One Touch's 'guaranteed 10%' care-home pitches earned it court liability for £2.8m

Between September 2017 and March 2019, 28 investors bought leases of rooms in luxury care homes developed by The Care Home Group (Carlauren). They paid £2.8 million — often retirement savings or inheritances — on promises of guaranteed 10% annual yields over 10 years. One Touch Solution marketed the rooms through its website, events and sales representatives, describing itself as an experienced investment business that researched opportunities before recommending. By mid-2019 every scheme had failed; Carlauren entered insolvency, and One Touch went into creditors' voluntary liquidation.

On 9 October 2026, Recorder Janet Bignell KC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, found for the investors. One Touch was not a passive intermediary: its dealings "amounted to advice, not merely the giving of information." It encouraged reliance on its expertise, called the investments carefully researched and minimal-risk, and suggested solicitors had reviewed the contracts — not borne out by the evidence. The buyback companies had no trading history, investors were not properly warned, and the judge rejected the argument that "easy armchair investments" was sales puff.

One Touch's defence — that it acted solely for the developers, passed on information supplied by TCHG, and that losses came from alleged fraud by TCHG's management — failed. Investors who had complained to the Property Ombudsman had earlier won findings of service shortcomings and compensation, but the ombudsman had not held One Touch responsible for their losses; the company argued that barred the court claims. The court disagreed, and noted One Touch kept recommending investments despite mounting evidence of problems with the developments.

High Court liability to investors who paid £2.8m into the schemes; the company had already entered creditors' voluntary liquidation

It held itself out as researching opportunities before recommending them — which made its pitches advice.

Promotional material suggested independent solicitors had reviewed the contracts; the court found no evidence of that.

The buyback guarantors had no established trading history, and the risks to promised returns went unmentioned.

It continued recommending the investments as evidence of problems mounted.

When a marketer claims expertise, due diligence and guarantees, the law may treat the pitch as advice. 'Armchair investment' is not sales puff if the buyback vehicles have no trading history.

The 9 October 2026 ruling gives the investors a High Court judgment against the marketer of the failed schemes, with the article noting significant implications for property investment intermediaries and their professional indemnity insurers — and for the thin line between marketing investments and giving investment advice.