Fos finds against Carey in 81-page due diligence decision

This is because there were a number of things about the marketing material which ought to have given Carey “significant cause for concern” and that there was a significant risk that potential investors were being misled. 

In conclusion, Pattison said that it would not be fair to say Mr S’s actions mean he should bear the loss arising as a result of Carey’s failings. 

Although Mr S was warned of the high-risk nature of Store First and declared he understood that warning, Carey failed to act on, nor did it share significant warning signs with Mr S so that he could make an informed decision about whether to proceed with the investment. 

He said: “In these circumstances, I am satisfied that Carey should not have asked him to sign the indemnity at all. And, for the reasons I have set out, I am satisfied that the application should never have been accepted in the first place, or alternatively, Carey should have put a stop to the transaction at a much earlier stage in the process.”

As a result, he ordered the firm to return Mr S to the position he would now be in if he had not transferred his pension.

It must also take ownership of the Store First investment if possible and pay £500 for the trouble and upset caused.

What do you think about the issues raised by this story? Email us on to let us know