Roger Allanson fined £17,000 by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and required to cease running his practice

Both partners of Allansons LLP, which runs an unregulated investment scheme offering returns of 50% within 6-18 months for investing in litigation funding, have been fined a combined £27,000 (plus £17,500 costs) and been prohibited from acting as managers or owners of an authorised solicitor, due to client money breaches.

Roger Allanson ran Allansons LLP as a sole practitioner until 2006, when he was joined by Mohamed Patel.

On 19 and 20 December 2018, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal heard a series of allegations against Roger Allanson and Mohamed Patel in regard to their conduct over a period of six years:

  • allowing the client account of Allansons LLP to be used to administer payments in respect of debt management plans when there was no underlying legal transaction
  • allowing improper payments totalling £890.90 to be made out of the client account
  • causing or permitting a sum in excess of £600,000 representing monies paid in settlement of requests for fees for work to be undertaken by the firm to be held in Allanson’s client account and not in the office account
  • paying client money into the office account instead of the client account
  • allowing client ledgers to have an overdrawn balance
  • failing to maintain accounting records properly to show Allansons’ dealings with client and office money
  • failing to conduct client account reconciliations every five weeks
  • failing to manage his business effectively and in accordance with proper governance and sound financial and risk management principles
  • failing to provide information to the Legal Ombudsman as part of an investigation into a complaint against his firm
  • failing to respond when the SRA asked for an explanation of his conduct in failing to cooperate with the Legal Ombudsman.

Both Allanson and Patel admitted all the allegations (after initally denying the first).

The Tribunal noted that these failings occurred through “inadvertance and was not attributable to an improper motive”, and that “no loss was caused to clients as a result of Mr Allanson’s actions”.

It goes on to say however that

his actions in using his client account to administer payments were objectionable in themselves because it is no part of a solicitor’s practice to provide a banking facility to clients through the client account and this is not an activity for which he was regulated.

Allanson was fined £17,000 plus £10,000 costs. Mohamed Patel was fined £10,000 plus £7,500 costs. The tribunal’s published decision notes that Patel resigned from Allansons in 2017. Companies House however shows that Patel was re-appointed to Allansons LLP in October 2018, which is not mentioned in the decision.

As a condition of their certificate to practice for 2018/19, both Allanson and Patel must not:

  1. act as a manager or owner of any authorised body.
  2. act as a compliance officer for legal practice (COLP) or compliance officer for finance and administration (COFA) for any authorised body.
  3. hold, receive, or have access to the client money, or act as a signatory to any client account, or have the power to authorise electronic transfers from any client or office account.

These restrictions were imposed in September 2018, with a three month stay in Allanson’s case (presumably to give him time to step down, whereas Patel had by that time already resigned). Due to these conditions already being in place at the time of the Tribunal’s decision, the Tribunal did not impose a further Restriction Order.

Where these restrictions on Roger Allanson’s ability to run his practice leaves the investment scheme run by Allansons is unclear.

At time of writing, Roger Allanson remains the sole person identified as a Partner on Allansons’ website, and Companies House still identifies Allanson as having a 50-75% controlling stake in Allansons LLP.

84 thoughts on “Roger Allanson fined £17,000 by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and required to cease running his practice

  1. This post was edited an hour after publication to correct the opening paragraph, which originally stated that Roger Allanson is the sole partner of Allansons. Allanson was the sole partner between Mohamed Patel’s resignation on December 2017 and reappointment on October 2018. Companies House shows that Allanson and Patel are now both partners of Allansons at time of writing.

  2. I, along with others, have invested in this scheme and have some concerns especially in light of Roger Allanson recent SRA tribunal and outcome. I’ve looked at the contract I’ve signed and wondering if anyone else thinks Roger has broken this contract now that there is this SRA ruling made against him.

    I’m specifically looking at clause 1.4.4. which states ‘It is hereby agreed that Allansons will provide compliance with regulations’. He’s been proven to not comply and therefore this is a slam dunk surely?

    Does anyone else have any opinion about this and do you think it is worth pursuing?

  3. If you are able to Dominic, post the entire clause.

    I have been watching this scheme unfold for a while now. I have quite a lot of experience with Allansons & Bryan Turner (of MAS Ltd). The whole thing is as close to a scam as you can get.

  4. Hi Dominic, is there a place or forum where this is being discussed more in depth ?

    Many thanks!

  5. The SRA doesn’t compensate people who invest in litigation funding and whose investments fail.

    Gordons LLP (the SRA’s Intervention Agent who are looking after the files) have told Allansons clients that they will have to find new solicitors, which doesn’t sound promising as far as anyone who invested in those clients’ cases goes.

