Royal London closes in on £130m purchase of 'super sewer' investor
One of Britain's leading financial mutuals has entered exclusive talks to buy Dalmore Capital, the infrastructure investor which owns a stake in London's new 'super sewer'.
Sky News has learnt that Royal London is now the leading contender to acquire Dalmore, which has roughly £6bn in assets under management.
The structure of the proposed deal means its valuation is not fixed, but is expected to involve Royal London paying approximately £130m, according to infrastructure executives.
Dalmore owns stakes in Thames Tideway's 25km super sewer, which is expected to be fully operational next year; Porterbrook, a leading owner of rolling stock for Britain's railways; and Cory, the waste-to-energy giant.
In January, it acquired the remaining assets of Triple Point Energy Transition, an investment trust that was in wind-down mode.
It is also a backer of IEP West, a rolling stock contract with the government to maintain dozens of Hitachi Intercity Express Trains and three depots for the Great Western Main Line.
If Royal London concludes a deal with Dalmore, it would reflect a growing push by traditional asset managers into so-called alternative assets, including infrastructure.
BlackRock, the world's biggest fund manager, recently swooped to buy Global Infrastructure Partners, the former owner of London's Gatwick Airport.
RLAM, Royal London's asset management arm, manages more than £170bn of clients' money.
A person close to Dalmore said previously that a combination of normalising asset prices and the new government's signalling of plans to increase infrastructure investment would create an attractive macroeconomic backdrop for the firm.
Dalmore is majority-owned by its founders, with GCM Grosvenor also a shareholder.
Other bidders for the firm are said to have included John Laing, which is owned by the investment giant KKR.
A deal could be signed within weeks, according to insiders.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scottish Sun
3 days ago
- Scottish Sun
My money rule to avoid arguments with my housemates and girlfriend – it's fair but not everyone will agree
We also reveal tips from a financial therapist on how to avoid rows over money BILL-IANT My money rule to avoid arguments with my housemates and girlfriend – it's fair but not everyone will agree THERE'S nothing more British than the silence at the end of a meal in a restaurant as you wait for someone to say how you'll split the bill. With my mates and girlfriend there's an unwritten rule that we always split the bill equally based on how many of us there are. Advertisement 1 Consumer Reporter Sam Walker's easy trick avoids money-based arguments Of course, this can get tricky if someone hasn't had booze or a much cheaper meal, as it can feel like they've got a raw deal. On the other hand, there's always one in every friendship group who orders an extra side and pudding. I can't help but feel a bit resentful that I'm funding their extra indulgence. So I wasn't surprised to hear that the number one issue that couples row about is money, according to Royal London. Advertisement It gets even more complicated when you go on holiday. I've often found myself in scenarios with mates where people have taken umbrage at having to split the cost of a night out the day after. Other times people have kicked up a fuss about splitting the cost of off the cuff activities. The bill splitting app I swear by A few years ago on a weekend away with University mates where we play sport, including football, cricket and rounders, one of my friends suggested we use Splitwise. Advertisement We were trying to figure out how to share the cost of all the food and drink we'd bought when one friend recommended using the app. It's free to download off the Apple App Store or Google Play and couldn't be easier to navigate. There's also a Pro version which costs £3.99 a month or £39.99 a year, letting you add an unlimited number of expenses and scan and add receipts to a running your running total. Once downloaded, you create a new group (of friends, family or between you and a partner) and can allocate a "type" to that group. Advertisement For example, you can make it a "trip", "home" or "couple"-based group. Once you've done this, you add any expenses to the group and can decide how it's split between the members. The options are: you paid, split equally you are owed the full amount someone else paid, split equally someone else paid and is owed the full amount Once you've added any expenses, they are added to a grand total which tells you whether you owe money, or are owed it. Advertisement How it has made my life easier Splitwise has easily become one of my most-used apps, especially since moving in with my partner a year ago. We use it to split the cost of the weekly food shop, monthly utility bills and takeaways. You might ask "why would you need a bill-splitting app" for these basic expenses, but in reality it's a lifesaver. Her job involves shift work and I work occasional weekends meaning we can sometimes go days without having a proper conversation. Advertisement So being able to quickly add a little Tesco Express basket of food or a holiday car rental cost to the app in a matter of seconds, and know how much each person owes, makes for a much more efficient way of tracking our shared expenses. Using the app for trips abroad with friends has been incredibly helpful as well, especially with larger groups. I've used it on stag dos where costs can quickly add up and various members of the group have different budgets and need to track how