iii introducing quarterly £20 charge

BLB53

I think a broker is covered upto 85k anyway

No, the limit is only £50K for investments (£85K for cash savings). Even if your investments are under £50k, would you really ewant all the hassle and uncertainty waiting for compensation?

afwone

BLB53 wrote: »

No, the limit is only £50K for investments (£85K for cash savings). Even if your investments are under £50k, would you really ewant all the hassle and uncertainty waiting for compensation?

Is this really the case? At any one time there could be shares in a nominee account, and cash that is being looked after by the broker.

My understanding has been that the shares will continue to belong to you whatever happened to the company (and in theory they should not be at risk). Of course the hassle and delays involved in trying to get at them should the company cease trading is another matter.

gadgetmind

HL have a statement on this.

http://www.hl.co.uk/investment-services/vantage-service/how-safe-is-your-investment

I'm not sure what other reasonable steps they could take. Of course, we could scatter our investments across numerous different platforms, but is it worth the costs and hassle?

Optimist

Somebody is working today at III just had acknowledgement of my formal complaint.

Good afternoon,

Thank you for your secure message.
I can confirm that your feedback has been logged as a formal complaint, you will have a response shortly.
Should you wish to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to contact us on 0845 200 3637.

Kind regards

guitarman001

It would be useful for many to know where everybody else is moving to and what their fees are. Selftrade looks well run but they have a yearly fee, also? I know Motley Fool have a fee, but also hear they're good. What about just using Lloyds??

grey_gym_sock

there are several layers of protection.

both shares and cash on deposit are supposed to be in nominee accounts, so that creditors of the platform provider would have no claim on them.

if some shares or cash is missing from the nominee accounts - which could only be because of fraud or maladministration - then the platform provider would be liable to make good the loss. if they've gone bankrupt, the FSCS would make good up to £50k per customer (perhaps after some delay).

if cash on deposit is held properly in nominee accounts, but the bank holding it goes bust, then the £85k per customer FSCS protection applies. but that is £85k in total for all accounts you have with the same bank, directly or through platform providers.

EDIT: i think there is a case for not putting everything with one platform provider, but sticking to £50k per platform may be going too far, depending how much you have invested.

foxes1884

So,
I’ve made my formal complaint to iii, based on fagun’s example. Also going to take up, with FSA & FOS as others have my exit cost will be £165, but maybe get it back later.


The big question is where to move to now iii have lost my trust, and no longer seem financially sound (IMO). It’s seemed most brokers are bringing in the inactivity charge but at around £10-15 (+vat) level. I’ve check out HL who seem OK, but I’ll like to also trade Australian stocks so looked at NatWest/RBS (they charge £10+vat per quarter if you don’t make a trade), the only other one I can find to offering Australian market without an inactivity/admin fee is Share Deal Active (Jarvis Investment Mgt) who also run X-O.


Anyone dealt with Share Deal Active and have a view?

Optimist

guitarman001 wrote: »

It would be useful for many to know where everybody else is moving to and what their fees are. Selftrade looks well run but they have a yearly fee, also? I know Motley Fool have a fee, but also hear they're good. What about just using Lloyds??

I actually moved from Selftrade when they changed their T@Cs some time back but I notice that they have now changed it to a inactivity fee.

As part of our annual review of charges, we seek to ensure our charging structure provides the fairest deal possible for you. We have listened to feedback from our customers who expressed concerns about the Annual Management Fee and we have assessed the charging structures used by our competitors offering comparable services.

As a result, we believe it is no longer appropriate to charge an Annual Management Fee.
The changes to our charging structure will make our charges simpler to understand and easier for you to compare with those of other providers in the market.

After the last fight they had with their customers and the FSA the last time they tried changing their terms to the detriment of customers they are now offering the right to transfer out without charge providing you give them notice of your intention to do so between 1st to 31st July.

Actually a inactivity fee possibly suits me better as with reinvestment of dividends it is a rare quarter when I don't have any activity so might consider moving back

foxes1884

[FONT=&quot]Copy of the complaint I put in, variation on others.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]*****
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Dear Sir,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Ref: Formal Complaint regarding introduction of interactive investor quarterly account fees[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]You informed me by email (31/05/12) that my account will from the 01/07/12 be charged a quarterly £20 inactivity / management if my trading activity does not meet your new conditions. Your FAQs state that I will still be charged a transfer out fee, if I decide to transfer my holdings to avoid paying fee as a result of your material change in T&Cs.

The introduction of a quarterly fee is a material pricing change that fundamentally alters the structure of our contract, to which I have not agreed. Your failure to allow me to exit the contract without penalty is a breach of FSA Principles for Businesses 6 Customers Interests: “A firm must pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly”. The inability to exit without penalty as a result of a unilateral change in contract terms is also a breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

Given the short time-scales you have set, 19.5 working days (excluding bank holidays), and the long lead time required to move my holdings to a new broker (given the required checks) I have no reasonable options by which to avoid the charge. I ask that you reply immediately to this formal complaint confirming what action you will take to remedy this matter.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If I do not hear from you by end of day Thursday 14th June, I will raise a complaint with the FOS, in additional to the complaint already lodged with the FSA.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Yours faithfully[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]N.B.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Copies of this complaint have also been issued via/to:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]iii (secure messaging) [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][EMAIL="douglas.boyce@iii.co.uk"]douglas.boyce@iii.co.uk[/EMAIL][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][EMAIL="ceo@iii.co.uk"]ceo@iii.co.uk[/EMAIL][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][EMAIL="compliance@iii.co.uk"]compliance@iii.co.uk[/EMAIL][/FONT]

Special_Saver2

I almost opened a stocks and shares ISA with iii last year so I have almost ended up in the same situation as the rest of you posting on this thread and I therefore have a lot of sympathy for you.

I am upset for all of you that iii are refusing to waive transfer charges given this substantial change to the nature of their charges.

I just wanted to post a message of support for those of you affected. As has already been mentioned, I would encourage you to make a formal complaint to iii and if it is rejected then take your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service. I hope you are all successful.

If it is of any help to those of you with iii ISAs, I have updated my low cost S&S ISAs page. Do bear in mind though that there is nothing to stop one of the low cost brokers introducing a quarterly or annual charge and one of them (JPJShare.com) made such a bad loss last year that they have had to effectively close down.

Anyway, best of luck to all of you who are affected by this unpleasant, new charge from iii.

SS2