We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Hargreaves Lansdown "playing hardball"
Options
Comments
-
"Fidelity: we will have none of Hargreaves' hidden charges"
http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/fidelity-we-will-have-none-of-hargreaves-hidden-charges/a728290
"Fidelity will unveil its direct to consumer platform charges next Wednesday but implement them before Hargreaves Lansdown, which announced its repricing today, according to Mark Till, head of personal investing at Fidelity.
Till accused Hargreaves Lansdown of attempting to mislead customers with its headline 0.45% annual account fee for balances up to £250,000, which accompanies a range of heavily discounted annual management charges on funds....
He promised Fidelity would undercut Hargreaves with a more transparent offering. 'We will be a lower cost provider and we will not hit people with lots of hidden charges.' "0 -
vm2pensioner wrote: »All this uncertainty about actual costs seems to be another example of an unintended consequence of government seeking to make prices more "transparent", as in the domestic energy supply market, but in fact causing yet more confusion and, in many cases, greater expense!illegitimi non carborundum0
-
I spoke to HL today because the cost of holding my I.Ts and shares is going to shoot up. I asked whether they will be waiving exit fees for those who try to exit before the fee increase happens and was told NO.
My choice is therefore stay as is and pay double fees
Liquidate my I.Ts so I only pay one set of charges on shares and pay dealing costs
Transfer out and pay massive costs to transfer in specie.
Totally unfair. Ombudsman here I come I think.illegitimi non carborundum0 -
I spoke to HL today because the cost of holding my I.Ts and shares is going to shoot up. I asked whether they will be waiving exit fees for those who try to exit before the fee increase happens and was told NO.
My choice is therefore stay as is and pay double fees
Liquidate my I.Ts so I only pay one set of charges on shares and pay dealing costs
Transfer out and pay massive costs to transfer in specie.
Totally unfair. Ombudsman here I come I think.
Good for you taking it to the FOS :T
I took a case to the Financial Ombudsman Service when Hargreaves Lansdown refused to waive exit fees when they introduced a platform fee on trackers in late 2011. The FOS upheld my complaint. Hargreaves had acted unfairly in refusing to waive the exit fees as per the UTCCR. This was despite HL insisting that they were within their rights not to waive the exit fees when I had initially complained.
As Rollinghome correctly says your fee increase has nothing to do with the RDR.I came, I saw, I melted0 -
Move to a provider who will pay your exit fees AND have lower charges.
To move just a dozen funds HL will charge £360 and there will shortly be a further "account closure fee" for each account. For ITs/equities they'll make the same charges but if you moved them to say XO or SVS they don't have any account fees so wouldn't earn a penny from you until you bought or sold - and then they only charge £6 per trade. Would take them an very long time to get those HL fees back - if ever.
I think you'd need to tell HL you'd like a charge-free transfer out and bring in the FOS if they refuse. SnowMan is the in-house expert on the FOS. Which? howto here: http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/problem/can-i-take-my-financial-complaint-to-the-financial-ombudsman/?gclid=CJOI7Pq1gLwCFfKWtAod1z8ANA0 -
I guess if you have 100k of Vanguard Lifestrategy funds in an ISA and want to stay at HL, you could always buy ETFs instead.
If my quick calculation is right you'd go from paying £450 to £50 (plus reg dealing fees of £1.50 a pop).
Is this right, or have I missed something?0 -
Rollinghome wrote: »HL have made the cost of escaping so high I doubt you'd have much luck with that route, especially moving ITs/equities.
I am thinking I will just trade my way out of HL over the next couple of years or so, starting with the ETF (because they might hit this next), as and when opportunities arise.0 -
Why investors should leave Hargreaves Lansdown (Telegraph comment)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/10573645/Why-investors-should-leave-Hargreaves-Lansdown.htmlI came, I saw, I melted0 -
Why investors should leave Hargreaves Lansdown (Telegraph comment)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/10573645/Why-investors-should-leave-Hargreaves-Lansdown.html
Rather an about turn from their article this morning!
Clearly this one is written by a journalist that actually knows something about investing!:TRemember the saying: if it looks too good to be true it almost certainly is.0 -
[FONT="]I have given some advice in the Sippdeal shocker thread regarding contract dissolution in response to price changes that are detrimental to customers. The same analysis applies here to those who want to leave. Below is a letter from the FSA regarding a complaint I made against Interactive Investor in 2012. I hope the Compliance Team at HL are taking notes. FOS will certainly uphold complaints regarding transfer fees/exit charges imposed on customers who want to leave in response to unilateral changes in the pricing structure.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Financial Services Authority[/FONT][FONT="]25 The North Colonnade[/FONT][FONT="]Canary Wharf[/FONT][FONT="]London E14 5H5[/FONT][FONT="]Our Ref: CPPT/3359/12[/FONT]
[FONT="]Dear malfesto[/FONT]
[FONT="]Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (‘the Regulations’)[/FONT]
[FONT="]Re: Interactive Investor Trading Limited (‘Interactive Investor’)[/FONT]
[FONT="]Thank you for your email dated 7 June 2012, attaching copies of the text of the exchanges that you say you have had with Interactive Investor.[/FONT]
[FONT="]The FSA has powers under the Regulations to take action in relation to unfair terms and more information about these powers and how we exercise them is set out below. We hope you find this useful.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Our powers[/FONT]
[FONT="]The FSA has powers under the Regulations to investigate and, if necessary, take action in respect of unfair terms in standard-form consumer contracts for those types of financial products and services that we regulate. These include first charge mortgages, investments and insurance. The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) is the lead enforcer of the Regulations and has powers in relation to other types of financial services contracts, including second charge mortgages, buy-to-let mortgages and credit agreements.[/FONT]
[FONT="]The Regulations only allow us to look at the terms of contracts entered into on or after 1 July 1995. We can only look at what the contract actually says, not how the firm applies the term in practice.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Ultimately only a court may determine whether or not a term is unfair under the Regulations. However, the FSA may apply for an injunction from the court to prevent a firm relying on a term it believes to be unfair. In considering whether to seek an injunction, we take into account any “undertaking” (which is a promise) given to us by a firm - for example, that it will not rely on an unfair term in any existing contracts and that it will amend the term in future contracts so that it is fairer.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Our approach to our work[/FONT]
[FONT="]The FSA has a specialist Unfair Contract Terms team to deal with matters under the Regulations. We assess terms and conditions for fairness under the Regulations on behalf of consumers in general. Information on how you may deal with your individual dispute is set out below. We adopt a risk—based and proportionate approach to our work. This means that while we will consider every referral we receive about unfair contract terms, we will not necessarily take action in every case. We consider matters such as the level of potential or actual detriment that consumers in general might suffer as a result of an unfair term, as well as the number of consumers who may be affected by the use of that term. This helps us to decide where best to direct our resources for the benefit of consumers in general.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Your referral[/FONT]
[FONT="]We understand you are concerned about changes to Interactive Investor’s charging structure, and that you are particularly concerned that the firm is charging a transfer out fee for each holding that a consumer holds, if a consumer wishes to exit the contract, due to the changes in the charging structure. In practice you say that this will make exiting the contract more difficult. You say that, in your view, it would be fairer if the transfer out fees were waived.[/FONT]
[FONT="]You say that the firm provided you with less than one month’s notice of the change to its terms and conditions. You consider that this is insufficient time for consumers to make the necessary arrangements to transfer holdings to a new broker.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Please let us know within 14 days of the date of this letter if you believe we have misunderstood your referral. We have considered your referral on this basis, on behalf of consumers in general, and have now concluded our assessment of it.[/FONT]
[FONT="]We raised the concerns that you mention with the firm. Interactive Investor advised that it had already decided, as a result of feedback from consumers, to waive the transfer out fee for any of its customers who give notification to the firm that they wish to exit on or before 31 July 2012. [/FONT]
[FONT="]The firm has clarified that the transfer-out process does not need to be completed by 31 July 2012 in order for a consumer to be eligible for waiver of the transfer out fees. It is only the notification from the consumer that needs to be received by the firm on or before 31 July 2012 in order for a consumer to be able to exit the contract without charge.[/FONT]
[FONT="]As the quarterly charge comes into effect on 1 July 2012, there may be some consumers who pay a charge of £20.00 on or around 1 July 2012 and then subsequently decide to notify the firm that they wish to exit on or before 31 July 2012. The firm has advised that, in such instances, consumers would receive a full refund of any quarterly charge paid.[/FONT]
[FONT="]The firm has confirmed that it will send individual notification to all its customers about its decision to waive the transfer out fees. In addition, the firm has published details about its decision on its website.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Given the above actions by the firm, we believe that the potential for significant imbalance resulting in detriment to consumers is limited. Please note that, generally, as a matter of FSA policy and the law, our discussions with firms are confidential. On this occasion, the firm has consented to the disclosure of the above information to you.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Your individual dispute[/FONT]
[FONT="]Please note that we have no powers under the Regulations to compensate consumers and will not become involved in any individual dispute that a consumer may have with a firm. A consumer should first try to resolve any such dispute with the firm. If this is unsuccessful, the consumer may wish to refer the matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), if the dispute falls within its jurisdiction, or pursue the matter through the courts. Please note that there is a time limit for referring disputes to the FOS. Generally, a consumer will need to refer a dispute to the FOS within 6 months of the 'final response' letter from the firm. Further information on the work of the FOS is available on its website[/FONT]
[FONT="]Further information on consumers’ rights is also available from the Consumer Direct website [/FONT][FONT="]or by calling the Consumer Direct advice service on 0845 404 05 06.[/FONT]
[FONT="]In light of the above, we will be closing your Unfair Contract Terms file on this case. We greatly appreciate when consumers take the time to refer matters to us, and we would like to thank you for doing so.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Yours sincerely[/FONT]
[FONT="]Unfair Contract Terms Team[/FONT]
[FONT="]Financial Services Authority[/FONT]0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards