Anthony Philip James & Co (APJ) has issued over 30 lawsuits against self-invested personal pension provider, Liberty Sipp, in what is believed to be the largest number of claims against the pension firm.

Solicitors for APJ are seeking to consolidate the claims against Liberty Sipp, alleging the firm is responsible for the mis-selling of Sipps between 2011 and 2013.

Liberty Sipp invested the claimants’ Sipps into a variety of schemes, including Ethical Forestry and Global, following introductions from an unregulated party that this is now the subject of a criminal investigation by the Serioud Fraud Office.

Furthermore, APJ has reported that it has up to 700 more investors who have allegedly suffered significant losses, as a result of unregulated pension investments via Liberty Sipp.

APJ solicitor Glyn Taylor said: “Liberty Sipp has frequently argued that only a small proportion of legacy investors have lost money through unregulated Sipp investments, however from the cases we have on our books at the moment, we estimate that as many as 10 percent of Liberty’s investors have been affected and we believe there could be many more.

“Through this action we hope to establish that Liberty Sipp acted unlawfully when it received introductions from an unregulated introducer and by accepting high risk, speculative, risky and illiquid investments, Liberty SIPP breached their obligation to act honestly, fairly and professionally in accordance with the best interest of their customers as set out by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) Conduct of Business rules.”

The defending firm claimed that it stopped allowing investors to invest in non-standard assets in 2013, following guidance from the FCA reminding Sipp providers of their responsibilities to undertake due diligence on introducers, while identifying high-risk investments that are unsuitable for retail customers.

“What Liberty Sipp say they decided to do in 2013 should have happened in 2011. If Liberty were truly mindful of their responsibilities to treat their customers fairly and act in their best interests under COB 2.1.1R of the FCA Handbook the non-standard assets should not have been allowed as an investment within a Sipp, as they are contrary to the purpose of a Sipp which is to provide a pension income,” Taylor concluded.

Share Story: