Business
1 Stop directors made millions
THE PEMBROKESHIRE HERALD can reveal that 1 Stop Financial Services directors Timothy Hughes and Andrew Rees obtained massive incomes while mis-selling pensions products to nearly 2,000 customers across the UK.
Mr Hughes’ total declared income received during the period October 2010 to November 2012 was £1,511,846, while Mr Rees benefited to the tune of £1,181,437 at the same time.
After obtaining further information from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), the Pembrokeshire Herald is able to expand and clarify its article concerning the activities of Haverfordwest financial advisors Tim Hughes and Andrew Rees, who formerly traded as 1 Stop Financial Services.
The Herald can reveal that, while the pair were cleared of dishonesty by the FCA, elements of the conduct that led to the pair being ordered to pay penalties to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme in the region of £500,000, are capable of being construed as sharp practice.
In particular, the FCA highlights how the pair managed to rake off referral fees for themselves from a separate and unregulated company, EGI, of which they were both directors and shareholders.
Mr Rees and Mr Hughes not only obtained commission as introducers of business but fees from their customers in the region of £3,000 a time.
This receipt of financial benefit created a conflict of interest, as 1 Stop advised customers to transfer their pensions into a SIPP in order to purchase an underlying investment when Mr Rees and Mr Hughes had also a financial interest in facilitating the sale of that investment to the customer (through EGI). However, the pair failed to disclose, manage and mitigate adequately this conflict of interest.
Even when a declaration was placed into customer documentation recording the link between 1 Stop and EGI, it failed to mention the financial interest of Mr Rees or Mr Hughes in EGI.
As a result of their actions, 1,959 of 1 Stop’s customers were at risk of having invested a total of £112,331,229, mostly from pension funds including some final salary schemes, into SIPPs which may not have been suitable for them.
The FCA also found that customers’ wishes to securely invest their pension savings in secure products were ignored and risky investments entered into instead. In the case of one customer who wished to adopt a low-risk strategy, their final salary pension fund was channeled into an unsuitable and very risky investment.
In addition, customers including a joiner, builder and a publican were all certified by Messrs Rees and Hughes as having a high level of understanding of risky “wrapper-type” investments involving complex property transactions. The FCA did not believe the records created by 1 Stop in this regard.
49% of those customers affected were encourage to invest in overseas property developments operated by Harlequin Properties. None of those customers received any advice from 1 Stop on the suitability of that overseas property investment.
The Harlequin group of companies are engaged in the development and distribution of overseas property investments and resorts.
On January 18, 2013, the FCA issued an alert to financial advisers about investments in overseas properties bought through Harlequin Property. In March, the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) announced that it, together with Essex Police, was looking into complaints in relation to the Harlequin group. Investors who have invested in specific resorts were asked to contact the SFO.
On May 3, 2013 administrators were appointed for Harlequin Properties.
1 Stop customers who invested in risky investments on the advice of Mr Rees and Mr Hughes have been placed at significant risk of potentially losing all of their money.
In light of their personal liability for the negligent and incorrect advice tendered to their customers, Mr Rees and Mr Hughes were both banned from performing any significant influence function in relation to any regulated activity, carried on by any authorised person, exempt person or exempt professional firm.
In both cases, the FCA decided to impose that penalty neither Mr Rees nor Mr Hughes were judged a fit and proper person in terms of competence and capability.
Harlequin Property are the primary agent for Harlequin Hotels and Resorts, who they say create luxury five star resorts in various locations across the Caribbean. Their mission statement is to,
‘deliver excellent long term returns on clients’ investment by selecting property developments in the most desirable locations’.
The Serious Fraud Office told The Herald that: “The SFO, together with Essex Police, continues to investigate the Harlequin group of companies. We are not able to comment on the on-going investigation nor are we able to comment on an individual’s particular investment.”
In 2013 Harlequin were caught up in a mortgage scandal that saw investors in their properties put at risk of losing around £400 million of deposits.
Investors in Harlequin’s various property ventures and hotel resorts were required to pay a deposit of 30% of their property’s price to secure their investment. Where investors needed to take out a mortgage to pay for the remaining 70% of the property purchase, Harlequin offered to provide a loan which the investors could pay back upon completion.
However, investors were then asked to find around £157,150 each to pay for the properties without the aid of Harlequin’s ‘value guaranteed mortgage’.
Gareth Fatchett, partner at Regulatory Legal speaking in New Model Advisor, said, “Only 2% or respondents could complete without a mortgage, which means 98% of people will go into breach of contract, and Harlequin is saying if they don’t complete their payment they’ll lose their deposit. Advisers should have known from the outset there was not a mortgage available. I’d go so far as to say we’ve seen no evidence of a mortgage relating to a Harlequin property. I suspect the 10% or 15% commissions may have made advisers not check. It’s a huge mis-selling [scandal]. Advisers knew the people they were taking into these contracts couldn’t afford to complete, so therefore the mortgage was by far the most vital thing.”
Business
Builder wins court case against his solicitor — but still hasn’t seen a penny years later
Retired builder won over £130k from Milford Haven form Price and Kelway in 2022 for negligence, but is still waiting to be paid due to ongoing divorce
A NOW-RETIRED Pembrokeshire builder who won a six-figure professional negligence case against his former solicitors says he has still not received any of the money — almost four years after the court ruled decisively in his favour.
David Norman Barrett secured judgment in 2022 after a judge found that failures by the law firm Price & Kelway had caused him to lose the opportunity to pursue a potentially valuable claim against HSBC and HSBC Life.
The court ordered that damages, interest and costs totalling £130,820 be paid. Permission to appeal was refused.
Yet Mr Barrett says the legal victory has brought him no closure — because he has yet to see a single pound.

A clear win on paper
The negligence case arose from a failed property development at Ludchurch, near Narberth, where Mr Barrett borrowed money from HSBC in 2007 to purchase land and build two houses.
He later alleged that the bank departed from an agreed funding model, draining development funds prematurely and leaving the project financially unviable. He also claimed that associated life insurance policies were mis-sold.
After years of dispute with the bank — including an unresolved complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service — Mr Barrett instructed Price & Kelway.
He did this after hearing a radio advert for the solicitor’s firm on Radio Pembrokeshire. On November 7, 2012 Mr Barrett had a meeting with Mr Gareth Lewis, a partner in the firm.
“After that date and paying the a large amount in legal fees, progress was slow”, Mr Barrett said.
He added: “I gave Mr Lewis lots of paperwork, but work was not done in a timely fashion”
Proceedings against HSBC were eventually issued too late and struck out as time-barred, court documents show.
In 2022, the court found that the solicitors had failed to properly advise on limitation deadlines and that this negligence caused Mr Barrett a “loss of chance” to pursue or settle his claims.
Damages were assessed at £42,000, with statutory interest and costs bringing the total award to £130,820.
Money paid — but not released
Documents seen by The Herald show that following the conclusion of the case, a portion of the judgment money — £34,405.49 after fees and disbursements — was paid into the client account of Mr Barrett’s own solicitors, Red Kite Law LLP.
However, correspondence confirms that the funds have not been released due to an ongoing divorce between Mr Barrett and his wife, Dianne Carol Barrett, who was also named as a joint claimant in the negligence proceedings.
Red Kite Law has stated in writing that it cannot distribute the money without agreement from both parties, or a court order determining entitlement. The firm has also made clear that it cannot hold client money indefinitely and may ultimately be required to pay the funds back into court if the dispute remains unresolved.
‘This was business money’
Mr Barrett strongly disputes that the judgment award forms part of the matrimonial assets.
He told The Herald that the negligence case related entirely to his work as a self-employed builder and property developer, and that the damages awarded were compensation for business losses.
“This money didn’t arise from our marriage,” he said.
“It arose from my business. I was a sole trader. The claim was about my development project and professional advice I received as a builder.
“It wasn’t family savings or joint income. It was compensation for business losses.”
Mr Barrett says the stress and financial pressure of the prolonged litigation played a significant role in the breakdown of his marriage.
Years of financial strain
Earlier cost breakdowns from the case show that Mr Barrett personally paid more than £16,000 over several years to fund the negligence action, alongside significant unpaid disbursements incurred as the case progressed.
He says the litigation drained his finances long before judgment was handed down and left him struggling even after he technically “won”.
Now reliant on his pension and benefits, he says the continued freezing of the remaining funds has left him in financial limbo.
A legal deadlock
Where competing claims exist over money held in a solicitor’s client account, firms can find themselves acting as stakeholders.
Under professional rules, solicitors may retain funds until entitlement is resolved by agreement or court order, to avoid the risk of releasing money to the wrong party.
Red Kite Law has stated that it cannot advise either Mr Barrett or his wife on the dispute due to a conflict of interest, and has suggested options including a restricted joint account or transfer to a neutral third party — proposals which, to date, have not resolved the deadlock.
Personal cost
Beyond the legal arguments, Mr Barrett says the personal toll has been severe.
“The case broke us,” he said.
“And even after winning, I’m still fighting — this time just to get what the court already awarded.”
No allegation of wrongdoing
The Herald stresses that no finding of wrongdoing has been made against Red Kite Law LLP.
The firm has not been accused of acting unlawfully, and the dispute centres on how the judgment award should be classified and distributed in light of ongoing matrimonial proceedings.
The case raises wider questions about whether winning in court always delivers justice — and how long successful litigants can be left waiting for payment when personal and legal systems collide.
The Herald contacted Price and Kelway for comment at their main email address, but at the time of publication had received no response.
Business
S4C seeks two new non-executive directors to join its Board
S4C is recruiting two new non-executive directors to join its Board as the Welsh-language broadcaster continues its shift towards a digital-first future.
The appointments process is being led by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, with final decisions made by the UK Government’s Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.
The channel is seeking candidates with a broad range of skills and experience, with particular interest in those with backgrounds in digital media, content production or law.
S4C said it is looking above all for people with a strong commitment to public service broadcasting and a desire to help shape the organisation’s next phase of development.
In recent months, the broadcaster launched its new strategy, More Than a TV Channel, aimed at expanding its reach beyond traditional television. Initiatives include producing its first Welsh-language vertical drama for TikTok and forming a partnership with BBC iPlayer to widen access to its programmes.

Board chair Delyth Evans said the appointments come at a pivotal time.
She said: “It’s a particularly exciting time for S4C as we deliver the ambitions set out in our strategy, More Than a TV Channel.
“S4C is already much more than a television channel, with content available across a range of platforms, and through the significant economic and cultural contribution the service makes to Wales and the Welsh language.
“As we continue on this journey, we welcome applications from people who want to play a vital role in shaping the future of S4C.”
The closing date for applications is Friday (Feb 27).
Further details and the full job description are available via S4C.
For enquiries, contact Tomos Evans at [email protected]
.
Business
Tax deadline for self-employed and landlords as digital system goes live in April
Quarterly online reporting to become mandatory for higher earners under HMRC shake-up
MORE than 860,000 sole traders and landlords across the UK are being urged to prepare now for major changes to the way they report tax, with new digital rules coming into force in just two months.
From April 6, thousands of self-employed workers and property landlords earning over £50,000 a year will be required to keep digital records and submit quarterly income updates to HM Revenue & Customs under the Government’s Making Tax Digital scheme.
The changes form part of a wider overhaul designed to modernise the tax system and reduce errors.
Instead of submitting figures once a year, those affected will use approved software to record income and expenses throughout the year and send short quarterly summaries to HMRC. Officials stress these are not extra tax returns, but updates intended to spread the workload and avoid the usual January rush.
Free and paid software options are available, with the system automatically generating the figures needed for submission.
At the end of the tax year, users will still file a Self Assessment return, but most of the information will already be stored digitally.
Craig Ogilvie, HMRC’s Director of Making Tax Digital, said the move should make tax reporting simpler.
He said: “With two months to go until MTD for Income Tax launches, now is the time to act. The system is straightforward and helps reduce errors. Thousands have already tested it successfully.
“Spreading your tax admin throughout the year means avoiding that last-minute scramble to complete a tax return every January.”
More than 12,000 quarterly updates have already been submitted during a voluntary trial.
Phased rollout
The new rules will be introduced gradually:
• From April 2026 – those earning £50,000 or more
• From April 2027 – those earning £30,000 or more
• From April 2028 – those earning £20,000 or more
To ease the transition, HMRC says it will not issue penalty points for late quarterly submissions during the first 12 months.
After that, a points system will apply, with a £200 fine only triggered once four late submissions are reached.
Anyone unable to use digital tools for genuine reasons can apply for an exemption.
Tax agents and accountants are advising clients to prepare early to avoid last-minute problems.
Further guidance, webinars and sign-up details are available via GOV.UK.
-
Crime2 days agoSex offender jailed after living off grid in Pembrokeshire and refusing to register
-
Health1 day agoHealth board targets rise in steroid and gym drug use across west Wales
-
News4 days agoPrincess of Wales visits historic Pembrokeshire woollen mill
-
Health5 days agoDoctor struck off after sexual misconduct findings at Withybush Hospital
-
Crime2 days agoTeacher injured and teenager arrested for attempted murder at Milford Haven School
-
Education6 days agoIndustry insight helps marine cadets chart career course
-
Crime4 days agoHakin man’s appeal delayed again as Crown Court seeks guidance on insurance law
-
News5 days agoHerald journalists to feature in true-crime documentary on local lockdown murder











Gareth Evans
April 25, 2014 at 6:07 pm
Disgraceful, both should hang your heads in shame and leave Pembrokeshire for good.
malclom cummings
April 26, 2014 at 10:07 am
Crooks the pair of them. Shamefull what they have done .Makes you think have they been at it elsewhere in their work as IFAS.
ronnie briggs
May 27, 2014 at 7:28 pm
if they had a brain between them may be they would have known they could not get away with what they were up too. door to door salesmen or tesco shelf stacker who would trust someone like that again hopefully they will look into there all so called business dealings