Print Article

IFA FINED £107,200 unsuitable pension switching, transfer advice and failing to manage its conflicts of interest.


FCA fines LJ Financial Planning Ltd £107,200

Independent financial advice firm is fined for providing its customers with unsuitable pension switching and transfer advice and failing to manage its conflicts of interest.

Between March 2010 and December 2012, the Warrington-based firm recommended that 114 customers transfer their pensions into self-invested personal pensions (SIPPs), without providing any advice on the underlying investments which were to be held in those SIPPs. These investments were often high-risk, esoteric and illiquid.

The total amount invested in this way by LJFP’s customers was just over £6,000,000.

In making its recommendations to customers, LJFP was required to consider not only whether a SIPP was a suitable investment vehicle for the customer based on their individual circumstances, but also whether the investments held within the SIPP were suited to the customer’s needs and appetite for risk.

LJFP failed to do so.

LJFP was aware that these investments were potentially high-risk, and yet was not prepared to advise customers on the underlying investments. One senior employee made clear in an email to the firm’s compliance partners that the firm did not ‘want to know’ what those underlying investments were.

The FCA found that LJFP failed to take reasonable care to ensure the suitability of its advice for these customers, who were considering whether to transfer their existing pensions into a SIPP and who ought to have been able to rely upon its judgment in relation to the suitability of this transfer.

Accordingly, LJFP breached Principle 9 of the FCA’s Principles for Businesses (the Principles).

To date, LJFP has paid redress of £2,668,819.97 to 41 customers who have been impacted by this failing. LJFP will be conducting a customer contact exercise in relation to the remaining customers in order to assess their eligibility for redress.

Between January 2013 and November 2017, LJFP also failed to ensure that it identified and managed potential conflicts of interest fairly between itself and its customers, in breach of Principle 8 of the FCA’s Principles.

During this period, LJFP recommended Amber Financial Investments Limited as a wrap platform for its customers and that customers make investments through Tatton Investment Management, a discretionary fund manager, without disclosing to customers that it had shareholdings in these companies.

Mark Steward, Executive Director of Enforcement and Market Oversight, said:

  • ‘Investors should be able to trust their financial advisers with the pension contributions they’ve built up over a lifetime of hard work. These failings were especially serious because LJFP facilitated the transfer of these investors’ pensions into high-risk investments without assessing whether the investments were suitable for investors.

  • ‘In many instances, these investments are now worthless and many investors are approaching or already in retirement and so especially vulnerable to the risk of significant losses. Redress is important but these investors should never have been placed in this position in the first place. Investors should also be able to rely on their financial advisers to manage conflicts fairly and to disclose them so investors are able to make better informed decisions.’


The Team

Meet the team of industry experts behind Comsure

Find out more

Latest News

Keep up to date with the very latest news from Comsure

Find out more


View our latest imagery from our news and work

Find out more


Think we can help you and your business? Chat to us today

Get In Touch

News Disclaimer

As well as owning and publishing Comsure's copyrighted works, Comsure wishes to use the copyright-protected works of others. To do so, Comsure is applying for exemptions in the UK copyright law. There are certain very specific situations where Comsure is permitted to do so without seeking permission from the owner. These exemptions are in the copyright sections of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended)[]. Many situations allow for Comsure to apply for exemptions. These include 1] Non-commercial research and private study, 2] Criticism, review and reporting of current events, 3] the copying of works in any medium as long as the use is to illustrate a point. 4] no posting is for commercial purposes [payment]. (for a full list of exemptions, please read here]. Concerning the exceptions, Comsure will acknowledge the work of the source author by providing a link to the source material. Comsure claims no ownership of non-Comsure content. The non-Comsure articles posted on the Comsure website are deemed important, relevant, and newsworthy to a Comsure audience (e.g. regulated financial services and professional firms [DNFSBs]). Comsure does not wish to take any credit for the publication, and the publication can be read in full in its original form if you click the articles link that always accompanies the news item. Also, Comsure does not seek any payment for highlighting these important articles. If you want any article removed, Comsure will automatically do so on a reasonable request if you email