Allansons Solicitors shut down by Solicitors Regulation Authority

Allansons, the solicitor firm behind an unregulated investment scheme offering potential 50% returns within a 6-18 month timescale, has been shut down by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

According to The Bolton News,

The Solicitors Regulation Authority took the decision to close Allansons Solicitors, which had been operating out of an office Queens Buildings in Central Street, after ruling that its manager, Roger Allanson, had failed to comply with a number of regulations.

A notice from the industry regulator on the door to Allansons’ office states that the firm was shut down on Friday, and that all “practice papers, files and monies held” were now in the possession of the SRA.

Roger Allanson, who late last year was banned from running his practice by the SRA over charges unrelated to the investment scheme, told The Bolton News:

“There was no dishonesty with this scheme, it was an opportunity for people who are not adverse to risk to gain a return on an investment.”

Whatever Allanson may have intended the scheme to be, “for people who are not adverse to risk” was not how the scheme was marketed by third party introducers.

Third party introducers claimed that the scheme was “100% secure with FSCS”. One introducer, Smart Investment Club, told potential investors in March 2018 that the scheme was “exposed to zero risk”. Smart Investment Club appears to have shut down – its website has been replaced by a blank WordPress template.

Allanson also stated:

“We have raised about £20,000,000 to back about 4,000 cases, and have an insurance policy if it goes wrong.

They are all grown ups who are able to make their own decisions.

This decision has been taken because they (the SRA) are worried this will collapse under their watch.”

Allanson is a prominent member of the Bolton community, who until rececntly served on the board of the Bolton Wanderers Supporters Trust.

Where this leaves the investors who invested £20 million to back Allansons’ cases on behalf of people affected by automatic capitalisation of mortgage shortfalls is unclear.

Yesterday a statement on the website of Mortgage Audit Bureau said

We have been made aware this morning (24th May 2019) of a re-assignment of cases between Allansons and Quanta Law.

At this moment we have not been provided with any further information. We hope to be able to provide more information by close of play on Tuesday (28th) through our website.

On Tuesday evening this was amended to say Wednesday 29th. At time of going to press no further information had been provided.

The cases were purportedly covered by After The Event insurance offered by Leeward Insurance in the small island of Bermuda, and it remains to be seen whether Leeward will pay out if the closure of Allansons means these cases are toast.

It also remains to be seen whether, if Leeward Insurance refuse to or are unable to pay out, and the insurance broker Box Legal also does not compensate investors, the Financial Services Compensation Scheme will step in, as was claimed by third party introducers.

My opinion? You’re more likely to see Bolton Wanderers lift the 2021/22 Premier League title.

Advertisements

16 thoughts on “Allansons Solicitors shut down by Solicitors Regulation Authority

  1. Quick update on the Mortgage Advice Bureau announcement: it has edited today to remove the mention of Quanta Law. It now says just “We have been made aware this morning (24th May 2019) of a re-assignment of cases by Allansons.”

    Like

  2. Indeed, apologies. Definitely not to be confused with the Mortgage Advice Bureau (a network of mortgage advisers).

    Like

  3. I have been following this for some time now and there is a limited amount i can say. However, private investors are not the first to have lost substantial amounts of money.

    I am deeply mistrustful of MAS/Bryan Turner. I would be surprised if any investors have actually examined the mortgage ‘audits’ and the supposed underlying rationale. The remaining firms running these claims must surely know what they are assisting in.

    Seek legal advice. Soon.

    Like

  4. Please provide any information possible on where this has got to. I have made a significant investment and would like to speak to others who may have done the same. Would like to understand what others are doing / going to do about it.

    Like

  5. This is still on line today though probably a cached page, however still publicly accessible and took little effort to find.
    https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a1ec8d4d0e62827bd7957ad/t/5b2122ff03ce64a2ff1c708a/1528898305022/AllansonsMortgageMiscalculationsLF_9a.pdf
    The ‘no risk’ aspect is in the main based on the strength of the underlying insurance policy should claims fail. If anyone has a complete file of papers we’d be happy to offer an opinion FOC.
    http://www.smoothcl.co.uk

    Like

  6. I’m my opinion.

    The best advice is to seek legal advice ASAP.

    Of course the Forum is great to share information.

    Let’s hope there’s a swift resolution.

