Leaving HL without transfer charges

I'm not sure I understand your argument ffacoffipawb.

Are you arguing that your ongoing charges in relation to your SIPP with HL have increased following these changes and that you are therefore asking them to waive the exit fees because of this to leave? Have your charges increased?

Or are you arguing that the exit charge of £75 was brought in unilaterally between when you opened your SIPP and now? Are you certain that there was no £75 exit charge when you started investing with HL?

Or are you arguing that the increase in exit charges from £75 flat to £25 per fund is a unilateral change (nothing to do with regulatory issues) that will increase your exit fees in the future and so entrap you with HL if you try to leave in the future?

Without knowing which of these apply it is hard to comment further.

I am not sure why you have encashed your investments either. Wouldn't it have been better to re-register (in specie transfer) given that the £75 is a flat charge? And you will have to buy back investments with Youinvest (Sippdeal) incurring further costs. What sort of investments did you have with HL before you encashed them?

SnowMan wrote: »

I think the exit penalty wasn't there when you invested originally argument could be worth pursuing.

I am not sure. I think it may be too late to complain that the £75 charge was introduced after the start of the contract (unless people were only notified about it recently). People should have complained when it was introduced, otherwise they may be deemed to have effectively accepted it.

However in my view people can, and should, complain about having to pay this charge in the current circumstances.

Anyone genuinely unhappy with Hargreaves Lansdown's recently announced charges in my view should demand that they waive the exit charges. I don't believe it is necessary to demonstrate that you will be worse off immediately on the new charges. You may dislike how they will act in future when your circumstances may be different or you may find them too confusing given the number of them or you may dislike the nature of some of them e.g. the probate valuation charge.

Therefore I suggest a reply along the following lines :

The reason I wish to leave is I am unhappy with the new charges that you have recently announced. For example I am unhappy with the probate valuation charge of up to £500 and the change in your exit charges from £75 flat to £25 per holding, which could be a very significant amount if I ever wish to exit when I have many holdings. I also believe neither of these changes is required by any changes in regulation.

As the reason I wish to transfer is due to your unilateral variation of the contract I do not believe it is fair to expect me to pay any exit charges. This is because I believe it is unfair only offering me two unacceptable options i.e. to either (1) accept charges I would never have originally agreed to, or (2) pay to avoid these changes. Neither option is reasonable. To be reasonable you also need to offer either (a) the option to continue the contract on the current charges or (b) the opportunity to exit without charge.

If you refuse to give me the opportunity to exit without charge then please treat this response as an official complaint. I believe that by denying me a free exit your unilateral increase in charges is both unfair and contrary to FSA and OFT guidance. (For example section 12.4 of the OFT's “Guidance for the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999” published in September 2008 highlights that a valid reason for varying a contract, such as a regulatory change, is NOT sufficient for a price change to be fair. Consumers must also be given the chance to cancel freely.)

Please either agree to waive your usual exit charges or provide me with your final position on this matter. A prompt response, advising how you are going to resolve this matter, would be appreciated.

SnowMan wrote: »

Worth saying that Barclays are waiving exit fees temporarily having announced their changes this week.

What a contrast to the behaviour of Hargreaves Lansdown.

HL and Youinvest are in the hall of shame in my view in this regard, and I would suggest investors think very carefully before using their services.

Totally agree.

In addition I think the FCA should also be in the hall of shame, unless they are currently working behind the scenes. You would think with 4,000 staff they could spare a few to ensure all companies conform to the FCA's and OFT's guidance when introducing major charge variations.

I understand HL have 500,000 customers. I would have thought this would make it a big enough matter for the FCA to be interested.