Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • TonyWarwick
    • By TonyWarwick 26th Apr 17, 1:42 PM
    • 3Posts
    • 0Thanks
    TonyWarwick
    Hargreaves Lansdown transfer obstructions
    • #1
    • 26th Apr 17, 1:42 PM
    Hargreaves Lansdown transfer obstructions 26th Apr 17 at 1:42 PM
    Sorry this is a long post, but I hope interesting.

    Both my wife and I recently decided to transfer our ISA accounts from Hargreaves Lansdown to Interactive Investor. The reason is simple - it will save us more than £1600 pa in fees for the same holdings.

    We filled out the II transfer forms as required, and these were sent in to HL, but HL have declined both transfers:
    1. They declined mine on the grounds that the client number I had given was wrong. I had quoted the full client number beginning with 00xxxxxx (which is how THEY quoted it on their early documents) whereas they say I should have just quoted the xxxxxx part. Given that I had also given my full name, date of birth and full address, it seems absurd that they are unable to resolve this, and I suspect they are being deliberately obstructive, especially in light of ...
    2. They declined my wife's because she had "failed to pass money laundering regulations". They told II that they had requested AML documents from her (they hadn't) but had not received them. My wife's account with HL has been open and live since mid-2015.

    On challenging HL about these refusals, I was told that the first problem was all II's fault because they 'should have known the leading zeros were not needed'. This seems very thin, but on asking them to proceed they insist that II restart the process with a new transfer request.

    They then went on to inform my wife that they had not yet contacted her about this, but that they were 'about to' request AML documentation - and that this had to be done through the post and could take as much as 10 days to arrive. She asked why, when her account had been open for some years, they needed this, and she was told that it is a Statutory Requirement. She then observed that they hadn't requested this from her husband (me) and they said they 'probably would' in future.

    I have looked carefully at HMRCs guidance document for ISA managers (chapter 11) and can find absolutely no reference to AML requirements on the 'outgoing' manager on transferring out, so I am wondering if HLs claim that this is a Statutory Requirement is true. I suspect that they are simply being obstructive and instigating deliberate delays.

    Anyone with similar experiences?
    Last edited by TonyWarwick; 26-04-2017 at 1:44 PM. Reason: Minor correction
Page 2
    • AnotherJoe
    • By AnotherJoe 15th Jul 17, 12:49 PM
    • 7,064 Posts
    • 7,538 Thanks
    AnotherJoe
    I transferred money INTO HL from another pension a few weeks ago (a substantial amount).

    There was a hiccup which required a phone call and a letter from me and then another phone call. Essentially (and in hindsight) it was down to them being ultra careful about making everything 100% correct when there were teeny little issues which any "sensible" person woudl have said didn't matter.

    Maybe had i been transferring it out i'd have come to the conclusion it was a conspiracy to stop the money leaving (which makes no sense*) so should I instead have concluded that it was a conspiracy to stop money going in? No, its just them being ultra picky. Dont forget they have big fines imposed on them if they screw up, maybe it takes an extra week or 6 but if thats (say) a £100k fine, and also if you are the person processing that and dont fancy losing your job because you cut a corner, you will stick to the process.

    Here for example is a recent case where a CSR helped out a "customer" (who was actually a fraudster) by evading process and ended up with the real customer getting money stolen from his Paypal account. Now imagine its something similar but pensions. All happening because they didnt stick rigidly to a process.

    * It makes no sense because the money will go out eventually, why would they impose a lot of costs on themselves to draw the process out? Those staff could instead have been helping clients and making them a better organization to work with and therefore retaining other clients.
    • slinga
    • By slinga 31st Jul 17, 10:32 AM
    • 1,050 Posts
    • 210 Thanks
    slinga
    Just wondering if I'd would have to go through this AML stuff if I just decided to cash up and transfer that cash to my bank??

    Similarly on death does that AML reqirement still happen?
    Last edited by slinga; 31-07-2017 at 10:54 AM.
    It's your money. Except if it's the governments.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

858Posts Today

7,193Users online

Martin's Twitter