Overseas Property SIPP Investment Claims
Nadeem Pervazis a solicitor at Edward & Amaury Solicitors, a law firm authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Content is reviewed for legal accuracy and compliance with FCA guidance and SRA conduct standards.
TL;DR — Quick Summary
- ▸Overseas and off-plan property was widely placed into SIPPs in the 2000s and 2010s — these were high-risk, illiquid, unregulated assets unsuitable for pension investment.
- ▸Claims can be brought against the adviser who recommended the transfer, the SIPP operator who accepted the investment, or both.
- ▸Many overseas property schemes have failed; compensation focuses on restoring your pension — not on the failed development.
- ▸FSCS claims may be available if the adviser or SIPP operator has since failed.
- ▸Time limits apply — seek advice promptly.
During the 2000s and early 2010s, thousands of people were advised to transfer their pensions into SIPPs and invest in overseas property — off-plan developments in countries including Cape Verde, Turkey, Brazil, Bulgaria, and the UAE. These investments were high-risk, illiquid, and in most cases wholly unsuitable as pension assets. Many of the developments failed to complete, and investors were left with worthless or near-worthless SIPPs.
Quick Answer
If your SIPP held overseas property investments — whether or not the development completed — you may have a claim against the financial adviser and/or SIPP operator. FSCS claims may be available if those firms have failed. Contact us for a free, no-obligation assessment.
Why Overseas Property Was Unsuitable as a SIPP Investment
Pension investments should be appropriate for the investor's circumstances — typically requiring some degree of liquidity, regulation, and transparent valuation. Overseas property typically had none of these characteristics:
- Illiquid: there was no ready market to sell an interest in an overseas property development. Pension funds became locked up with no exit route.
- Unregulated: overseas property investments were not regulated financial instruments. Investors had no FCA protection over the underlying asset.
- Subject to foreign risk: currency fluctuation, local legal complexity, and overseas planning and construction risk all added to the investment risk.
- Off-plan risk: many schemes were sold before construction began or was complete. Numerous developments stalled or were never built.
- Opaque charges: multiple layers of fees — to the property promoter, the SIPP operator, and the introducing adviser — were often not clearly disclosed.
SIPP Operator Liability
One of the important developments in SIPP mis-selling law is the recognition that SIPP operators — the firms that administer SIPPs — owe duties to their clients. Where a SIPP operator accepted an unregulated, high-risk overseas property investment without adequately assessing whether it was appropriate, that operator may be liable.
A series of FOS decisions and court judgments — including the Supreme Court decision in Adams v Options UK Personal Pensions LLP [2021] — have established that SIPP operators can be liable in certain circumstances. Whether this applies to your case depends on the specific facts. We will assess this as part of your initial review.