Storage Pod Pension Investment Claims — SIPP Mis-Selling
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
- ▸Storage pod investments were high-risk, illiquid, unregulated assets placed into SIPPs — unsuitable for the vast majority of investors.
- ▸Claims can be brought against the financial adviser who recommended the SIPP transfer, the SIPP operator who accepted the investment, or both.
- ▸Many storage pod companies have failed — but claims against advisers and SIPP operators (and the FSCS if they have also failed) may still be viable.
- ▸Compensation aims to restore your SIPP to the value it would have had under a suitable investment.
- ▸Contact us for a free initial review — time limits may apply.
Storage pods were marketed to pension investors in the 2000s and 2010s as supposedly stable, income-generating assets that could be held inside a Self-Invested Personal Pension (SIPP). In reality, they were high-risk, illiquid, unregulated investments — and the advice to transfer pensions into SIPPs to hold them was, in most cases, wholly unsuitable.
Quick Answer
If your pension was moved into a SIPP and invested in storage pods, you may have a claim against the financial adviser and/or the SIPP operator. Many of the firms involved have since failed, but FSCS claims may still be available. Contact us for a free assessment.
FCA and FOS Position
The FCA and FOS have consistently held that placing pension funds into unregulated, illiquid, high-risk assets like storage pods through a SIPP was unsuitable for most retail investors. SIPP operators who accepted such investments without adequate due diligence have also been found liable. These cases have a well-established track record at the FOS and FSCS.
Why Storage Pod SIPP Investments Were Unsuitable
Storage pod schemes typically involved purchasing a unit in a storage facility, which was supposed to generate rental income. They were packaged as SIPP-eligible assets. In practice, they had characteristics that made them wholly unsuitable for pension investment:
Unregulated
Storage pod investments were not regulated financial products. Investors had no FCA protection over the underlying asset.
Illiquid
There was no ready market to sell storage pod investments. Investors who needed to access their pension found it impossible to liquidate the asset.
High risk
Returns depended on the operational success of the storage facility and the promoter company. When these failed, the investment became worthless.
Opaque charging
Storage pod schemes often involved multiple layers of fees — to the promoter, the SIPP operator, and the adviser — eroding any return.
Who You Can Claim Against
Storage pod SIPP claims typically involve one or more of the following:
- The financial adviser — who recommended you transfer your existing pension into a SIPP and invest in storage pods. If the advice was unsuitable given your circumstances, the adviser may be liable.
- The SIPP operator — who accepted the unregulated storage pod investment into your pension. FOS decisions and court cases have found SIPP operators liable where they failed to conduct adequate due diligence on non-standard assets and accepted investments that were clearly unsuitable for their clients.
- The FSCS — if either the adviser or the SIPP operator has failed and was FCA-authorised, the FSCS may be able to compensate eligible claimants.
How Compensation Is Calculated
Compensation for storage pod SIPP claims typically seeks to restore your pension to the position it would have been in had the unsuitable advice not been given. This is calculated by comparing:
- The current value of your SIPP, having been invested in storage pods (which may be zero or near-zero if the scheme has failed), against
- The value your pension would have been worth had it remained in, or been moved into, a suitable investment.