01516680386

Also a clear indication that no money or transactions went in or out of ITSL..I. e any 8% returns which were due...
Just also shows that Mr D is clearly not getting paid from there otherwise the company could not be described as dormant

Happy to reconvene Axel...
Hardly a long awaited reassurance,an idea of what's gone on of late..

I hope you are right

I assure you...communication going out no later than Tuesday. .

I said the company was registered dormant up to the year end July 2014. I am not sure what Mr Downs has to do with this, he was not appointed until October 2014. Nobody has suggested Imperial Trustees had the 8%, quite the reverse.
My point is that this scheme was sold on the idea of an upfront servicing fee that would cover future years, and this shows even more that no service was provided and perhaps the 500, 000 fees should be recovered as well.

It was" sold" incorrectly...simple.
cant expect a pension company to do the yearly returns (when you have the information to do it) for free..
As far as the 5% admin was concerned,upfront cost...nothing to do with future years.
Nothing further has been charged obviously  but if the scheme had run as it should have there would have been,I am in no doubt for reporting etc..
The people  who sold it.. .that's the ones.
And yes,I believe it had been  suggested on here that ITSL have the returns...usually on an regularly basis...which is not the case

It was sold as a one off 5% fee or regular annual fees, implying that the up front offer was better value and so everyone took the one off fee offer.
There were no yearly returns and that is one of the reasons you cannot call ITSL a pension company, once ITSL had been paid the firm stopped contact with everyone and melted into the background.
I am suggesting that 500,000 in fees for ruining peoples' retirement plans should  be returned. Why did ITSL work with these salespeople in the first place?
I think it has been suggested that the people behind ITSL have the money, not ITSL itself, I would hope that will be clarified in the end.

This is an interesting issue. If the scheme administrator was a dormant company in 2014 then surely it would have had a duty to inform HMRC within 30 days of ceasing to act. I also wonder how it managed to comply with its other mandatory duties.
https://www.gov.uk/information-requirements-for-pension-schemes-the-basics

I am only going to comment on the first part as I won't go round and round  in circles..
As Axel says, incorrectly though, I comment when I disagree...there's so much in there I disagree with but won't get drawn in, your version of" people behind ITSL" differs to mine for a start.

i know exactly how it was "sold"....
In reality though, it was never going to happen and an annual fee would have been applied.

Do you not think that ITSL have been communicating with HMRC  ?

I have not suggested anyone specific behind ITSL.  Signing out of this.

Obviously more than  person posting as accounts if not you then...appreciate that can happen so maybe you haven't suggested anyone specific

Signing out, Good call

you think the people that took 5 per cent should keep it all! I think returning it is a good idea.

Thought you'd signed out...

Pr...ck.

Yep but a two eyed one, cause you see more

Dear Sirs, I am a member of the Lancaster Pension Scheme. I have received a number of announcements from Dalriada, HMRC, Lancaster TC Pension Scheme, ARK and Angela Brooks. I have made enquiries on each; I know that ARK obtained Queens Counsel opinion on the scheme. I know they offered HMRC the option to suspend the scheme soon after inception, this was rejected, by HMRC. I know Dalriada have taken c£3,000,000 in fees and legal costs from members’ funds. I know that Dalriada have not invested my fund. I cannot find one incident where Dalriada have acted in my interests. I know Dalriada have promoted Angela Brooks as a representative to members. I know Angela Brooks is not a Barrister, as she has promoted herself, and I know she is under investigation by Insolvency Practitioners. I know that because of her actions and bringing it to the public eye, HMRC are now unlikely to be willing to reach a settlement. I know the regulator appointed Dalriada and are therefore responsible for their actions. I know I signed a loan agreement and I know I have to repay it with interest on retirement or before I am 75. I know that the 5% commission charged by Ark is lower than most major pension providers. I am confident that my advisors would have succeeded in reaching agreement with HMRC if it had not been for Angela Brooks. I know that the statement made by Hon. MP Mr. Gauke ruling out an amnesty was ill stated and poorly researched as not one member has yet had their case tested at tribunal. Another recent article by Nicholas Hellen in the Sunday Times is factually incorrect and unhelpful. Sean Browes has lied, as in ARK alone he is sitting on £13m in cash, unless his fees have been £10m already. Not one case by HMRC has been tested in court Angela Brooks’ actions have now possibly led us all into facing significant tax  charges. She should in the light of all the facts stated above, withdraw immediately from acting on behalf of members and pass it to professional advisors who have acted free of charge with expertise in addressing these issues. Yours faithfully, Mr. F. Watson.

ok, funny way to justify the 5% fees. is 5% standard then?

Sign out darling your only going to end up with egg on your and while your at it out your pal Hadley

ah, you think I am Angela Brookes.I could not care less about her views i just thought it would be a good idea to return the fees. take your issues up with her yourself.
call me darling and i will drop you where you stand .. pr...ck