A recently published notice in the London Gazette, the official government public record, showed that liquidators were appointed for the regulated, Bedford-based business last month, though no details of the reasons why or the background of the case were outlined.

Clarke Bell Limited in Manchester was appointed joint liquidators for, “the purposes of the voluntary winding up of the company”, according to the insolvency notice.

The London Gazette notice stated that the “directors of the company have made a declaration of solvency and it is expected that all creditors will be paid in full”.

Financial Planning Today has contacted Clarke Bell Limited for comment.

The Financial Ombudsman Service upheld a complaint against the firm earlier this year regarding a pension transfer which was supposed to be invested in a fund linked to a Brazilian rainforest scheme.

The FOS upheld two complaints, in November and January, regarding Total Wealth and transfers to the Green Retirement Plan.

In the FOS report from January, when the client complained he could not access his pension fund with the Green Retirement Pension Scheme, the ombudsman Roy Milne said: “I am satisfied that there is sufficient evidence for me to conclude that TWS acted with clear disregard for the interests of its client by making this recommendation.”

Total Wealth Solutions “had arranged the transfer of his personal pension to this scheme which is now apparently worthless”, the FOS stated.

Originally, the client, Mr G, had replied to an advert promoting green investments in a trade publication in 2012. AC Management & Administration Limited (ACMA) contacted him and referred him to Total Wealth Solutions. ACMA was an unregulated business.

Mr Milne said in the same report: “TWS gave advice about transferring Mr G’s existing pension to the Green Retirement Pension Scheme. It said that it did not give investment advice. Comparisons were provided for a number of different pension schemes, including a stakeholder pension.

“TWS was required to give suitable advice. It is difficult to see how it could have given suitable advice without considering the investment to be made. Clearly the success of the transfer depended on the performance of the new investment.

“The FSA issued an alert in January 2013 warning about this business model. Although this was issued after the advice in this case it does explain the regulator’s view about the correct interpretation of the rules. Those rules were in place at the time of the advice.”

TWS objected to the FOS considering the complaint. It said:
 Mr G had said in the complaint form that ACMA was responsible for the advice.
 Mr G hadn’t referred the complaint to TWS before referral to us.
 TWS’s report to Mr G confirmed to him that no advice was given.
 TWS wanted evidence that the scheme was worthless.
 Mr G hadn’t clarified his concerns.

The FOS said the complaint form mentioned TWS, "who had a duty to ensure that the whole transaction was suitable for Mr G".

Mr Milne wrote: “In my view, TWS had to consider the investment to be made. This was an unusual investment, it did not have a track record and it is not clear why Mr G should transfer to an occupational pension scheme.

“He had no connection with the employer for that scheme. The transfer was for all of Mr G’s pension benefits. This was clearly a high-risk strategy for him. I think suitable advice should have been not to transfer.”