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 Store First storage pods, Harlequin Property (Caribbean resorts), Global Forestry Investments, and a range of other schemes that have since collapsed or been shown to be fraudulent. The investments were entirely unsuitable for pension savings. Yet Berkeley Burke accepted them, collected fees, and administered the arrangements — until a landmark Financial Ombudsman Service determination in 2018 changed everything.
The Landmark 2018 FOS Determination — Why It Changed Everything
In 2018, the Financial Ombudsman Service determined a complaint against Berkeley Burke brought by a client who had been placed into a Store First storage pod investment inside a Berkeley Burke SIPP. Berkeley Burke argued it was acting in an execution-only capacity — it had not given advice and therefore bore no liability for the suitability of the investment.
The FOS rejected this argument entirely. It found that Berkeley Burke, as the SIPP operator, had a duty under the FCA's Principles for Business (specifically Principle 6: Treating Customers Fairly, and Principle 2: Skill, Care and Diligence) to conduct adequate due diligence on any investment before accepting it into a client's SIPP. By accepting a storage pod investment without investigating whether it was appropriate to hold within a pension arrangement, Berkeley Burke had breached its regulatory obligations.
Berkeley Burke challenged this determination in judicial review proceedings. The High Court upheld the FOS determination. Berkeley Burke appealed. The Court of Appeal upheld it again. The principle was confirmed: SIPP operators are not passive administrators. They are gatekeepers, and they bear liability when they fail that duty.
This ruling created a legal framework that has since been applied across the entire SIPP industry. It is the foundation of claims against Rowanmoor, Guinness Mahon, Greyfriars, Hartley Pensions, and every other SIPP operator that accepted unsuitable 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 8% annual rental income and a buy-back guarantee. The buy-back was never honoured. Returns stopped. Store First went into administration in 2019 and was wound up by 2023. The Serious Fraud Office investigated.
Off-plan Caribbean resort developments sold to 8,000+ UK investors. Founder David Ames convicted of fraud by the SFO on 3 August 2022 and sentenced to 12 years imprisonment. Only 300 of 6,000 planned properties were ever built.
Forestry investment scheme. Founders Andrew Skeene and Omari Bowers convicted of fraud by the SFO in June 2022, sentenced to 11 years each. Only £710,000 returned from £24 million+ invested.
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. By January 2023 (the last published FSCS update), the FSCS had received 2,155 claims, upheld 1,795 of them, paid £58 million, and had 51 claims still in progress. 309 claims had been rejected.
The market for Berkeley Burke SIPP claims is substantially more mature than Rowanmoor or Hartley Pensions. Most investors who were advised by specialist solicitors or CMCs have already filed. However, there remains a significant residual pool of potential claimants who:
- 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
- Received advice from IFAs who have only recently been declared in default, creating a fresh FSCS claim against that IFA — separate from and additional to any Berkeley Burke claim
- Suffered losses exceeding the £85,000 FSCS cap and need to pursue the balance through direct litigation
If you believe you may have been a Berkeley Burke client but have not yet made a claim, contact us immediately for a free assessment. A significant number of Berkeley Burke-era IFAs have been declared in default in the period 2020–2025, creating fresh FSCS claim windows for clients who received advice from those specific firms.
The Carey Pensions (Options UK) Ruling — An Important Distinction
It is important to distinguish the Berkeley Burke ruling from the later Court of Appeal ruling in Carey Pensions (Options UK) v Adams [2022] EWCA Civ 824. In the Carey case, the Court of Appeal found that a SIPP operator was NOT liable where it was acting in a genuinely execution-only capacity with no connection to any form of advice or recommendation.
This distinction matters for Berkeley Burke claims. The Berkeley Burke ruling applies where the SIPP operator failed to conduct adequate due diligence on the investment — the gatekeeper duty. The Carey ruling limits this to situations where the operator had some ability to influence or filter the arrangement.
In practice, most Berkeley Burke clients were introduced by unregulated introducers whose conduct the FOS found Berkeley Burke should have investigated — keeping the Berkeley Burke ruling applicable. We assess the specific facts of each case to ensure your claim is brought on the strongest possible legal basis. Contact us for a free assessment.