    Out of interest, have any Allansons investors been given any definitive statement from Allansons, the SRA or anyone else as to the status of their investment? All the announcements seem to be targeted at Allansons’ clients. In a legal, not investment sense.

  6. Hi myself and my partner have invested with this company over twelve months ago. I have submitted my paperwork to the SRA. As of yet awaiting a reply. Any ideas on going forward? Any action groups to join? What to do next? Any thoughts on the insurance?

  7. As Brev says, there doesn’t seem to be much out there aimed at the investor as the SRA’s primary concern appears to be with the claimant. There does appear to be an Allansons Funders Action Group on Facebook. I suppose it was inevitable really.

  8. Hi All, I have spoken with the introducers on my investments, a firm called Stablerise who in fairness seem to be on the level. They were told the cases were transferring to a firm called Quanta and that this was to be confirmed to investors.

    However, have a look at this link:

    If you scroll to the bottom of the page you will see a link ‘ Funders Information Sheet’ which provides relevant information.

    What stands out is that the ATE insurers have cancelled ALL policies as matters stand. I contacted Gordons LLP who are the interveners on behalf of the SRA who have confirmed that whilst some cases may have gone to Quanta it is not simply a transfer ‘en masse’ and is completely up to the individual Claimant whether to go to them, seek new representation or do nothing at all. they also strongly advise seeking legal advice. I have done so now – a firm in Manchester called Kennedys.

    I don’t think they usually deal with this area but are interested and I have sent them my paperwork.

  9. I wonder why the CMC Mortgage Audit Bureau (‘MAB’) appears to have closed down?

    They were running a large number of the privately funded miscalculation claims but the firm is a separate legal entity to both Allansons and Mortgage Audit Services. MAB is trading name of Financial Claims Advisory Service Limited which seems to be an entirely separate operation with no cross directorships etc.

    Presumably MAB were instructing Allansons on litigated cases which is why they will now need to advise their clients on finding another solicitor to run the case but it seems strange to me that they would change their website to ‘site under maintenance’.

    On a separate note, Leewards have now cancelled all the ATE policies.

    If the client, upon hearing about Allansons, decides to discontinue the claim then Leewards will not reinstate the policy. Additionally, If Quanta Law, or any other prospective new firm for that matter, decide not to take on the case then Leewards are also unlikely to reinstate the policy.

    Basically, investors need the claims to keep going to have any chance of realising the investment. It is a shame so many of the claims are wholly without merit.

  10. Hey there – its under preliminary review but a lady called Julie Parker is looking at this for me, phone number is 0161 817 2805 – feel free to mention me, will save you some time

  11. I invested £12,000 in Allansons Miscalculated Mortgage Payments fund in November 2017 and am as concerned as others. In retrospect, there were a number of warning lights. Going forwards, I am aware that the organisation Safe or Scam is putting together a case against Allansons. I have worked with Safe or Scam on other scams. They are professional, efficient, and, most important, honest.
    Find out more at:
    You can contact SoS from there. I have no other interest in Safe or Scam — my own motivation is to see a critical mass of investors to pursue a case against any fraudsters. The Allansons scheme, along with other fraudulent investments such as European Property Coin and Essex and London Properties was promoted through a broker called ‘Invest Direct’ or ‘Cercle6’, by an crooked agent falsely calling himself ‘James Harris’ who is actually Yomi Bashorun. Safe or Scam are also working on these two scams, so he, too. will soon be brought to justice.

  12. Anyone thinking of getting involved with Safe or Scam as advertised above by “fruf”, I would point out that they’re not authorised by the FCA and so can’t legally act for UK consumers. And I’m not sure why you’d want to appoint someone purportedly based in New Mexico to represent you in a domestic matter.

  13. PLEASE PLEASE be careful with giving your data to people outside the UK. I obviously have a bias here as I’m a regulated CMC but for goodness sake pick ONLY regulated entities for which you have recourse to FOS if something goes wrong.

    Brev, are you there? This is yet another fine mess that people are being dragged into. Much like Axiom!

  14. Okay, guys, please make your way over to:

    The page is called: Allansons Litigation Funding Scheme Action Group. It is a closed group and I intend to use the group as a forum for gathering the info needed to work out if there are any rights that consumers may have for civil recoveries at reasonable costs. Without this you run the risk of paying through the nose for actions that may lead to ZERO recoveries.

  15. Hi,

    Has any investors received the Funder Correspondence from Allansons that Brev had posted the link to ?

    I have received nothing by post or email.


  16. Good evening. I’ve now reviewed three cases where the SRA have rejected claims by lay consumers. As a specialist lawyer this is where my skillset generally comes to the fore.

    I have just been informed that ALIAG – now offering a litigation investors Facebook page – is apparently using my name to endorse their offering. This apparently refers to inducements to enter contracts for claims management services.

    I DO NOT endorse any law firms. I do NOT endorse claims management firms as a general rule and if I did I would NOT have a separate Facebook page for you. I would be on it.

    As I said earlier BE VERY CAREFUL WHO YOU CONTRACT WITH! I endorse nobody because I PARTNER with companies when I need assistance.

    But let me make myself clear: some GOOD claims management companies come and instruct my business to TEACH them how to successfully get your claims through.

    What is the point of giving your claim to a party that is less likely to succeed with your case.

    And mark my words, there IS scope I think, but it is absolutely not a slam dunk EVEN THO Roger is not compliant, and even tho he has apparently abjectly misled you on the literature I have seen.

    Financial promotions cover MANY things. And there are strict rules on what can be promoted to consumers such as yourselves. If the promotion is misleading it creates loss and THAT is the basis upon which I am assessing. And I will NOT put terms out UNTIL I’m sure I think there is a reasonable prospect of getting claims through.

    And I do NOT mean litigation. Too much risk; too much cost; and too much stress.

    Our page on Facebook is the ONLY one where you will see legal opinion OR terms later on for an offering run by a specialist lawyer that is employed by businesses, banks, claims management companies, consumers and others.

    Anything else is a lie!

    Sorry to point this out, but you guys simply represent numbers for some: I can’t afford to be so remiss when so many of you have lost EVERYTHING!

  17. @JaneSanders, can you please advise where we have used you name?

    Like you, we are only here to assist and we note we are already assisting victims get answers to…

    1. What has gone wrong with Allansons
    2. What happens next
    3. Will the ‘insurance policy’ pay out
    4. The options available to claimants to recover their money from elsewhere.

    If you’re a vicim and want a no-obligation informal chat with an experienced legal advisor please visit or the facebook page at

  18. Afternoon Aliag, I’ll have my contact screen shot the page. IF anyone is in doubt as to whether legal expert ‘Jane’ has endorsed anyone, please let me know.

    This is the page where I am resident. It MAY offer services, but I will NOT be putting out terms unless I’m sure.

    My gut instinct is that there’s scope for SRA claims, but not for every type of client and that there is POSSIBLY scope for review of business with Gordon’s.

    The consumer investors who have arguably been misled into believing they were investing in ‘cases’ were, from my research, actually investing in a pooled investment held by Allansons in client accounts, from where Allansons MAY have used some of the money to pursue cases.

    BUT I do not have sufficient evidence to know what the basis of the miscalculations were; whether the analogy was sound; whether there was scope to get the cases upheld; what forum he was proposing to use; without which I cannot say whether, as an investment proposition, this was ever viable.

    Gut instinct, thus far, is that it was not. But that is based entirely on conjecture to date.

    The governance of the FCA or SRA arguably means NOTHING when you refer back to the debacle that has arisen for fellow ‘investors’ in LCF, MJS, IPM and so on, all of which were purportedly governed in some sense by a regulatory body.

    It is IMPERATIVE that consumers understand WHAT regulatory powers a regulator has BEFORE they ever part with their hard earned money. THAT is how we stop travesties like this occurring.

    Before I go – I am going on record to state that ANYONE in receipt of direct contact from Mr Allanson about the purported viability of their investment, and the premise that HE IS SELECTING THE LAWYERS think about this: HE HAS BEEN BANNED FROM DOING THE INVESTMENT HIMSELF. ERGO THE SRA ARGUABLY WOULD NOT FIND HIM FIT AND PROPER AS A PERSON FOR SELECTING ANYONE ELSE TO RUN THE ALLEGED INVESTMENT.

    One of the key issues that see lay consumer investors fall foul of timeframes for taking action is inappropriate reliance on the words of their offerors i.e. the person offering the investment SAYS: wait, stick with me, it will all come good. I have seen it first hand, and I have seen the devastation that it can cause to YOU.

    Tread with care. Roger may be seeking to do right by you BUT the SRA have stripped him of his ability to practice FOR A REASON. If you fail to take action in a timely manner you MAY lose the ability to do anything. THAT is a key reason for taking advice even if just to ensure you KNOW what you are doing if you decide to wait. INFORMED CONSENT IS EVERYTHING AND VERY FEW PEOPLE TREAT CONSUMERS IN SUCH MANNERS.

