a formal assessment immediately. See redressadvisory.com/time-limits.
A Pension Transfer Specialist (PTS) is a firm specifically authorised by the FCA to advise on transfers from defined benefit pension schemes. The PTS must start from the assumption that a DB transfer is unsuitable and may only recommend one where it can demonstrate compelling reasons on contemporary evidence. Ashworth Wealth was the PTS in the advice chain — it bears full regulatory responsibility for the suitability recommendation regardless of who introduced the client.
Not necessarily. The timing of a DB transfer — including whether gilt yields were low and CETVs therefore high — is one factor in the suitability analysis. However, suitability depends on the individual client’s circumstances, objectives, capacity for loss, and whether the receiving investment can meet the critical yield. The FOS assesses each case on its own facts. A transfer made at peak CETV values may still have been unsuitable if the compelling reasons test was not met for that specific client.
Yes. The PTS firm that countersigns a DB transfer recommendation bears full regulatory responsibility for the suitability of that recommendation. A countersignature is not a rubber stamp — the PTS is required to conduct its own independent assessment and must only sign off the transfer if it independently concludes the compelling reasons test is met. If it countersigned without that independent assessment, the advice is unsuitable regardless of what another firm may have recommended.
Yes. FSCS claims against the advising firm (PAS/Ashworth Wealth) and the SIPP operator (DAC Pensions) are separate — up to £85,000 per failed firm. Where both have failed, two separate FSCS claims may be available. A formal assessment will identify whether your SIPP was administered by DAC Pensions and whether the FSCS claims can be pursued simultaneously.
No obligation · No upfront cost · We will never cold-call you