New Rockingham Update

Dear Bondholders

I have received some further information that would be of interest to former Rockingham clients. Gordon Pullan has sent this to me to make available to all subscribers to the Armhelp website. I have not edited any of the content, and have reproduced his communication.

Kind regards

Ian H Ward

Dear Investors,

As you will know from David’s email sent out on Wednesday last week, he is currently enjoying a well earned break in Italy and he has left me in charge.

You will also know from David’s recent email that the FSCS is now reconsidering its decision in respect of its earlier rejection of our test case’s application for a compensation award against Rockingham. This appears to be very good news, but just to be certain David asked the FSCS if the expected outcome for our test case sets a precedent for all Rockingham claims. David shared with you all the text of his email to Jenna on the subject.

Jenna’s initial response was that our test case might have specific circumstances which might not apply to other claimants, but that she would refer to colleagues in the claims department for a clearer response. David and I reviewed what additional evidence we had submitted in support of our test case, but we could not see anything which might be considered to be case specific.

Nevertheless, David and I considered that it would be best to wait to see what emerged from the FSCS before inundating them with claims. On Friday we received a further email from our contact in the claims department of the FSCS, and his email is set out in full below:

“FSCS is currently in the process of reassessing the claims previously considered against Rockingham in relation to ARM investments. Therefore it is not necessary for existing claimants to resubmit their claims. We expect this initial review to take a couple of months, although if the claim is considered to be eligible for compensation it will take a little more time to finalise an offer of compensation to the claimant.

 Until that review is completed, we do not yet know what proportion of claims will now be eligible for compensation (and recognising many claimants will have been fully compensated following parallel claims made against Catalyst). At that time we will consider how best to update affected investors.

 In the meantime, if anyone wishes to register a claim against Rockingham who has not yet completed an FSCS application form, they can request an application form by contacting Freephone 0800 678 1100 or 020 7741 4100. Once the form has been returned, FSCS will assess the claim.”

I believe this is further good news, and seems to reinforce our view that we probably do now have a precedent. The key points from this latest email are:


  • The FSCS is reassessing claims previously submitted.Hence any investors who have already made a claim against Rockingham will not have to resubmit their claim, even if your claim was previously rejected. The FSCS suggests it will take a couple of months to undertake this process, but for now you can sit back and wait for some (hopefully) good news.
  • Once the above initial review is completed by the FSCS then they will update affected investors.I believe this statement applies to both those who have already made claims and also to investors who have not yet claimed against Rockingham, but that the FSCS considers might be eligible to claim. No doubt this will be a complex and lengthy process, but we will endeavour to keep close to the FSCS to monitor progress.
  • Investors who have already made a Catalyst claim and have been fully compensated will not be included in this process. If you have already received full compensation on the FSCS basis of calculation (i.e. net of coupons received) then you will not be eligible for any further compensation.
  • If you believe you still have uncompensated losses but have not yet registered a claim against Rockingham then you should contact the FSCS to obtain a claim form.The contact numbers for the FSCS are 0800 678 1100 or 020 7741 4100.
  • Once you have registered your claim with the FSCS and received your claim form then it should be completed and submitted.I do not consider there is any immediate urgency to do this, because the FSCS will take a few months to sort themselves out before looking at new claims. Also, the number of claims is likely to be much lower than for Catalyst and hence there should not be a processing bottleneck.    

The obvious issue which springs to mind is “What grounds do I submit as a basis for my Rockingham claim?” I should point out that our test case was an advised client of Rockingham and he relied on this advice. His case is that Rockingham negligently failed to exercise due care in providing advice. As you will appreciate, neither David nor I are qualified or authorised to give advice, but we can give you our opinion. In our opinion Rockingham had a duty of care to all its clients and acted negligently in failing disclose important information to investors. Attached to this email is (I hope – technology permitting!) a redacted copy of the “additional information” we presented to the FSCS on behalf of our test case. Some of this evidence might apply to your circumstances and might help you draft your claim. If you have already submitted a claim then I cannot see any need for you to make any additional submission, unless the FSCS asks you to do so.

If you have any queries then we will do our best to help. Please bear in mind that David is away for the next couple of weeks and hence he will not be able to answer your queries until he returns home. If you send any queries to me at then I will do my best to answer them, but I am also away from home for a number of days over the next couple of weeks. If you can wait, then it might be worth seeing if any further information emerges from the FSCS in the near future.