    That stops NOW!

  19. I want to speak with the Allansons Litigation Investor Action Group that have helped a number of you. Can someone please add their number or website as I can’t find them. Thanks in advance.

  20. Hello Karen, I spoke with a gentleman called Ben there on 08008611103. He knew exactly the issues we’re having and has helped me and my partner massively. Hope they help us all. Roger Allanson could of easily ruined my life!
    Good luck everyone. Thomas

  21. I have just been COLD CALLED about my investment at Allansons! They knew how much I invested and when, my full address, everything!! They said they had the FULL LIST!! The only people who should have my information are Allansons!! They have SOLD our information for yet more of Us to be SCAMMED! The FRAUD hasn’t stopped!

  22. Hang on, don’t panic. You may have a remedy there. But don’t sign up to anything. And ask for the source of the data. I’m sorry you guys are getting this rubbish

  23. I’ve been called also. The girl on the phone said her boss bought it from allansons? How can they do that? Isn’t that illegal? How is that a solution Jane??

  24. Remedy haha. They have sold out information for their own gain. Not a remedy at all.

  25. It is unlawful and it’s unlawful because the release of that data is arguably in breach of GDPR. That means that they may have acquired the data in breach – something that you may be able to sort with the ICO. But that means making a complaint to the ICO against the company and asking them to investigate. I’m so sorry you’re having all these damn problems guys

    I am doing a live feed for the purposes of what I may be able to do for you momentarily. It will be saved on the page for new members to see.

    I will also address this point.

  26. Who was it that called you, and what were they looking to sell you ?

    I’m also an investor and would be keen to know.


  27. I will echo Jane’s guidance to not sign up for anything as a result of somebody cold-calling you using contact details obtained from Allansons.

    On another topic, did any investors participate in the webinar that I’ve heard Roger Allanson was hosting on Saturday 13th July?

  28. Jane. The ICO will not get me or anyone else their money back. They would only fine the Solicitors and Roger himself.

    We need to help ourselves here guys. Get our own legal advice.

  29. Phil, I’m a lawyer, I know this. I said there was a REMEDY for the breach of GDPR. The remedy that I consider is available for restitution of your losses is NOT through the ICO. And you are not correct that the ICO cannot offer a remedy for the breach. It has power to compel parties to stop contacting you, meaning that consumers are not going to be bothered by parties trying to sell them services unsolicited. That IS a remedy.

  30. In my experience the ICO are weak and take months to investigate. Ive had a bloody cold call too and I’m not happy that my data has been sold or whatever else they have done with it!.I asked the girl who called me where she got my number from and she put the phone down.Anyone that gets a similar call should tell them where to go and put the phone down on them!

    Anyway, Ive made an enquiry with so lets see what they say.

    Im due to get a call back off them this evening when I finish work.

    I will let everyone know how I get on.I got scammed on 4 litigation cases by the way and feel like a right numpty!!

  31. Think people just want their money back. Not more arguments with the ICO or whatever.

  32. If you expect to get your funds back without an argument I’m afraid you are going to have to manage your expectations down. I am not being crass or insensitive. But you are going to have to engage in a battle with the SRA which, unfairly in my legal opinion, has already dismissed many of you. The likelihood of the cases actually being run by other solicitors bearing in mind that Mr Allanson has been stripped of his licence to do so himself, and I would imagine the SRA would take an extremely dim view of him trying to appoint anyone of HIS choice to run the ‘purported’ claims, is apparently low.

    Accordingly, you must be aware of the premise that any option to put more money in to rescue the existing claims SHOULD NOT BE FOLLOWED. Good money should not follow what COULD be described as bad given the SRA’s conclusions and sanctions.



  33. JANE. Stay out of this. Your advice is not advice. It’s an attempt to gain our custom. You are not an investor nor a practicing barrister. (I’ve checked) wouldn’t be surprised if you worked with Allansons on this.

  34. Grant Fitzpatrick. Your opinion is flawed. CMCs are regulated by the FCA. Heavily. Barristers – whether unregistered or registered – are governed by the Legal Services Act 2007. unregistered barristers can give legal advice, providing they do not conduct reserved activities – I can set the entirety of the rule book out if you wish. And as for attempting to gain custom – that pertains to a financial promotion, again governed by the FCA. ANY statement of fact that contains NO ELEMENT of persuasion cannot be a financial promotion or inducement to enter into a controlled claims management agreement. It is my LEGAL OPINION which I am duly permitted to give having got 9 letters after my name to do so. And my legal opinion is that ANY person asking you to give him another chance after being struck off should be treated with care. No more and no less.

