Berkeley Burke SIPP Claim — FSCS Default April 2020 — Compensation Guide 2026
Who Was Berkeley Burke and What Made It Significant?
Berkeley Burke SIPP Administration Limited was a Nottingham-based SIPP operator that became one of the most important companies in the history of UK pension mis-selling — not because of what it did to its clients, but because of what the courts confirmed it should have done to protect them.
Between approximately 2010 and 2017, Berkeley Burke accepted introductions from a network of unregulated introducers who placed retail pension investors into Berkeley Burke SIPPs holding high-risk, unregulated investments. These included schemes such as Store First storage pods, Harlequin Property (Caribbean resorts) and Global Forestry Investments, many of which have since collapsed or been shown to be fraudulent. Berkeley Burke accepted these investments into its SIPPs, and a Financial Ombudsman decision, upheld by the High Court in 2018, found that it should have checked them properly first.
The Landmark Ombudsman Decision and the 2018 High Court Ruling
The Financial Ombudsman Service upheld a complaint against Berkeley Burke from a client who, after being introduced in 2011, had held an investment in a Cambodian "green oil" scheme run by Sustainable AgroEnergy plc inside a Berkeley Burke SIPP. The scheme turned out to be a fraud. Berkeley Burke argued it was acting on an execution-only basis: it had not given advice and so bore no responsibility for the investment.
The Ombudsman rejected this argument. It found that Berkeley Burke, as the SIPP operator, was bound by the FCA's Principles for Businesses (including Principle 2, skill, care and diligence, and Principle 6, customers' interests) and should have carried out adequate due diligence on the investment before accepting it into the SIPP.
Berkeley Burke challenged the decision by judicial review. In 2018 the High Court rejected the challenge (R (Berkeley Burke SIPP Administration Ltd) v Financial Ombudsman Service [2018] EWHC 2878 (Admin)), holding that the Ombudsman had applied existing FCA Principles rather than creating new rules. Berkeley Burke was given permission to appeal, but the appeal was dropped after the firm went into administration in September 2019, so the High Court's decision stands. The practical result is that SIPP operators can be held responsible for accepting investments without proper checks.
The decision has been widely relied on in complaints and claims against other SIPP operators that accepted non-standard investments.
What Did Berkeley Burke Clients Invest In?
Berkeley Burke SIPPs held a variety of high-risk, non-standard investments introduced by unregulated third parties:
Individual storage units in UK warehouses, sold with promises of fixed rental income and a buy-back. Many investors found the units hard or impossible to sell, and returns fell away.
Off-plan Caribbean resort developments sold to more than 8,000 investors. Following a Serious Fraud Office investigation, founder David Ames was convicted of fraud on 3 August 2022 and sentenced on 30 September 2022 to 12 years' imprisonment. His appeal was dismissed in December 2023.
A scheme selling teak plantation investments in Brazil as ethical, which took about £37 million from more than 2,000 investors. Following a Serious Fraud Office prosecution, directors Andrew Skeene and Omari Bowers were convicted in 2022 and sentenced on 15 June 2022 to 11 years each.
Various additional unregulated collective investment schemes placed inside Berkeley Burke SIPPs by unregulated introducers.
Current Status — Where Are Berkeley Burke Claims in 2026?
Berkeley Burke was declared in default on 1 April 2020, and the FSCS moved claims about the firm's due diligence to its claims teams for assessment in July 2020. By May 2023 the FSCS was reported to have paid more than £58 million in compensation. The FSCS page still shows it as accepting claims.
Many former Berkeley Burke clients have already claimed. You may still want to look at your position if you:
- Were not aware they had a Berkeley Burke SIPP (some clients were enrolled without fully understanding the arrangement)
- Did not know about the FSCS claim window until recently
- Were advised by a firm that has since been declared in default, which may give you a separate FSCS claim against that adviser
- Suffered losses exceeding the £85,000 FSCS cap and need to pursue the balance through direct litigation
You can claim from the FSCS yourself, free of charge. If you would like us to check your options, including whether your adviser has also failed, we offer a free assessment.
The Adams v Options (Carey Pensions) Case
A second important case is Adams v Options UK Personal Pensions LLP (formerly Carey Pensions UK LLP) [2021] EWCA Civ 474. Mr Adams was introduced to a SIPP with Carey by an unregulated introducer and invested in storage pods. The High Court had found against him, but the Court of Appeal reversed that decision. It held that the introducer had carried on regulated activities without authorisation, so under section 27 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 the SIPP agreement was unenforceable against Mr Adams, and he could recover his money and compensation for his loss.
The two cases work differently. The Berkeley Burke decision concerns a SIPP operator's regulatory duty to check investments, enforced through the Financial Ombudsman. Adams is a court route based on an unauthorised introducer's involvement. Which, if either, applies depends on how you were introduced to your SIPP and what the introducer did, so we look at the facts of each case.