01516680386

Angie,
I am confident that we will one day get justice as in arreststs etc although that probably won't happen unless you have thousands to throw at it. If you use the fees you are charging us then you should have enough to take it forward a long way. But there will be no arrests no money back as it will be proved that we all knew what we were doing. We all knew that we were not allowed to take in authorised payments before the age of 55 we can say we were Mis sold but our provider informed us that 55 was the age to be eligible for 25% tax free lump sum. We are all throwing good money after bad. We all took a risk out of desperation and its gone t**s up. I am being chased for the tax but I can't afford to pay it as all of us can't. You can not get blood from a stone. I don't care the money I got has given me and my family a good life since I liberated my pension. I don't care if  I have lost the other half or if I died tomorrow . I wouldn't have had anything without liberating my pensions

Yes mate you are so right but we were Mis sold. No one mentioned 55% tax apart from that I was willing to loose 50% of my pension to get it 20 years early when I really needed it.

But what about us that hadn't received any money apart from the 5% Thurlstone 'loan'? We weren't going to receive any money from the pension until 55 is reached..J.P.Sterling the introducers even said that I wouldn't be able to take the money from the pension until I was 55

Reading this through ,  correct  me if I got this wrong but did someone instruct Metis Law to pay Thurlstone?  Did Thurlstone arrange the loan? If so,  this links Metis Law and Imperial directly to Pension Liberation.  So,  if HMRC do decide to charge 55% on  the loan it appears clear who is culpable.

Den, the problem might be worse for Capita Oak.  If HMRC decide that CO was never a bona fide pension scheme set up with the sole purpose of providing an income in retirement, there could be a 55% tax charge on the entire transfer.  A proper pension scheme is supposed to meet legal requirements clearly laid down in legislation and these include prudent investment principles and a clear trust deed setting out proper rules for the scheme in accordance with the law.  Investing 100% of a pension scheme's funds in one illiquid asset for the sole purpose of the operators of the scheme receiving 30% introduction commission - and failing to ensure that those assets could be easily and quickly liquidated to provide retirement and death benefits for the members - pretty much fail every pension legislative test.  The conduct of those involved in the administration and promotion of the scheme, from the various directors and shadow directors of Imperial to the administration team at 31 Memorial Road, have been severely criticised by the Pensions Ombudsman and there has been indisputable negligence in terms of trusteeship.  Firstly, there was never a trustee appointed, and secondly Imperial (originally appointed as Administrator) is trying to assume the role of trustee.  However, from September 2014 it became a requirement that a pension trustee must be registered with the Pensions Regulator, and Roger Chant is not - therefore Capita Oak continues to fail the test for being a bona fide pension scheme.  Had Payne at least made some effort to appoint a director of Imperial who had some demonstrable experience and qualifications in pensions, that might have lessened the risk to some extent.  Failing to produce proper accounts has also increased the risk, including the failure to obtain valuations (or even documented proof) of the assets.  The HMRC position is a real threat and must be dealt with carefully and competently, but I think it is important to address this matter publicly.  Had a proper, independent accountant and auditor been appointed at the earliest opportunity, this problem might have been mitigated to some extent.

Karl Dunlop was the director of ITSL at the time the 100k was paid by Metis Law to Thurlstone, and yes - the link is clear.  Capita Oak is a class case of pension liberation fraud - and described by the Pensions Ombudsman as organised crime.

Have HMRC been sending bills out to everyone or just this guy?

Is 'me myself and I' Ark or CO?

So basically CO members are f*cked no matter what, the fraudsters or HMRC will have our money...what's the point

I would guess Ark Den rather than C.O..

It was not a real post in the first place. Just the usual perps poking fun at the victims.

I meant to type predators nor perps.

Den, please phone me

I just want to clarify the situation with the contract between Imperial and RP Med Plant on the Capita Oak pension Scheme.
Various people have suggested that the contract is not legal because the signatures are not witnessed.

Witnesses are not required because both signatories are representing limited companies.

See this document for further information:
http://www.linklaters.com/pdfs/Insights/projects/ExecutionofDocuments.pdf

The only question would be whether the signatures are genuine and whether the two signatories were authorised to sign for the companies. However, even if the signatures were forgeries it would not automatically invalidate the contract. This would have to be decided by a court, and it may not be straightforward, as in the recent Gordon Ramsay case where the signature was not his but the contract was held to be valid for other reasons (mainly the scope of authority).

So, I think that the issue of the contract is a red herring.

Once again, follow the money. This is where the answer will lie.

Forged or not, the signatory apparently was not a director at the time of signing. If not an officer of the company, should this have been witnessed?

hang on here for a brief moment . you appointed yourself to to be a director of 3 pension companies , what are your qualifications  for that position . remember you also claimed to be a barrister and when challenged you went very quiet . i think we deserve an answer to this  please because we could be transferring from one problem to a total meltdown.

We are going in circles again. She gave the reasons on here and then someone asked if the other directors could do the same but they chose not to. My understanding was that for Capita Oak that she wanted to appoint independent accountants and an auditor.
What are you transferring? Nothing, unless Paul T can talk reason to TW (best of luck with that by the way, I am sure most will appreciate your work on that).

not at all , you cannot try and remove someone you say is not qualified  and then appoint yourself  who is also not qualified , i must ask for an answer for the sake of the members .

It is a fair point.  A few weeks previously tPR made it a condition that pension trustees have to be registered, and in order to be so you have to satisfy certain criteria.  These include qualifications and experience.  I applied for registration with tPR and was rejected on the basis that I did not have five years' experience as a pension trustee.  (If anyone wants a copy of tPR's letter to me an happy to pass it on).  However, notwithstanding the above, the fit-and-proper test always applied before the change to the rules by tPR, and I believe you will find that as Christopher Payne was also owner of TKE Admin Ltd. who charged 450k to Capita Oak in fees, and never had any qualifications or experience to make him fit and proper to be a trustee, he would have failed the test the first and second times he was a director of Imperial (as presumably would Dunlop and Burton).  However, I go back to the fact that the trust deed did not appoint Imperial as trustee, but as administrator (ditto Westminster).

In a word - yes.  So the combination of a forged signature and not being a director at the time, no name under the signature and no witness would undoubtedly be cause for serious concern for any court.  Combine the above with the fact that it was not a bona fide occupational pension scheme as it was not set up to provide an income in retirement and didn't meet legislative requirements, and I think it likely that trust law would throw the "deed" out on its ear.  The interesting thing, however, is that Alan Fowler - with his qualifications and experience as a pensions lawyer would have made an excellent candidate for a trustee.  However, for reasons of his own, he clearly only ever wants to skulk around in the shadows.