Alliance Trust Savings massive fee hike

koru

koru wrote: »

They claim that the FSA Unfair Contract Terms Regulations do not apply to terms that set the price, therefore the option to exit without penalty does not apply. Funny, because I thought that was why Interactive Investor eventually introduced a waiver of exit charges, although perhaps there were other reasons why they felt they had to back down.

Having done some digging, I found the following statement on the FSA website:

A “core term” in a contract is not generally reviewable for fairness under the Regulations, provided it is in 'plain, intelligible language' (Regulation 7). “Core terms” are generally those which define the main subject matter of the contract (such as the goods or services to be supplied) or which relate to the adequacy of the price or remuneration as against the goods or services supplied. Ultimately, whether a term is a “core term” or not is a matter for the Courts.

However, in our view, for example neither an interest rate variation clause nor a premium review clause is a core term within the meaning of the Regulations because each relates to varying the price rather than setting the initial price.

Therefore, ATS seems to be taking a view that is, at best, highly questionable.

koru

Can I suggest that everyone who is adversely affected by these fee increases should make a report to the FSA about the contravention by ATS of the Unfair Contract Terms regulations? This can be done using their online form here: http://www.fsa.gov.uk/doing/regulated/uct/faqs/form

This is quite separate from the Financial Ombudsman complaints procedure. You can report the contravention without having made any complaint to ATS.

westy22

Funny, because I thought that was why Interactive Investor eventually introduced a waiver of exit charges, although perhaps there were other reasons why they felt they had to back down.

I think that the difference was that iii introduced a completely new charge where no charge had existed before rather than increasing the price of an existing charge. At least, I suspect that is what ATS will claim!

grey_gym_sock

westy22 wrote: »

I think that the difference was that iii introduced a completely new charge where no charge had existed before rather than increasing the price of an existing charge. At least, I suspect that is what ATS will claim!

well, that is true for some kinds of account (e.g. ISAs), but not others (e.g. Investment Dealing Account, i.e. unwrapped).

juliamarsh

I got exactly the same letter as koru this morning. I am still going to refer it to the ombudsman as I don't see that I have anything to lose. They say that their charges are in line with their stated terms and conditions which are agreed by each investor upon opening a plan. In fact I don't think I was ever sent any terms and conditions, my account was just moved over to them by default as I was originally with Close Investments who transferred all their business to AT a few years back. Don't know where I stand with that, in that I didn't specifically 'open' a plan.

It is true that iii did introduce a completely new annual management charge but the charge to transfer out of the account was already there and they waived that.

In order to minimise charges in case the Ombudsman's decision is unfavourable to me, I am having my holdings transferred to me as share certificates and then I think I will wait a bit before deciding which company to transfer them to, until everybody has declared what their charges are going to be and we have a level playing field. One thing to note, if you have several accounts as I do (6, including 4 nominee accounts for my kids) you can write to them and ask them to transfer all the cash into one dealing account, which is free of charge for them to do, and you can move any ISA cash across free of charge as well. Then when you take your cash out you only have to pay the £10 cash withdrawal fee once and not for each individual account. I am giving up my ISA as any benefits to me are far outweighed by a £50 + VAT transfer charge plus a new provider's annual charges. SVS Securities do not charge for their ISA but they only accept FTSE350 stocks into their ISA which mine are not unfortunately although there are no such restrictions on their ordinary dealing account. I sent the transfer forms and the covering letter to AT yesterday and I made it quite clear that any charges they levied would be paid 'under protest'.

Better go and get on the phone to the Ombudsman then - wonder whether we will get anywhere! And I will make that report to the FSA too.

Optimist

I got my rejection from Alliance last week but was somewhat busy so didn't do anything. However today both myself and my other half have raised complaints with the Ombudsman.

scroogeni

Search.....
Aston Lloyd SVS Securities

koru

koru wrote: »

Can I suggest that everyone who is adversely affected by these fee increases should make a report to the FSA about the contravention by ATS of the Unfair Contract Terms regulations? This can be done using their online form here: http://www.fsa.gov.uk/doing/regulated/uct/faqs/form

This is quite separate from the Financial Ombudsman complaints procedure. You can report the contravention without having made any complaint to ATS.

The FSA wrote to me today to confirm that they will be investigating whether the Unfair Contract Terms regulations have been contravened. The more people that raise a similar complaint, the more chance the FSA will compel ATS to change its terms.

juliamarsh

Just put the phone down to ATS for the umpteenth time in the past few days and cannot actually believe the depths of their incompetence or their outrageous nerve in persisting in attempting to charge me handsomely for it!! Trying desperately to transfer my 6 accounts out into my own name (being charged £142-50 for the privilege - in the hands of the Ombudsman now so fingers crossed!!) and beginning to lose the will to live, I think a chimp could do a better job than ATS!!

Was promised closing statements as was no longer able to access them online. Mess up No. 1 - when they arrived they only covered 12th -25th July (date of closure) and did not run on from the date of the previous statement ie 5th April. Mess up No. 2 - transfer forms enclosed for me to sign as 4 of the certificates had to be sent back to be reregistered due to their having failed to spell my name correctly! I filled out the information myself rather than rely on them to get it right. Mess up No. 3 - prepaid envelope that they had stated was enclosed to send forms back was not - surprise, surprise - so I phoned up to request them to send it, figuring that I had paid them enough already and was not prepared to pay them a penny more, not even the cost of a stamp, petty I know but I am so mad with them. At the same time I requested the closing statements again, spelling out clearly that I wanted them from 6th April to date of closure. What did I get today? Copies of the statements I already had 5th October- 5th April - Mess up No. 4! I rang up hopping mad and was told - can you believe this - that I was not entitled to closing statements and if I wanted them they would be classed as ad hoc statements for which I would have to pay £25 per statement ie £150 for 6 pieces of paper!! I asked if I waited till 5th October, the next official statement date, would they arrive then but was told no, because my accounts had been closed, so effectively no way to gain access to my own financial information other than to pay £150, and this despite the fact they had already sent me ad hoc statements without charging me even if they didn't cover the full period! Eventually after being put through to a supervisor and a protracted period hanging on the line listening to Vivaldi, they came back and said that they had agreed that because of the problem with the certificates, as a one off and a gesture of goodwill they would send the information free of charge on this occasion only. After all this they were not even apologetic and tried to act as if they were doing me a huge favour! I just told them I was glad they had saved me the time and trouble of a further complaint to the Ombudsman. I have never known an organisation quite like them, I don't even think that Santander or Talktalk would have behaved this outrageously! No doubt they are snowed under by the admin involved with customers closing their accounts in droves and this would be the excuse for their mistakes, but to think how much they want to charge for their appalling lack of service, it's beyond the pale. I accept that I am likely to have to pay charges to a provider once trail commission is stopped, and I do not object to the idea of paying reasonable charges to an organisation like Hargreaves Lansdown for instance, because their service is excellent and highly professional and I believe I could trust them to set their charges at a fair level, but I object to paying anything to bumbling incompetents like ATS who want to leg you over every which way.

End of rant, sorry everybody!! :mad:

chris1

juliamarsh wrote: »

Mess up No. 2 ... the certificates had to be sent back to be reregistered due to their having failed to spell my name correctly!
Mess up No. 3 - prepaid envelope that they had stated was enclosed to send forms back was not - surprise, surprise -

Well, what a co-incidence, they failed to spell my name correctly on the certificate as well, despite the fact that it was correct on the account, and they had changed it to a nonsense-name, not any recognisable name.

They were so peculiar when I phoned up for a new certificate and kept me hanging on for such a long time, I did wonder whether they had done it on purpose...