    Like

  7. Okay, Jane Sanders here. I’ve just reviewed the ‘funding agreement’. It is hardly worth the paper on which it is written. The investor is actually a ‘client’ of Kingsmoor Property Development – or what I think is the unregulated introducer.

    It would appear to me that Kingsmoor – dissolved in 2018, so it escaped scrutiny on the face of it – was no more than an introducer named in the agreement so that the introducer’s right to fees is enshrined in a document. Please bear in mind that I am not able to verify the existence of the company because the agreement that you all went into does not appear to show its full title UNLESS it is not an incorporated company.

    So yet again we have a list of unregulated introducers to an investment fund that shut down and leave the consumer with the liabilities.

    Accordingly, as an unregistered barrister who seems to have found my way into scores of consumer frauds it appears apparent here on the facts as I have seen them that the only people who are losing here AGAIN are you, the ordinary investors.

    Allansons have run an unregulated collective investment scheme. To do so, and in order to offer financial promotions to consumers in order to avoid breaching the General Prohibition, the entity has to be regulated or at least exempt from the Financial Services Regime. Allansons is not on the FCA register, and the SRA explicitly warns AGAINST using solicitors involved in such practices.

    Accordingly, I believe there may well be scope for justice in these matters IF there is an appetite for action.

    Best

    Jane

    Like

  8. Those thinking of litigating… get your pockets ready for a hammering.

    I very much doubt Smooth, or any other firm for that matter, will be offering to act on a CFA. This will be fairly complex litigation and, no doubt, it will be hotly contested by Allansons / Leewards.

    As i see it, (assuming the ATE insurer is not pursued) any cause of action against Allansons should be properly founded in misrepresentation and/or S.27 FSMA. It will be interesting to see how Ms Sanders approaches it. In my view, the Common Law argument is far stronger given the shockingly poor/ non-existent prospects of success that these cases actually had in reality. I think it is becoming more and more evident that these 4,500 cases were never intended to be successful but were instead used as a vehicle to attract disbursement funding from investors.

    Out of interest, has anybody attempted to verify Mortgage Audit Services Ltd subscription to the professional body that is printed on the front of the ‘Audit’ that they produce?…..

    Like

  9. These are really valid points made by Barry, particularly ” I think it is becoming more and more evident that these 4,500 cases were never intended to be successful but were instead used as a vehicle to attract disbursement funding from investors” .
    The overall theme I would want investors to take away is that the recovery of their money, if at all is a good way off. As to offering a ‘no win, no fee’ CFA please don’t rule that out; we’re gathering enquiries each week and it’s certainly on the table.

    Like

  10. I would not advocate litigation. It is a pointless exercise not least because the money has arguably been spent. What evidence do we have of this? Hmmm the fact that this was a UCIS, run without permission as I see it, which is inexcusable given a similar litigation fund which also failed for similar reasons. He was a practitioner and knew better! And as he knew better it seems reasonable to say that to risk prosecution – by the FCA – one would only do so for a big enough return, far outweighed by reasonable returns on an ‘investment’. Litigation is hugely costly; and there are possibly other avenues to explore

    Like

  11. Ultimately recovery of the investment is the focus. whilst each claimant will have a fact specific complaint, in general and IMO litigation against Allansons will be frustrated by the ongoing ‘progress’ of the subject mortgage claim and add to that these cases are now no longer under Allansons control. The ATE insurer will likewise no doubt attempt to avoid indemnity through some aspect of the T&Cs. in fact i understand the ATE is now withdrawn until a new solicitor appointed. The investors we’ve spoken to have been brought to the scheme via un-regulated advisers, litigation against un-reg IFA will see them rapidly shut up shop when presented with the level of claimants and value and no FSCS lifeboat scheme. Allansons had FCA regulation removed (it was also a different entity then) when PPI was a lump of their work, so that (if it ever was) is a dead end too. Litigation isn’t on anyone’s radar currently. Realistically Allansons regulator is the only entity that would be able to reimburse investors but that opens up a new set of issues and push back for investors who where never clients of Allansons.

    We have a concept of how to proceed and that does involve a no win, no fee agreement.

    http://www.smoothcl.co.uk/

    Like

  12. Lol it’s not necessarily an issue that you’re not clients BUT I will be able to let you know more after assessing the client files that are coming in thick and fast. May be some commonalities with Smooth’s opinion. Please see the action group for further details

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s