• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Linkedin
Skip to content
Menu
REDD-Monitor
  • Start here
  • About REDD-Monitor
  • REDD: An introduction
  • Contact
REDD-Monitor

Some suggestions on bringing a private legal action against carbon credit schemes (part 2)

Posted on 22 August 20144 December 2014

Earlier this week, REDD-Monitor posted some advice from a law firm about the sale of carbon credits as investments under UK law. Part of the advice was on “what, if any action, may be taken in the UK against companies selling voluntary carbon credits to the retail market.”

This is the second part of the advice, about voluntary carbon credits and Self-Invested Personal Pensions (SIPPs). The first part of the advice is available here.

The firm has agreed to REDD-Monitor posting the advice, but wishes to remain anonymous. They also recommended that anyone interested in taking action against carbon credit schemes should seek legal advice in relation to the particular circumstances and do not rely on the information contained below.

Voluntary carbon credits and SIPPs

SIPPs are Self-Invested Personal Pensions, a government approved personal pension scheme. Most SIPPs allow investment in a range of assets and are designed for people who want to manage their own funds by dealing with, and switching, their investments when they choose.

Due to the nature of SIPPs as a pension wrapper, meaning it simply holds pension capital which is then invested according to the SIPP holder’s wishes, investment in both regulated and unregulated products is permitted. Therefore, there is no restriction on investments in VERs being included in SIPPs. It is important to note that SIPPs have been designed to allow investment flexibility and the range of permitted investments will vary according to the SIPP provider and the type of SIPP. There is no exhaustive list produced by the FCA or HMRC however permitted investments commonly include the following:

  • Stocks & shares
  • Unquoted sharesCommercial property (shops, factories or office premises)
  • Overseas property (hotel rooms and land)
  • Investment trusts
  • Mutual investment funds
  • Deposit accounts with bank and building societies
  • Insurance company funds
  • Government securities
  • Structured products
  • Loan notes

There are some SIPP providers offering investment in carbon credits, and many carbon credit schemes trading in VERs are now marketing them as “SIPP compatible”.

For tax purposes, SIPPs are regulated by the HMRC. A wide range of assets are permitted to be included by the HMRC and VERs or carbon credits are not excluded. The inclusion of investment in assets in practice is usually dependent on whether the assets are subject to a tax charge.

The FCA regulates SIPP providers and investors should seek independent financial advice from an FCA authorised adviser before entering into a SIPP. The FCA has recently published SIPP Operator Guidance following a second thematic review and has already begun preparations for a third review by writing to SIPP operators and requesting information to assess the level of unregulated assets held in SIPPs.

FCA Regulation of SIPP Providers

The activity of administering SIPPs is regulated by the FCA which means that SIPP operators should be complying with the FCA’s Principles and Rules including paying due regard to the interests of customers and treating them fairly (Rule 6). Although SIPP operators are not responsible for any advice given by third party financial advisers, the FCA SIPP Operator Guidance highlighted the FCA’s expectation that SIPP operators would have controls and procedures in place enabling the identification of possible instances of financial crime and consumer detriment. Arguably such procedures should highlight situations where a proposed investment is with a scheme offering VERs. This is particularly apparent when considered alongside Principle 2 of the FCA’s Principles for Business which requires firms to ensure that they conduct and retain appropriate due diligence. The example used in the thematic review is checking and monitoring introducers and assessing whether investments are appropriate for personal pension schemes.

All personal pension providers, including SIPP Providers, have to be FCA authorised and comply with the rules set out in the FCA Handbook including the Conduct of Business Sourcebook (“COBS”). COBS rules include the following:

  • Acting honestly, fairly and professionally in accordance with the best interests of its client (COBS 2.1.1).
  • Taking reasonable steps to ensure that a personal recommendation, or a decision to trade, is suitable for its client (COBS 9.2.1)

Where SIPP providers are offering investments in VERs to retail investors, depending on the circumstances, it may be considered that they are in breach of the above COBS rules and not acting in the best interests of their client.

The FCA website sets out steps to complain about financial products and services including contacting firms directly and contacting the Financial Ombudsman. As mentioned above, as VERs are not regulated products the Financial Ombudsman cannot investigate the product itself but could investigate the service provided by an FCA authorised SIPP provider.

Alongside the applicable parts of the FCA Handbook, the FCA has published a number of papers on the treatment of SIPPs, including ‘A guide for Self-Invested Personal Pensions (SIPP) operators’, published 08 October 2013. The FCA outlines relevant FCA principles, guidelines and treatment of SIPPs.
 

1 thought on “Some suggestions on bringing a private legal action against carbon credit schemes (part 2)”

  1. Geoffrey Hackett says:
    8 February 2017 at 8:55 pm

    I am interested in hearing from clients who invested in Carbon Credits through Carbonex or Aston Lloyd particularly through Liberty SIPP. Our combined experiences might be very important in a Legal action whereas as individuals our cases might be weaker. Please contact me if you invested in Carbon Credits through a SIPP.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

SUBSCRIBE!

Enter your email address to receive notification of new posts.

Recent themes
Natural Climate Solutions
WWF's conservation scandals
Aviation and offsetting
Conservation Watch

Recent Comments

  • shahid on James Moore sentenced to more than 11 years in prison for his role in the Bar Works scam
  • Kathleen McCroskey on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl
  • Delton Chen on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl
  • Kathleen McCroskey on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl
  • Chris Lang on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl

Recent Posts

  • Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl
  • Papua New Guinea Environmental Alliance letter to Pogio Ghate, Minister for Environment, Conservation and Climate Change
  • Ecomapuá Amazon REDD Project, Brazil: Pública investigation reveals Ecomapuá Conservação is selling “illegal” carbon offsets from land it does not own, without transferring the money to local communities
  • Response from Steve Zwick, Verra: “Verra will ask Kanaka Management Systems to cease and desist any actions that may mislead communities into thinking that Verra has not already rejected the project”
  • Response from Kanaka Management Services: “Please do not conduct legal trail or castigate REDD+ project developers on the website by writing text which shows the project developer in bad light”

Recent Comments

  • shahid on James Moore sentenced to more than 11 years in prison for his role in the Bar Works scam
  • Kathleen McCroskey on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl
  • Delton Chen on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl
  • Kathleen McCroskey on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl
  • Chris Lang on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl

Issues and Organisations

30x30 AB 32 Andes Amazon Boiler rooms California Can REDD save ... ? Carbon accounting Carbon Credits Carbon Offsets CDM Conservation-Watch Conservation International COP21 Paris Deforestation FCPF FERN Financing REDD Forest definition Fossil fuels FPP Friends of the Earth FSC Green Climate Fund Greenpeace Guest post ICAO Illegal logging Indigenous Peoples Natural Climate Solutions NGO statements Plantations Poznan R-M interview REDD and rights REDD in the news Risk RSPO-Watch Safeguards Sengwer The Nature Conservancy UN-REDD UNFCCC World Bank WRM WWF

Countries

Australia Bolivia Brazil Cambodia Cameroon Canada China Colombia Congo Basin region Costa Rica DR Congo Ecuador El Salvador European Union France Germany Guatemala Guyana Honduras India Indonesia Kenya Laos Madagascar Malaysia Mexico Nicaragua Norway Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Republic of Congo Sierra Leone Sweden Tanzania Thailand Uganda UK Uncategorized United Arab Emirates USA Vietnam West Papua
©2022 REDD-Monitor | Powered by WordPress and Superb Themes!