The last few weeks have been somewhat manic in the financial press.

So what's the story? I can say at outset that John Grisham may want to plagiarize the yarn as it has it all; mystery, surprise, conflict, conspiracy, and leaves the reader in suspense, desperate to find out what happens in the next chapter which unfortunately is yet unwritten.
It may at this stage appear disappointing when the tale starts with FOS removing a determination from their website. The determination related to a complaint that was upheld against Berkley Burke (BB).

{desktop}{/desktop}{mobile}{/mobile}

The complainant, who was introduced to BB by an unregulated agent, invested via a BB SIPP in Sustainable AgroEnergy, an unregulated investment which subsequently failed. Despite BB advising the complainant that the investment was high risk, the Ombudsman ruled that BB should have ensured the investment was suitable for the investor.
The outcome of the determination kicked off a heated debate. Not surprisingly, the majority of the SIPP industry was of the view that the Ombudsman's decision was wrong and could start an onslaught of further claims. The main concern for the SIPP industry is how far they are expected to go when looking at the suitability of a member's investment choice and, if over-zealous, there a risk that they could be perceived as giving advice, which they are not authorised to do. If informing an individual that the investment is high risk and they should seek advice is not sufficient, then the alternative is that SIPP providers may decide just to restrict investment choice.
Just as the dust was settling, there was an unexpected twist with the mysterious disappearance of the determination. When challenged by the press as to the reason behind their action, FOS advised that 'following the decision, the business (BB) commenced the judicial review process. The outcome of that process was that the Ombudsman will now consider the complaint afresh'. FOS also confirmed that both parties would have to agree to the complaint being reviewed and said the case relates to exceptional circumstances. What we do not know is what these 'exceptional circumstances' are, but from my understanding a final determination is binding on all parties. As regards conspiracy theorists, they are having a field day but one can understand why. For what possible reason would an individual who has won his case agree voluntarily to have it reviewed with the possibility of a different outcome? It does appear to defeat all logic.
So now the process starts again and SIPP providers are left in limbo. It feels a bit like the book you half read on your last holiday and have to start all over again on your next. Let's hope that it has a satisfactory ending.