Claiming TAX back from bank following investment?

dunstonh

IFAs fairly better, with four out of six giving "full comprehensive advice" versus the "incomplete help" in the other two cases. (Yes, that strikes me as being a bit vague too!)

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/i...ion-finds.html

Which publish their findings and then the media twist it or leave things out or change the interpretations or just get the facts wrong. Got to love the British Media. Take someone elses information and adjust it to suit your headline. (not arguing over the fact that banks have an awful reputation that is well founded - just the way the media article took the information and changed it or put a slant on it to suit the cynical)

gadgetmind

If even an arch cynic such as myself wasn't convinced, that tells you something!

dunstonh

gadgetmind wrote: »

If even an arch cynic such as myself wasn't convinced, that tells you something!

Just found out that the two IFAs failed as they incorrectly assessed the shopper’s risk profile.

I find that hard to understand because the adviser asks risk questions then discusses their response to the risk questions and puts it in context. The only way someone can end up with the wrong risk profile is either if the questions are not asked and no assessment takes place (which didnt happen), the questions were asked and an outcome given but no discussion on that took place or the mystery shopper didnt communicate well or comment on the outcome so the adviser accepted it. The other thing it could be is that the interpretation of the risk was different. i.e. some people believe that if you are say cautious risk that you should only have investments that meet that exact level. Whilst others believe you can have investments above and below and that average out to meet that risk profile.

gadgetmind

Just found out that the two IFAs failed as they incorrectly assessed the shopper’s risk profile.

That would have been my last guess as it's always struck me as one of the most scripted (and thus least useful!) parts of the process. Both Bernstein and Hale present the issue of risk very differently. Hale is deeply critical of the risk assessment process, while Bernstein pulls his punches a little more, perhaps because of his background in psychology.

dunstonh wrote: »

some people believe that if you are say cautious risk that you should only have investments that meet that exact level.

Perhaps those people need to be shown how adding a more volatile asset with a higher long-term return to a balanced portfolio can both increase return AND reduce volatility as long as the assets are sufficiently uncorrelated.

Risks and returns don't average out; it's far more complex than that.

aidyb

Two months later and I have an offer from the Halifax for £5191.29! Their calculation is based on the fact that they agree it was mis-sold on the points/advice given above Thank you Dunstonh for the particular points and Linton for how to articulate it - I don't think I'd have got this far without that advice.

So, I have got the TAX back, plus interest to date and also they have calculated what interest I might have earned on a different product. There is also a small compensation component too - which I personally think is right as they have put in an amount for interest 'potentially' gained under a different product.

It is worth mentioning that they were very good from the initial letter, communicating well and sticking to the dates they gave me. They took their time on the phone, allowing me to make notes and offering to put anything in writing that was needed. All in all, took a bit of time but relatively hassle free and courteous throughout. I'm pretty sure that that would have something to do with the weight of the regulator but I can't fault them for putting right a wrong whatever the reason.

Again, thanks for the input!