    However, if anyone does want a financial promotion where services are offered pertaining to what I MAY be able to do, you are free to ask for it. But it will be given on the facebook page specifically set up to do so.

    Ladies and gents, many thanks for your time.

  35. “However, if anyone does want a financial promotion where services are offered pertaining to what I MAY be able to do, you are free to ask for it. But it will be given on the facebook page specifically set up to do so”

    Sounds like a tout for business to me too

  36. lol of course it is. Do you expect me to lie to you? I think you’ve had quite enough of that. It’s not necessarily a pleasant subject this marketing business, as it comes off the back of the fact that you ladies and gentlemen have put your hard earned in cash to someone else and it’s failed. I leave alone the reasons why it failed, but let’s just say the SRA actions will not have assisted. So you have choices. And I have opinions. You ask what can be done. I answer. It is both my legal opinion what I may be able to achieve, and a promotion i.e. a potential offer if I think you have a case. It simply cannot be put any clearer than that. You have a problem and I MAY be able to help. Fair, clear and not misleading are the buzz words for this regime. You may not like the activity, but it is lawful.

  37. Hello, my question is is there not a group action on this and what has Allanson’s done with all the money signed over to him. Surely, in law, it had to be put into a separate client account. If it isn’t there then good old Roger must have to account for it. Fraud? If so, a fine of £17000 is nothing.

  38. The action group – or one or them – is run by JSCS, of which I am a director. I am an unregistered barrister, and my business is a CMC. As a specialist lawyer I work in the heart of financial services. That’s the blurb out of the way.

    The problem is that an Insolvency Practitioner is not in situ. The role of the IP is to liaise with government bodies including the insolvency service, the Serious Fraud Office, and the SRA.

    Here, to mitigate damage to clients of the business the SRA have stripped Roger of his permissions. But no IP has been appointed. Instead Gordon’s has been appointed to handle the clients’ cases that are active.

    The problem there is that this does not provide for the forensic investigation that an IP has as part of his armoury, meaning that nobody is apparently investigating the losses you have sustained.

    The SFO in tandem with the IP will then usually share information, with the SFO relying on its statutory powers to strip property from the alleged fraudster sometimes using the proceeds of crime act.

    Secondly, and more worryingly, having spoken with one gentlemen who considered himself a client of Allansons, it would seem that the breaches of duty that you have all suffered in the context of investment is most certainly NOT the extent of the problem.

    It would seem that he has passed himself off as a person with authority to act as a nominee for debt management. This is ordinarily the remit of a licensed insolvency practitioner. So this raises the issue of how far his breaches go.

    This is directly relevant to what you MAY be able to recover in insolvency.

    In insolvency the role of the IP is to represent the interests of unsecured creditors.

    Here we do not even have an IP, thanks to the SRA, which is arguably deliberately construing you ALL on the basis that you are NOT clients in order to deny you compensation, and which is also likely going to have consequences in insolvency.

    If you are not clients you are also unlikely to be considered creditors of the company in insolvency IF we can trigger the Act, whereby you are also likely to be denied:

    Investigation into his conduct;
    Investigation into where the money went;
    Investigation into claims that an IP could make to RECOVER funds;
    Any rights to what an IP can recover when/if appointed; and

    This is because this scheme has arguably been geared to fall between two regimes that are supposed to protect You: financial Services, conferred by the FCA, and enforced through FOS; and
    The SRA fund, which is conferred by the SRA and through deliberate construction of the rules you are OUT.

    Any lawyer or CMC that starts telling you that a class action or group litigation order is ? is arguably talking rot!

    Whether CMCs are liked or not, when you add specialist lawyering to knowledge of the rules, you actually get Specialist skills.

    I could stand here and sign all of you up by working with practising lawyers as I have done, and going in all guns blazing about litigation. And I’d be misleading you as to success. I chase the money. That’s the basis on which this sector works.

    I often charge by the hour but in recent times so many people have been unable to afford my costs that I began partnering with other larger companies.

    They rely on me for counsel, and strategy, and I do the client facing work at outset.

    I do NOT believe that you will face success in litigation. Why? The source of the information you need lies within the company. The ONLY party that can compel Roger to talk is an IP or a judge.

    His permissions have already been stripped. And what he has done is more far reaching in terms of consequences than the public knows, and the other lawyers are stepping into the live cases to close them or run them.

    You are not even being treated as clients of the company because Roger is a clever man, and the SRA are supporting the documents he drafted for you which say you are the client of another party.

