Leaving HL without transfer charges

lejog2003

SnowMan wrote: »

Has anyone thought of seeing if BBC moneybox want to run a story on this?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/features/money-box/contact/

I have done now, hopefully a 1800% increase will catch their eye!

Perhaps someone with Twitter (or who knows any other way of contacting Telegraph journalists) could contact Richard Evans, the author of http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/10578925/Hargreaves-tracker-fund-blow-My-costs-will-rise-from-24to-500.html
His article goes through alternatives for an investor whose fees are rising from £24 to £500, but doesn't mention HL levying 3 years worth of old fees to transfer.

armageden

HL's Danny Cox was brave enough to turnup in the Moneybox studio last Saturday,if you listen to the podcast you may agree with my view that he was less than convincing.When Mr Cox declared that HL had started a discount broker price war ,I nearly sprayed my mouthful of tea across the kitchen table.
Justin Mondray from Candid Money & the programme presenter asked Mr Cox questions he could not give straight answers to.
Mr Cox talked of the FEW customers HL would lose, so he recognises the problem, although maybe not the true scale of it.
As regards the adverse affect the .45% platform fee will have on larger passive fund holdings, why can't HL introduce an upper cap, as with stock holdings.
Whilst HL argue they have to impose equal charging treatment to conform with the new edicts, thats not strictly true is it?.
Also, I don't believe the Financial Conduct Authority's intention was to allow fund platforms to increase their customers costs in this way, do you?.

ayayay

Hi all

Im in possession of shares and ITs and so will be hit with double fees. Ive written to hl asking them to waive their exit fees on three basis:
1. The change to fees for ITs has nothing to do with the RDR so they cant use regulatory change as a reason and thus they have no contractual basis to increase fees
2. Even if under their contract they did have the power it would fall foul of the unfair contract terms regs as per fca guidance since the change has to be for good reason AND we have to be free to exit
3. They have to treat customers fairly pursuant to fca principle 6 and increasing fees for customers who are trapped by high exit fees is unfair

Still awaiting their response. The dilemma i face though is that in the case of my isa i have massive transfer fees to pay because i own a lot of individual shares and ITs Do i gamble by transferring and hope to win at the FOS, or do i just transfer my ITs or do i just trade out of ITs and into shares. Or grin and bear it, and claim at the FOS that im trapped getting a ruling from them that hl must allow me to leave for free in the future.

My sipp is an easier choice, i just pay the current flat £75 fee to transfer out and claim at the FOS.

lejog2003

armageden wrote: »

HL's Danny Cox was brave enough to turnup in the Moneybox studio last Saturday,if you listen to the podcast you may agree with my view that he was less than convincing.When Mr Cox declared that HL had started a discount broker price war ,I nearly sprayed my mouthful of tea across the kitchen table.
Justin Mondray from Candid Money & the programme presenter asked Mr Cox questions he could not give straight answers to.
Mr Cox talked of the FEW customers HL would lose, so he recognises the problem, although maybe not the true scale of it.
As regards the adverse affect the .45% platform fee will have on larger passive fund holdings, why can't HL introduce an upper cap, as with stock holdings.
Whilst HL argue they have to impose equal charging treatment to conform with the new edicts, thats not strictly true is it?.
Also, I don't believe the Financial Conduct Authority's intention was to allow fund platforms to increase their customers costs in this way, do you?.

Hi, I see you're even newer here than me. There's already a long thread on the interview on this forum here,

Why can't they introduce a cap on fund charges? I think the answer to that is obvious, their revenues would collapse, their 60 to 70 profit margins would shrink and their elevated share price would plummet. Still mean of them not allowing us to move for free and trying to blame the regulator.

Freecall

Well I'm as unhappy as everyone else but given that they must have been working on this for months, would not HL have :

a) Taken Counsel’s advice on the legality and enforceability of their new charges,

and possibly,

b) Consulted the FCA on its view of how specific points in the charges were to be handled.

I don’t know how these things work internally but there must have been an awful lot of work in putting it together and any defeat now they have published would be a PR disaster.

.

Rollinghome

They will certainly have taken advice but less clear will be what that advice would have been and whether HL may have decided to take an optimistic view and see if they could get away with it.

naedanger

Freecall wrote: »

Well I'm as unhappy as everyone else but given that they must have been working on this for months, would not HL have :

a) Taken Counsel’s advice on the legality and enforceability of their new charges,

and possibly,

b) Consulted the FCA on its view of how specific points in the charges were to be handled.

I don’t know how these things work internally but there must have been an awful lot of work in putting it together and any defeat now they have published would be a PR disaster.

.

This is what H-L want you to believe. They want you to think that you have no chance with your complaint whereas if you persist and take it to the FOS then you have a very high chance it will be upheld (though nothing is ever guaranteed).

There are a number of examples in this or similar threads showing where the FOS have upheld complaints in very similar circumstances. In addition what H-L have done is contrary to OFT and FCA guidance, which explains that price increases are only fair if customers are given the opportunity to exit freely (i.e. without exit charges) following the increase. (There are a couple of exceptions to this guidance but they don't cover what H-L have done.)

I don't believe a change of heart now would be a pr disaster for H-L. They would give it a positive spin e.g. we (H-L) have no obligation to waive exit charges, however we have listened to feedback and have now decided to waive these charges because we are a very caring company that listens to customers' concerns. So the risk they are taking (that they might be forced to change) is low risk. Even if they lose and they have to change their decision then they can give it a positive spin. Whereas if they get away with it then they get exit charges from all but a small number of persistent complainants.

They may have taken Counsel's advice and that may have said that H-L have an arguable case in court, since they can argue the change is in line with their terms and conditions, and whether the terms are fair or unfair can only ultimately be decided by a court. So getting Counsel's opinion to suit your own ends is not always that difficult.

I very much doubt that they will have consulted the FCA since what they are doing is against the FCA's own guidance. Indeed if someone senior in the FCA got involved I suspect they would apply very strong pressure on H-L to change their practice. (Also H-L seem to be trying to give the impression that the FCA have required them to make this change. This is not the case.)

However if the FCA do not take an interest (they may have bigger fish to fry) then H-L will be happy to whittle down the number of complaints to a small number and settle those at the FOS (or possibly earlier on an ex gratia basis).

cepheus

Something else I notice is that Interactive Investor are offering special incentives if you change by the end of February. When do HL announce what their new charges are? 1st March.

SnowMan

lejog2003 wrote: »

I have done now, hopefully a 1800% increase will catch their eye!

If Moneybox do contact you then make sure to mention that Fidelity are just announcing their charging structure and not only are they cheaper for funds at 0.35% pa vs 0.45% pa but there are no exit fees to leave them (regardless of whether your charges have gone up, gone down or stayed the same, and regardless of whether you transfer away today or in 2 months time or whenever)

colalba

SnowMan wrote: »

Has anyone thought of seeing if BBC moneybox want to run a story on this?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/features/money-box/contact/

I contacted WHICH a few days ago suggesting an article/investigation on exit charges mentioning H-L in particular but the platform industry in general. i.e. why do platforms have exit charges at all as this restricts competition and they would seem too high and not merely covering costs.


http://www.which.co.uk/about-which/contact-us/email/