Three Court of Appeal decisions between 2018 and 2024 closed every significant defence available to pension advisers and SIPP operators. Here is what that means for your claim.
Check my claim →A SIPP administrator tried to avoid paying compensation by arguing it was just an “execution-only” administrator — it just held the pension wrapper and did not give any advice. The High Court rejected this. It confirmed that every SIPP operator has a duty to check the firms introducing clients to it and the investments placed inside the pension — regardless of what its contracts say. This ruling is the legal foundation of all SIPP operator claims.
The Court of Appeal ruled that where a SIPP is arranged through an unregulated firm, the pension contract itself is legally unenforceable. The remedy is not just compensation for your loss — it is the full return of the original transfer value, as if the contract had never existed. This right is called “unwinding under FSMA s.27” and it applies to every case where an unregulated firm introduced you to your SIPP. The amount you can recover is not limited by the FSCS cap.
This 2024 ruling closed the last remaining defence. A SIPP operator argued it could not be held responsible because it did not know the introducing firm was on the FCA warning list. The Court of Appeal said that the FCA warning list is publicly available — any firm that did not check it is still liable, even if it genuinely did not know. This is called “constructive knowledge” and it applies across the board.
Every FCA-authorised financial adviser giving DB transfer advice must start from the assumption that the transfer is unsuitable. The adviser must prove — on the specific facts of your case — that there are compelling reasons for you personally to give up your guaranteed pension rights. This is called the “compelling reasons test”.
The FOS upholds between 55% and 77% of DB pension transfer complaints nationally. The most common reasons advisers fail the test:
The critical yield is the investment return your SIPP would need to achieve to match what your final salary pension would have paid. If this rate is high — 7%, 10%, or above — any reasonable assessment would conclude the transfer was not in your interests. Many advisers recommended transfer anyway.
If you were near retirement, had limited other savings, or were in poor health, you had a low capacity to absorb investment losses. A transfer that might be suitable for a 45-year-old with other assets may be entirely unsuitable for a 60-year-old who needs their pension to live on.
A final salary pension guarantees you an income for life, no matter how long you live and no matter how markets perform. Most advisers failed to properly explain what clients were giving up. If you had understood the full picture, would you have transferred?
Does your case have grounds? Find out for free.
Start my free assessment →Takes under 3 minutes · No obligation · We will never cold-call you
You can complain directly to the firm, or refer to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) or FSCS — both completely free. If you use the free routes, you keep 100% of any compensation awarded.
| Redress received | Max % | Max fee |
|---|---|---|
| Up to £1,499 | 30% | £420 |
| £1,500–£9,999 | 28% | £2,500 |
| £10,000–£24,999 | 25% | £5,000 |
| £25,000–£49,999 | 20% | £7,500 |
| £50,000 and above | 15% | £10,000 |
Compensation is paid directly to you. We invoice after you receive your compensation. You pay nothing if unsuccessful. Source: FCA PS21/18 (Chapter 2, Table 1) & CMCOB 5.2. Excl. VAT.
If you sign a client agreement with us, you may cancel it within 14 days without any charge or obligation. No questions asked.
Contact us at complaints@redressadvisory.com. If we cannot resolve your complaint you may refer it to the Financial Ombudsman Service free of charge within 6 months of our final response.