    In law, that denies you legal rights against Allansons.

    You will not get a judge to say you were clients. You do not currently have a claim that could give you rights in insolvency and you are not being recognised by the lawyers in situ as holding any rights at all.

    So why waste time chasing rainbows. This is NOT going to get you any money. You have no access to the financial services compensation scheme so you have two options:

    Work together to See if an IP can come in; and
    Get a group of investors and propose leveraged action to the SRA.

    I mean specifically that there is political pressure to be brought here, and that on your own, without specialist legal argument you are not going to get compensation.

    You are going to be kept out of what i consider should be a remedy to you, and I’m very sorry you are in the position. But this is going to be a long fight if you are going to see ONE PENNY of your hard earned funds.

    The Facebook page is not being manned to potential at the moment because I’m so inundated at present, but work continues. I am obliged to tell you that you can run your claims to the SRA on your own at nil cost, but you also know that they are all being rejected, I would argue, unfairly.



  39. Please all join Allansons litigation founding group.
    This is a active Facebook group with over 110 members who are organised and taking action to find a way to get our investments back

  40. Yaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwnnnn Jane!
    No wonder a barristers chambers won’t let you practice.
    A boring hippopotamus wallowing in the muddy ponds of your back badroom.

  41. ???????? oh have we met? A real barrister who can’t spell ‘bedroom’ eh? Barristers Chambers should be spelt ‘barristers’ Chambers my love, and as for the back BEDROOM nah, we are are more civilised now. We use the dining room ?

    Ladies and gents people who hide behind a pseudonym generally aren’t strictly ‘legit’, especially when they conduct themselves in such manners. People do not have to put up with nastiness, and if this person behaves like this with you, let Brev know. I’m quite sure he won’t tolerate it.

  42. Jane. Have you heard of the saying ‘When they go low. You go high’. I’m quite surprised you felt the need to respond. It just turns this thread into a school playground. We have all lost a fortune and could do with you and ‘a real barrister’ leaving your egos at the door. And letting us victims deal with professionals to get this resolved.

  43. Rico you are correct. But you don’t know the circumstances in which I run my business. The level of cynicism, defamation and hate that I receive sometimes leads to responses that others do not understand and would not give. Perhaps if you walk in those shoes you would share the same view. But your comments are duly noted.

  44. An unregulated investment firm cold calling you is a serious red flag. Can anyone shed more light on their “offer”?

  45. Apparently offering 12% in 6months because they have a guaranteed case to win.
    When I googled them this came up:
    Why would you delay on payments if you have guaranteed cases you are winning.
    Previously registered as a watch company on Companies House:
    I did some due diligence and believe it is part owned by Timothy Sandu when I did some- when I googled him this came up:
    When you connect the dots, this is very alarming?

  46. Brev was the offer to take over from Allanson’s or to offer a totally new ‘investment’?


  47. What balls they have and especially in this climate. I am also aware of a company that have just taken £2500 off a friend allegedly to help her with a bitcoin scam, although they are based overseas and not regulated. IF I find the name I’ll post…

  48. Regarding the use of the client account for debt management payments, this also constituted a breach of the FCA’s regime notwithstanding a failure to hold the requisite permissions to act as nominee to debt management Plans.

  49. The other question for Peter is – when you say they were claiming they had a better offer, does that mean Fortress knew you were an Allansons investor? If so how did they know?

  50. Jane

    I wish you would just crack on with what you are offering and not worry about other people.

    I’m losing confidence by the minute.

  51. Evening, the whole ethos of my business is worrying about other people and getting paid for doing so if there is an appetite for the services. I guess it’s fair to state that if there is an almighty rush for something to be done right now then you are right to lose confidence and go with a big establishment like Aliag or one of other companies with large staffs to accommodate the haste. Smooth Law may also be able to help and I am opposite them on a number of cases already.

    I make no apologies for taking my time, not least because regulatory intervention by the FCA if this is not handled properly will see every contract entered into in haste on a flawed basis terminated. Not something I’m keen to get into Nationwide_3.

    This is a tough problem, not least because Mr Allanson is a clever cookie. And I would expect nothing less of a lawyer. Accordingly, and being a sole fee earner, until I work out exactly what the prospects of success are through any forum I will talk, ask questions, likely upset lots more people, and those that see the logic will wait.

    Results in this type of scenario can and have taken years and years, with one perfect example being the Connaught Income Fund for which the FSCS still has not paid out, despite the fact that the whistleblower took action in 2012. Don’t forget this business isn’t even in a formal solvency, and that is nothing that I can remedy on my own.

