01516680386

The letter says the accounts are finished, so publish them. Why the need to speak to another firm of lawyers before presenting the accounts that the members are entitled to?  I think the comment " second announcement" sums up the amount of communication and administration perfectly. The email address given is to stop members flooding other email addresses of the people involved. How long does it take to seek information on the return on the investments? If it was stolen Imperial, or the real author of that letter, should call the police.

Another transfer request requested

Probably won't make any difference though I'm afraid !! Maybe everyone who is not happy with the "asset" within the scheme should request a transfer...

This is  the ADDRESS TO SEND YOUR LETTERS TO regarding Imperial

William Perkins
THE GRANGE
Market Square, Westerham, Kent, TN16 1HB

This is the only place worth sending your requests to although Paul T is right about the asset. Mr Perkins and is outfit is at the above address.

We have now identified the individuals we have observed entering the above address.

And will publish the names soon however it's clear to us that the majority of these people were involved in the administration of imperial trustees.

We would also let Mr Anthony Sahli know that we missed you off the list along with your over lord Mr Steven Ward you also will be held accountable.

They have a legal obligation it's set in stone now civil claim through union solicitor at no cost to myself will be my next course of action I'm sure the administers have property to cover the Mal administration of my investment either way I don't mind which path they choose

Joe... A civil case will be the only course of action, there will be no other way of trying to recover what you have lost.  In my opinion everyone on this forum should do the same. Finding out where the money was sent is all good but it won't help recover anything.

Total shite......Yet another stall tactic. Are you taking the p I s s Perkins?  

Union legal team already on the case awaiting my ombudsman decision which should be next week or so then it's all guns blazing for the directors at least I'll get chance to face them in court

Stephen Ward was paid 250 per transfer which was agreed with Fowler. 31 Memorial Road, Worsley, is where Anthony Salih works which is the office of Premier Pension Transfers Ltd.  Downs & Co now removed from Imperial's address.

What's the new address a ' friendly'  insolvency practitioner

Same address, just with Downs & Co deleted (a combination of he has finally realised they are crooks and the crooks have realised he is a "loose canon")

Smart money is next one will be a 'friendly' insolvency practitioner somewhere locally, not like Jackson Francis, Sycamore Crown or reg office of Omni Trustees, Sutton Coldfield.
You could spit to Worcester or Telford from there.

Don't think the Insolvency Service will go for that. ITSL are in deep trouble - all the directors/former directors/shadow directors.  Fowler should know that as he used to be a lawyer with Stevens & Bolton Solicitors in Guildford and an "associate" with http://www.pwtadvice.co.uk/about/biog.htm (partner Jo Summers confirmed he is a self-employed pensions consultant).   There you go Stevens & Bolton/PWT Advice - some free advertising!

I am afraid you are right.
If there are no scheme accounts and valuations, then there won't be individual accounts of that you can be certain. First problem, what is an individual's transfer value? That cannot be answered, so the request falls at the first hurdle.
Next, assuming the accounts and valuations were completed properly, how would such a transfer be undertaken?
There are two ways, in principle, how this could be done-
1. In specie- This is where the receiving scheme accepts the existing investment (in this case storage containers) to the value of the transfer value. If all the assets were lumped together then it is unlikely that the value will correspond to a specific number of units and to fractionalise (ie split ownership of the units) is likely to be unworkable in practice. Next problem, which pension provider would accept storage units anyway(FCA warnings and fear of FCA action will put off SIPP providers for a start)? Even if some providers could be found, the providers have fees and how would the pension running costs be met from the units in the pension? It would mean investors putting more money into the scheme to cover the running costs. Good money after bad? If there are existing SIPP investors in this scheme, then there is a danger that the SIPP provider will pursue the fees from the investors personally.
2. Cash transfer- This would mean liquidating assets to the value of the transfer value. Who is going to sell the units? Storefirst want to sell new ones, so why would they sell a second hand one for a client? Are clients able to sell their own units in this market? How would they do that? They are competing with Storefirst if they do.

Since the scheme, from the wording of the Pensions Ombudsman's report, has ignored and is likely to continue to ignore requests for transfers then I cannot see how any transfers will complete at the moment. The members needs to work with Storefirst to put in place a structured timetable to sell units to meet the demands of potential transferees and those approaching retirement age. Have the members thought about enaging with Storefirst to meet and discuss such a timetable as I cannot see how there is any other way to resolve the transfer issues?

Is it not common knowledge and in the public domain that TW s part of the problem

All good, solid points.  We have tried working with Store First and their lawyer and at first they were very keen to cooperate and help find a solution.  But now they have "pulled up the drawbridge".

You refer to upaid SIPP fees. As I understand it from the BBC programme, there are 700 SIPP investors in Store First.
As you can see from the article this week, SIPP providers are now taking legal action to recover fees from investors victim to another fiasco called Harlequin. Will the same happen with the SIPP firms complicit in storage pod investments?

http://www.professionaladviser.com/profession ... -over-sipp-fees

The SIPP firms were happy to take the business without questionning anything and now are suing their own investors who stand to lose part or all of their orginal pension funds. Illiquid funds such as this have no part in pension planning for the vast majority of pension holders, as the people that set up Capita  well know.

Where there is a scam, a lawyer is usually in the background.

Just going through TWs past history with the apartment scams I doubt there will be any civil solution from him re the store first 'investments'. The money has already been used for his next scam..whoops business venture!
And it's frightening that other firms are still encouraging investing in store first pods...indoor sheds that aren't worth the ground they are on.
Crooked lawyers are easily bought and TW has a pocketful of them.

TW? What is that?