Kind regards,


Supporting Evidence Document

Bob’s Weekly Update

Dear Bondholders,

I’m pleased to report that I’m up to doing a little Update today, although it has to be said there is no ARM news I can give you. Last week Ian put up the latest contribution from David Ince of Arm Investors Help regarding their fight to get the FSCS to recognise the role Rockingham Retirement played, however unintentionally, in the disaster that cost us all so much. Many bondholders have a vested interest in the outcome of this as should they be successful this would open the way to further claims on the FSCS and a reduction of the holders uncompensated losses.


Bob’s Weekly Update

Bob’s Weekly Update
Abridged version

Dear bondholders,

It’s ground hog day again! Ian’s incredibly expensive Apple Mac is still back at the repair shop, which I think is disgraceful customer service, and I’m still laid low with my chest and not up to doing much.

I cough sounds so bad, that on Monday on the phone to the AHC meeting, I could hear members reaching for their face masks every time I spoke. As usual it was a long and productive meeting of which I can tell you nothing. It’s a bit like I imagine serving in the Politburo must have been during the Soviet era.

Today I want to commend to you the work being undertaken by the ARM Investors Help group led by David Ince. His Bulletin No 4 is out, so I have asked Ian to get it up on the website. If their isn’t a link attached to this note, please go straight to our website.

Hopefully, next week both myself and the Apple Mac will be restored to health and I will be able to write something fuller for you.

Have a good weekend one and all.

Bob Sharpe
Due to technical difficulties Item 4 appears below.

Financial Support
The good news is that a few more ARM investors have indicated their support for possible extra funding, should we need it!  This brings the total to 52.

Further Discussions with the FSCS
Please find below the main content of an email I received from the FSCS solicitor after my conversation on Monday 13th April:

“Further to our conversation this morning, I write to confirm our discussion.  Our external advisers are reviewing the additional information you provided in respect of xxxxxx’s case.  We need to meet with them to discuss their review and to discuss the Rockingham cases generally in light of the information we possess.  As mentioned, depending on their views, it might be necessary for us to consider whether we need to seek expert opinion on the modelling of the ARM products.”

I am sorry that there is no more to report but felt that “no news is good news” i.e. the FSCS have not discounted our argument and have not ‘put up a brick wall’ like it has done previously.  Jenna confirmed that other Rockingham (non-ARM related) clients had been granted compensation and this was one reason why it was going to review its initial decision against Rockingham.  I explained that many of us felt that it is unfair and inconsistent for other Rockingham clients to have been awarded compensation and not ourselves – it was as though the FSCS was “hiding behind the legal issue of causation” so that the compensation bill would be less!  The solicitor took this implied criticism well and explained that our “new information/evidence” was also affecting its current approach.  The irony was not lost on me when she mentioned that she may need to engage the services of an expert regarding the ARM Business Model!  Think positively – at least we don’t have to foot the bill for a Financial Planning Actuarial Consultant!!   Also, this approach does confirm that the FSCS is taking our argument seriously.

Some people think that the Business Model was viable if it had been allowed to run its full course.  Looking at this in pure actuarial/financial terms then I agree.  However, we are looking at humans and individual investors with their own attitudes to risk and not some computer-simulated model.  I believe that the success of the Business Model relied on RR (and possibly others!) making a conscious decision NOT to tell potential investors all the relevant facts about the model, especially the “high risk” liquidity risks.  Would any reasonable person think that any ordinary, “low risk” retail investor would have put all their pension into one investment had they known that their money was being used to:

pay coupons to themselves
pay coupons to other investors

as well as to purchase life policies and administer the business?  I think not!

The fact that RR publically stated that they had undertaken “extensive” due diligence on the Business Model and that they knew about the positive cash-flow “tipping point” in 2015 proves that they made a conscious decision not to tell potential investors relevant facts which were needed to make an informed decision.  In doing this RR acted negligently and breached their legal responsibility of “duty of care” to their clients.

We agreed that I would call her in a few weeks’ time for some feedback on her planned meetings / discussions.

Hopefully the iMac problem will have been resolved.

Kind regards


Bob’s Weekly Update

Dear Bondholders,

We trust you all had a good Easter break.

I’m afraid I have another attack of chest problems and am confined to the house during the current pollution levels.

Needless to say I’m rather lacking in energy so there won’t be a BWU again this week. There is an AHC meeting scheduled for next Monday, which I will attend by phone. Being on the Underground in these conditions is something I would rather not contemplate.

I may be away next week, health permitting, for a few days for the break my wife and I intended to take over Easter. There is no internet or phone signal at the cottage, so I’m afraid next week may be a ‘no show’ as well. The last time we were there I found it necessary to leave the cottage and walk 100yds to the end of the lane before I got a signal. Wonderful in some ways, but what does one do in an emergency?

Hopefully normal service will be resumed in the not too distant future.

Enjoy the nice weather while thee may….