    One of the crappy ends of this business is managing expectations down. I do it regularly because false hope is no hope and I will not be responsible for doing that when people have already lost faith in professionals.


  52. Brev

    Not aware how Fortress Legal Finance got my contact details which is a data protection issue in its own right.
    They offered me investments into their own product which is almost identical to Allansons.
    However they say that their cases are almost guaranteed. Plus the fact they use ATE insurance, funny enough this is the same pitch I received from Allansons and look how my £20K has ended..
    If they were easy wins how comes the owners of these litigation funds don’t invest into it themselves. Why pay Brokers silly amounts of fees for the cost of raising litigation funding.
    This sounds like another big scam waiting to collapse again.

  53. If anyone has had literature or anything in writing from Fortress then I would be grateful if they could forward it to me via the “Contact” link above, or upload it to Scribd and post it here.

    If Fortress are directly soliciting investment via cold-calling that is extremely concerning.

  54. Peter – could I trouble you for a yes or no answer as to whether Fortress Legal Finance knew you were an Allansons investor when they claled you up, without you telling them.

  55. I received a call from Fortress Legal Finance a while ago, I was offered a 3 year bond paying just over 7% annually and also a 12 month bond for a case offering 12%.
    Luckily I ignored them otherwise that would be like throwing money down the toilet again.

  56. The Fortress thing is a complete spank. The offering documents aren’t even legal as they’ve cobbled them together with no proper advice. They’re riddled with inaccuracies such as claiming a barristers’ chambers is the fund manager and most of the team don’t seem fit for purpose. 20%+ commissions on offer again. It’s a shame for the pukka operators as litigation funding is a great sector undergoing massive growth.

  57. I can’t believe the call I have just received from Roger Allanson.

    He has asked me to close my claim against him so he can apply for new insurance for a new law firm he’s opening.
    He wants to start again!

    Has he got no shame?

    He has ruined my life with what he has done. He has cost me and my family our savings.

    The answer I gave him, I cannot write on here, but I’ve told him where to go!

    I can’t believe the cheek of him.

    Has anyone else received this call yet?

    This man needs stopping before he causes any more damage.

    Yours, Beryl

  58. Hi Beryl

    I’ve just had the same. I’m fuming which made me look online. I’ve never seen this website before and I’m shocked to read the comments. Roger basically told me I should work with him rather than against him. The man is a total nutter.

    Even more keen now for ALIAG to get a result for me to teach Roger a lesson!

    I’m also getting nuisance calls off companies that seem to know my business. Twice now. Both occasions they were very defensive when I asked where they got my personal information from. Seems someone has sold our details on. Disgusting! I won’t be speaking to anyone that contacts me without prior permission. I’ve reported it to the ICO. Roger can explain it all to them! I’ve lost my life’s savings on this. Not happy.

  59. Not sure how you plan to get your money back, it’s been spent.
    All funders on the Facebook Group are trying to work with him to protect our investment. Unless of course your planning to try and pursue him along with hundreds of other investors.
    If you haven’t already, why don’t you listen to what he’s said from the two Webinars he’s held.



  60. Sorry Jane but you ask to many questions with no result or plan of action.

    You’re adding to my frustration.

    Nothing personal but we need to have a positive way forward.

    I’m sticking with RA for the time being.


  61. I also believe that the SRA have something to answer on explaining their actions along with Gordon’s who are managing the closure on behalf of the SRA.

    You may think I’m chasing a dream, but after speaking to him on regular occasions never once not taking my call I believe along with others he’s doing is best to get things back on track.

    For those sat on the fence doing nothing why don’t you join our FB group.

    Jane and the rest of the Solicitors chasing this have a common goal which I don’t blame them for trying to help. But let RA finish his game first

  62. No offence taken. But neither will I be pushed to issue terms that I can’t fund, or will not lead to any fruit for you.

    I run a business; im a sole fee earner; and I don’t and will not move until I’m in a position to do so. It’s outfits that don’t conduct themselves in this manner that should be cause for concern.

    ATE insurance is likely going to be out; the claims are unlikely to be upheld at the SRA at first instance; and litigation is fruitless even if funded by you (which I advocate against) because there is no defendant with money.

    The PI insurer has been given so much wriggle room to legitimately repudiate the contract that it’s almost pointless to countenance an attempt.

    Plus there is likely to be an arbitration clause and you are not considered to be clients so you can’t invoke rights of third parties to engage the policy. So unless anyone has any magic, whether you are frustrated or not is irrelevant.

