Sippdeal shocker (& link to template complaint letter)

SnowMan

I think I am going to re-register my Sippdeal investments over to ATS, although I'm realistic that ATS might do a similar thing.

I've asked Sippdeal to waive their re-registration charges. I'll report back if it's Sippdeal or Sippnodeal on that. But I fear it may go to the endgame of the Financial Ombudsman again.

xylophone

I came, I saw, I melted

I like the reindeer - Happy Christmas!

In respect of HL, I feel rather like the Magi - waiting for a sign....:)

SnowMan

xylophone wrote: »

I like the reindeer - Happy Christmas!

In respect of HL, I feel rather like the Magi - waiting for a sign....:)

Happy Christmas to you too :j:beer:

I wonder if the sign is the mimimum balance that HL are suggesting to be held to cover fees

Just suppose that was something like 6 months fees based on the top of each band.

That would suggest for each account (i.e. ISA, non-ISA, and SIPP treated separately for charging purposes) the platform charge would be a tiered charge of

0 - 10,000: 0.5%
10,000 - 25,000: 0.33%
25,000 - 50,000: 0.2%
50,000 - 100,000: 0.1%

With for example someone with 40K in an ISA account paying 0.5% on 10K, 0.33% on the next 15K and 0.2% on the remaining 15K for their ISA.

That looks a bit low at the top end though.

(for the avoidance of doubt I have no insider knowledge)

Rollinghome

SnowMan wrote: »

I've asked Sippdeal to waive their re-registration charges. I'll report back if it's Sippdeal or Sippnodeal on that. But I fear it may go to the endgame of the Financial Ombudsman again.

Good for you. While I take on board bowlhead's observation that unreasonable claims may push up costs that could be passed on, that's far outweighed by the benefit to us all from insisting that clients are treated fairly and using the offices of the FO if necessary. There will always be companies who will only act properly when persuaded by the threat of penalties.

Rollinghome

SnowMan wrote: »

I wonder if the sign is the mimimum balance that HL are suggesting to be held to cover fees

I couldn't even find the "Help button" pip895 referred to. I need a help button to tell me where to find the help button.

xylophone

I couldn't even find the "Help button" pip895 referred to. I need a help button to tell me where to find the help button.

Indeed - are you beginning to feel outside the magic circle, not among "the called and the chosen"....... Oh Woe:D

ey143

Bowlhead99,
Firstly perhaps I have not explained it properly and you're reply was very long so I got lost in the details.

In summary, HMRC has written to me informing that Selftrade were negligent in not removing the stock from the isa when it should have became known that the position was not longer eligible to be held in the ISA (no longer listed on a recognised exchange in the USA).

If I was happy to remain a long term investor, I are several scenarios. 1. Being forced to sell at profit earlier = ok
2. Being forced to sell at a loss the very moment the stock became non eligible to be held in the isa (and I have to take the loss on the chin because its HMRC rules)
3. Being forced to sell at a greater loss 3 years later after it was found to be non eligible.

Now tell me, in simple words why you think Selftrade did not owe me a duty of care for their incompetence of not notifying me earlier so that I can make a decision as to a course of action!

By denying me the ability to sell at a lower loss earlier you think it's morally right that they escape unscathed even though they admit they messed up and fell foul of HMRC rules.

FOS has indicated that they would allow a claim for losses if I had CGT gains that exceed the cgt allowance. I have been trading for 20 years. My point is not to claim market to market loss of investment because of poor investment decisions which people inc myself make from time to time, but legal restitution for their mistake which they have admitted and HMRC said they are liable for.

deeboy1

I recently opened a SIPP with AJBell, and received the same notification of price changes. My understanding from reading the message is that:

• the new 0.2% charge is only applied to OEIC-type 'funds'.
• for those only holding other securities (in my case it is ETFs and ITs), there will be no change except:-
• an increase in annual charges from £12.50x4 quarters or £50pa to £25x4 = £100, i.e. an increase of £50pa (in my case for a SIPP value of around £25k)

Do you think that is correct? If so anyone not using the SIPP for OEICs will pretty much be unaffected? In any case, I believe the clean fund prices on the ATS platform are often cheaper anyway so I would continue to use that one for OEICs and hold them in my ISA and dealing accounts. Does that make sense?


deeboy

grey_gym_sock

not quite.

the old £12.50 quarterly charge only applied if you held (cleaner) OEICs, or structured products. only holding ETFs and ITs, you wouldn't have paid it, but will pay the new SIPP custody charge (£25 quarterly for SIPPs of £20k+).

deeboy1

Ah okay, thanks for clarifying grey gym sock.


Looks like AJ Bell is still going to be one of/ the cheapest options for me and probably others in this situation, but will cross check with monevator's comparison chart.


http://monevator.com/compare-uk-cheapest-online-brokers/