much they've spent. Putting everything through the app can avoid awkward conversations where you ask for a few quid back. Advertisement It might seem stingy that I'm quibbling with my girlfriend and mates over a couple of quid - but it can quickly add up and it really helps us all feel like things are fair. Other apps you could use Unsurprisingly, Splitwise is not the only bill-splitting app out there. There is also Settle Up which also comes in a basic free version and works similarly to Splitwise. You can also pay £3.99 a month for Premium which comes with no ads, charts and lets you scan receipts. Advertisement The app comes with a 4.8* rating on the Apple App Store, compared with 3.8* for Splitwise. Splid is another option which comes with no ads even in the free version. You can also choose to add expenses in 150 currencies while on the Apple App Store reviews show it with a 4.9* rating. Then there's acasa, which unlike Splid, Settle Up and Splitwise, lets you pay bills like council tax directly through the app. Advertisement It's free to download and comes with a 4.5* customer rating on the Apple App Store. How to avoid finance-based tension in relationships WE spoke to Vicky Reynal, financial psychotherapist, who shared her tips for avoiding arguments over money: Don't assume that everyone has the same money values People have different views when it comes to money: what's frugal or excessive, what's too risky vs. responsible, what's reasonable or petty. We can't assume that others will see what's right or fair the same way we'll see it come up all the time because we all have different views on what money is for and how it should be used. When conflict comes up, be curious not attacking When couples or close friends clash over money, the most powerful thing they can do is create a safe space for honest conversations - free from blame. Instead of trying to convince the other that they are wrong and you are right, try to be curious about why they might be seeing things their way and share how you feel about it. It can be helpful – particularly when couples have very different ways of handling money – to ask: 'What are the downsides of my approach to money?' and 'What are the upsides of theirs?' As an example, your caution might protect your future, but your partner's spontaneity might help you live more fully in the present. Once you begin appreciating each other's perspectives, it becomes easier to blend approaches and make collaborative financial decisions. Never rely on assumptions - be crystal clear in your financial agreements Common sources of conflict I see involve informal financial arrangements among loved ones: 'I thought it was a gift—now they're asking for it back.' 'I thought we were splitting the cost evenly'. The real issue usually lies in the lack of clarity from the start. People often avoid being specific because they don't want to make things 'weird' with someone they care about—but it's precisely because you care that it's essential to set clear, unambiguous expectations. Use financial tools and apps thoughtfully Apps like Splitwise or Monzo's shared tabs can be great tools for transparency but it's best when they are introduced early and used consistently. If you bring them in after tension has built, they can sometimes feel accusatory. Frame their use as a shared effort to be fair, not to keep score or place blame. If conflict persists, look at the bigger picture What I mean by this is that sometimes money conflict is not about money at all. Sometimes a friend making a big deal about £7 you owe them could actually be feeling owed a lot more (has she felt you have been a neglecting friend lately?). A partner who is uncomfortable because you spent 'too much' on a gift might be feeling they don't have enough to give you emotionally in the relationship. The point is: ask yourself whether there is a different message that you or the other are trying to convey through this financial conflict. Do you have a money problem that needs sorting? Get in touch by emailing money-sm@ Plus, you can join our Sun Money Chats and Tips Facebook group to share your tips and stories
The Sun
3 days ago
- The Sun
My money rule to avoid arguments with my housemates and girlfriend – it's fair but not everyone will agree
THERE'S nothing more British than the silence at the end of a meal in a restaurant as you wait for someone to say how you'll split the bill. With my mates and girlfriend there's an unwritten rule that we always split the bill equally based on how many of us there are. 1 Of course, this can get tricky if someone hasn't had booze or a much cheaper meal, as it can feel like they've got a raw deal. On the other hand, there's always one in every friendship group who orders an extra side and pudding. I can't help but feel a bit resentful that I'm funding their extra indulgence. So I wasn't surprised to hear that the number one issue that couples row about is money, according to Royal London. It gets even more complicated when you go on holiday. I've often found myself in scenarios with mates where people have taken umbrage at having to split the cost of a night out the day after. Other times people have kicked up a fuss about splitting the cost of off the cuff activities. The bill splitting app I swear by A few years ago on a weekend away with University mates where we play sport, including football, cricket and rounders, one of my friends suggested we use Splitwise. We were trying to figure out how to share the cost of all the food and drink we'd bought when one friend recommended using the app. It's free to download off the Apple App Store or Google Play and couldn't be easier to navigate. There's also a Pro version which costs £3.99 a month or £39.99 a year, letting you add an unlimited number of expenses and scan and add receipts to a running your running total. Once downloaded, you create a new group (of friends, family or between you and a partner) and can allocate a "type" to that group. For example, you can make it a "trip", "home" or "couple"-based group. Once you've done this, you add any expenses to the group and can decide how it's split between the members. The options are: you paid, split equally you are owed the full amount someone else paid, split equally someone else paid and is owed the full amount Once you've added any expenses, they are added to a grand total which tells you whether you owe money, or are owed it. How it has made my life easier Splitwise has easily become one of my most-used apps, especially since moving in with my partner a year ago. We use it to split the cost of the weekly food shop, monthly utility bills and takeaways. You might ask "why would you need a bill-splitting app" for these basic expenses, but in reality it's a lifesaver. Her job involves shift work and I work occasional weekends meaning we can sometimes go days without having a proper conversation. So being able to quickly add a little Tesco Express basket of food or a holiday car rental cost to the app in a matter of seconds, and know how much each person owes, makes for a much more efficient way of tracking our shared expenses. Using the app for trips abroad with friends has been incredibly helpful as well, especially with larger groups. I've used it on stag dos where costs can quickly add up and various members of the group have different budgets and need to track how much they've spent. Putting everything through the app can avoid awkward conversations where you ask for a few quid back. It might seem stingy that I'm quibbling with my girlfriend and mates over a couple of quid - but it can quickly add up and it really helps us all feel like things are fair. Other apps you could use Unsurprisingly, Splitwise is not the only bill-splitting app out there. There is also Settle Up which also comes in a basic free version and works similarly to Splitwise. You can also pay £3.99 a month for Premium which comes with no ads, charts and lets you scan receipts. The app comes with a 4.8* rating on the Apple App Store, compared with 3.8* for Splitwise. Splid is another option which comes with no ads even in the free version. You can also choose to add expenses in 150 currencies while on the Apple App Store reviews show it with a 4.9* rating. Then there's acasa, which unlike Splid, Settle Up and Splitwise, lets you pay bills like council tax directly through the app. It's free to download and comes with a 4.5* customer rating on the Apple App Store. How to avoid finance-based tension in relationships WE spoke to Vicky Reynal, financial psychotherapist, who shared her tips for avoiding arguments over money: Don't assume that everyone has the same money values People have different views when it comes to money: what's frugal or excessive, what's too risky vs. responsible, what's reasonable or petty. We can't assume that others will see what's right or fair the same way we'll see it come up all the time because we all have different views on what money is for and how it should be used. When conflict comes up, be curious not attacking When couples or close friends clash over money, the most powerful thing they can do is create a safe space for honest conversations - free from blame. Instead of trying to convince the other that they are wrong and you are right, try to be curious about why they might be seeing things their way and share how you feel about it. It can be helpful – particularly when couples have very different ways of handling money – to ask: 'What are the downsides of my approach to money?' and 'What are the upsides of theirs?' As an example, your caution might protect your future, but your partner's spontaneity might help you live more fully in the present. Once you begin appreciating each other's perspectives, it becomes easier to blend approaches and make collaborative financial decisions. Common sources of conflict I see involve informal financial arrangements among loved ones: 'I thought it was a gift—now they're asking for it back.' 'I thought we were splitting the cost evenly'. The real issue usually lies in the lack of clarity from the start. People often avoid being specific because they don't want to make things 'weird' with someone they care about—but it's precisely because you care that it's essential to set clear, unambiguous expectations. Use financial tools and apps thoughtfully Apps like Splitwise or Monzo's shared tabs can be great tools for transparency but it's best when they are introduced early and used consistently. If you bring them in after tension has built, they can sometimes feel accusatory. Frame their use as a shared effort to be fair, not to keep score or place blame. If conflict persists, look at the bigger picture What I mean by this is that sometimes money conflict is not about money at all. Sometimes a friend making a big deal about £7 you owe them could actually be feeling owed a lot more (has she felt you have been a neglecting friend lately?). A partner who is uncomfortable because you spent 'too much' on a gift might be feeling they don't have enough to give you emotionally in the relationship. The point is: ask yourself whether there is a different message that you or the other are trying to convey through this financial conflict.
