The Pensions Ombudsman and the Financial Services Ombudsman have been in discussion for months over their conflicting views on whether Sipp providers should be liable for the investments they hold.
Rulings from Fos suggest it thinks Sipp providers should be liable. But the Pensions Ombudsman has taken an opposite view, prompting confusion.
A spokeswoman for the Pensions Ombudsman said discussions were still ongoing but declined to comment on when more clarity would be likely.
Meanwhile Fos did not respond to requests for a comment on the progress of talks.
The differing opinions between the two ombudsmen is highlighted by the Berkeley Burke case. Each service dealt with a case about investments into Green Oil plantations, where the client complained about a lack of due diligence on behalf of Berkeley Burke.
The Pensions Ombudsman found in favour of Berkeley Burke on the basis that it was not the company’s responsibility, as trustee and administrator of the Sipp, to carry out the level of due diligence the complainant suggested.
However, an ombudsman at Fos found in favour of the client, because Berkeley Burke failed to ensure the investment was suitable.
Since this decision, Fos has been reviewing the case after talk of a judicial review into the decision.
Financial Conduct Authority guidance for Sipp operators says that if firms are involved with unregulated collective investment schemes they should ensure they have enhanced procedures in place, undertake appropriate due diligence and keep all research under regular review.