    There is no point my even asking questions if there are no prospects; without prospects I’m not going to invest my time or approach other parties to assist with possible funding; and without prospects you have no hope to get your funds back.

    However each lawyer has their own view on prospects. I am not being paid for investigation. I do not want to be paid for investigation. I will conduct it in my own time as I’m fairly sure of my position: you have limited options and Roger’s argument will not win: something some of you have tried and found out.

    You don’t go into battle without armour so why would you expect a good lawyer to? I have to provide clients with a defence to the argument provided by the SRA. My armour has to resist their rebuttal, so I prepare.

  63. Glenn tread with great care. You are advocating that these people trust someone who has been DISBARRED/STRUCK OFF for failure to adhere to the universal code of conduct that is designed to protect you.

    Of course he is answering you. Of course he’s on the phone. He’s been shut down and stopped from trading. Because breaches of that code pose RISK to all of you. Risk that the SRA considers is so great that it did not warrant a slap on the wrist; a fine, to hit his pockets. No. This was found to be SO SEVERE that the ONLY remedy was to strip him of his permission to conduct those activities.

    Now let’s move on to the other area of regulation he breached! Financial services. He has promoted and arguably run a collective investment scheme. Without permission.

    You have to have a s.21 sign off by a regulated entity to say that the promotion complied with the rules AGAIN DESIGNED TO PROTECT CONSUMERS – and again I’ve read the literature and there is no sign off.

    There is no sign off meaning that the promotion of that investment proposition was unlawful – and you are suggesting that you give him a chance? To do what?

    He has no permission to be dealing with you. Because he has been stripped of the permissions. Be very, very careful.

  64. But let RA finish his game first

    When the SRA bars you from running your practice, and then a few months later shuts your practice down entirely, and tells your clients (the ones whose cases were supposedly going to generate risk-free returns of 50% in 6-18 months) to find new lawyers, that’s game over as far as I can see.

    I started seeing comments that Allansons was failing to win cases and deliver the promised returns in June 2018, well before the SRA entered the picture. It suits Allanson if investors are swallowing the “if the regulator hadn’t shut us down everything would have been fine” endgame cliché, but it doesn’t help investors.

  65. How is Pagonis managing to lurk in the shadows on this? He’s the mastermind and the one pulling Roger’s strings.

  66. Having read through all of the above comments I would love to say it has been enlightening, (in a good sense) unfortunately that is not the case at all.

    Like many others I too was fool enough to invest in this Allansons scheme where it is becoming clearer by the moment, any result, whichever way you turn is likely to be negative.Like many, I have looked at the options we investors of the scheme now have which as most of you will know by now are very limited.

    I did originally plan to use Jane but for unknown reasons she chose not to respond to a lengthy email I sent her, at which point I turned my attention to Smooth law and opted to sign up with them for little more reasoning than their response was efficiently prompt. That may sound like an odd reason but given this case is likely to be along the lines of a tv soap I’d much prefer a relatively timely response to my queries, albeit I recognise most answers to my questions would be in the negative.

    Luckily I have not been subjected to others making contact offering this investment or that, or indeed guaranteed success to any claims made against Allansons. So there is at least some hope my particular data details have not been sold on. (Wishful thinking possibly)

    I guess there are lessons to be learned here especially that of not seeing $$$$ and jumping in feet first. Sure, I naively believed the ATE was a true safety platform which reduced my risk to that of seeing my investment back in full, with no return. Of course, my lack of due diligence suggests otherwise. I think what pains me more is the knowledge which I didn’t know before, but should have been revealed had I done more homework, that those with miscalculated mortgages could have freely gone to the proper overseeing regulators who would have made the bank/B.S. rectify their errors free of customer costs. I think had I known that at the time I would never have invested in this scheme. Unfortunately the ££££ signs were all too appealing which blinkered my overall view.

    Like it or not I think those of us who are actively trying some way of getting something back are going to be here for the long run and I for one will not be holding my breath.

    Finally, I’d say this. The law sucks. Already in comments posted above and I believe listed by Jane, she states, aside from breaching all manner of rules put in place by the SRA he has also breached Financial services yet seemingly, despite all of this he’s still apparently teflon.

    Clearly he’s a bright cookie, and who wouldn’t be given the length of time he’s been in the legal profession and I would go so far to say he will also have covered all of his bases, thus protecting ANY possibility of getting direct redress from him or indeed his partner in crime who for reasons I do not understand, doesn’t appear to be playing any part in this final mess.

    Now of course I hope I am wrong with all that I have said and would be only too pleased for someone to shine a light at the end of the tunnel…..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.