Telegraph
5 days ago
- Telegraph
Pension providers pocket thousands from the dead
Pension providers are pocketing thousands from the dead thanks to old policy contracts that prevent grieving families from inheriting their relatives' full retirement pots. It is now the norm for pension firms to pay out the total value of an unused pension on death. But in the 1970s and 1980s, it was common for annuity policies to stipulate that any investment growth would not be passed to relatives if the holder died before retirement age. Instead, beneficiaries would only receive the value of any contributions paid into the pension, and often a fixed amount of interest on top. This has led to bereaved relatives losing large chunks of their loved ones' retirement savings because of decades-old policies with often poorly understood terms. Donna Chuter, 60, received nearly £30,000 less than she was expecting of her late husband Martin's pension after he died aged 63. Mr Chuter had signed up to a retirement annuity contract (RAC) with Royal London in 1984 after being sold the policy by a door-to-door salesman. He paid into the scheme until 1999. The value of his pension had grown to £59,670 at the time of his death in December 2024. Shortly after Mr Chuter died, his wife said Royal London sent her a 'really ambiguous' letter regarding her late husband's pension, which quoted a much lower figure of £30,757. She added: 'The letter said 'please sign this document'. But it wasn't clear what the £30,000 was – they called it a 'benefit'. I thought it could be a sum on top of the payments into the pension.' However, when she phoned Royal London to check, she was told that this was the amount of Mr Chuter's pension that she was entitled to. Ms Chuter was 'absolutely fuming' when she was told she would only receive half the full amount. 'I feel like I've been stripped of £30,000.' The unexpected shortfall has left Ms Chuter wondering how she will afford her retirement. She earns just over £1,000 a month working part-time in an administrative role at an accountancy firm, has £20,000 in an Isa and a workplace pension worth £68,000. But she was relying on her husband's pension to see her through into old age. 'This money has to last me until I die. I won't be able to retire for a long time without the full amount. Martin would have wanted me to be a bit more comfortable. He would be devastated to know I would only get half.' The Telegraph has seen a copy of the original contract Mr Chuter signed, which states that in the event of death, the policy returns the full amount of contributions paid, plus 4pc compound interest, rather than the policy's full value. The fact that the full value of the pension would not be paid out on death was also included on Mr Chuter's annual policy statements. Ms Chuter accepted that Royal London had acted in line with the contract, but questioned whether it was right for pension providers to keep large sums of members' retirement savings. 'It's unethical,' she said. 'If Martin had drawn out the money before he died, he would have got £59,000. Now it's only £30,000. And the letters they sent [after his death] didn't make this clear.' Retirement Annuity Contracts (RACs) like Mr Chuter's were available before 1988 to individuals who were self-employed, or to those whose employers didn't offer a workplace pension. They were replaced by more flexible 'personal pensions' which generally entitle beneficiaries to the full pension on death. However, the accompanying legislation did not force providers to change their terms and conditions on existing RAC policies. And while no new RACs could be opened after this date, contributions into existing RACs could continue. Industry experts told The Telegraph that Ms Chuter's was not an isolated case, and that many providers besides Royal London also used to offer RACs with similar terms before they were phased out. The policies are becoming rarer as the pension savers they were sold to die. Jon Greer, head of retirement policy at wealth management firm, Quilter, said it was common for RACs to include a provision that only contributions would be returned if the holder died before their retirement date, not the full fund. He added: 'Whilst retirement annuity contracts were subject to different legislation [to personal pensions], in this case, the product is entirely a product design choice and not particularly unusual for such contracts. 'It's important that people who have these contracts understand what is provided, as what would have been normal practice then may appear odd when compared to more modern pension arrangements.' Bertrand Pole, pensions technical specialist at wealth management firm Evelyn Partners, said that while Mr Chuter's policy may seem 'unfair', Royal London was under no obligation to change the terms of the contract in Ms Chuter's favour. Rachel Vahey, of investment firm AJ Bell, said: 'Many years ago, some pension plans were set up to only return on death the contributions paid in, sometimes with interest added on but sometimes without. 'Fortunately, most of those types of pension plan are a distant memory, and most defined contribution pensions now pay a return of any unused pension pot if someone dies. However, some very old plans may still follow the old rules.' Ms Vahey urged pension holders to check the small print of their agreements and consider consolidating to a different scheme if terms are unfavourable. Doing so could mean loved ones receive a bigger payout on death, she added. A Royal London spokesman said: 'We were sorry to hear of Mr Chuter's passing and we have been in communication with Mrs Chuter to explain the detail of the pension policy that Mr Chuter held. 'The policy Mr Chuter took out in 1984 stipulates that, in the event of death, it returns the full amount of contributions paid plus 4pc compound interest, rather than the policy's value. 'The details of the benefits in the event of death were explained in the policy materials provided to Mr Chuter at the time of purchase, and the information was also included in his annual statements thereafter. 'We're committed to providing clear communications to our customers, and we're sorry to hear about Mrs Chuter's experience. We're reviewing our messaging to ensure it reflects the clarity and standards our customers expect.'
