Leaving HL without transfer charges

masonic

lejog2003 wrote: »

Sorry I have to disagree strongly with this, until the funds manager reregisters the funds from HL to ii, HL remain responsible to you for the transfer, it is HL that hold the funds, it is their name on them. They can't just tell you that they've sent off the forms to the funds manager and wash their hands of the affair. This is borne out by what the FCA say.


(F) - in this case HL - are responsible for executing the client's request, not (P) - in this case ii.

(F) is whoever you sent the transfer form to, which normally would be the destination platform, in this case II.

Edit: In fact, it would probably be best to lodge a formal complaint to both organisations and that way you can ask the FOS for advice on which of the complaints to refer to them.

malfesto

lejog2003 wrote: »

Sorry I have to disagree strongly with this, until the funds manager reregisters the funds from HL to ii, HL remain responsible to you for the transfer, it is HL that hold the funds, it is their name on them. They can't just tell you that they've sent off the forms to the funds manager and wash their hands of the affair. This is borne out by what the FCA say.

(F) - in this case HL - are responsible for executing the client's request, not (P) - in this case ii.

[FONT=&quot]Strictly speaking you are correct in the interpretation of the regulations as laid down by the FCA. The contractual relationship is between customer and old manager and supported by the fact that charges for in-specie transfers are levied by the old manager.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]However, in practice the process outlined below takes place between the old and new managers.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]1. Customer completes an in-specie transfer form and sends request to new manager [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2. New manager forwards the request in writing to the old manager and requests information about the ISA/Dealing Account[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]3. Old manager supplies requested information to new manager [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]4. New manager confirms in writing to the old manager that he is willing to accept the transfer[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]5. Old manager sends a transfer form to the new manager, accompanied or followed by the cash/assets being transferred[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]6. Old manager forwards any residual income received after the date of transfer[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The customer has visibility of the first step and the conclusion of the process. If any of the steps in between first and last is delayed than it has a knock on effect on the length of the in-specie transfer.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]A complaint citing the FCA regulations usually concentrates minds. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Regards,[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]malfesto.[/FONT]

zedray

Result! I called HL this morning as suggested and they told me that the M&G transfer to II took place back in April and gave me the deal code.

Tonight, I went on to II, and the missing fund has finally arrived. It's probably just coincidence, but at least my ISA is intact at long last. In total the transfer took 'just' 19 weeks.

DiamondLil

Oh goody, then I've only another week to wait it seems......
(Won't hold my breath though).

And glad for you zedray.

masonic

malfesto wrote: »

Strictly speaking you are correct in the interpretation of the regulations as laid down by the FCA. The contractual relationship is between customer and old manager and supported by the fact that charges for in-specie transfers are levied by the old manager.

I suppose that makes sense, although it would make a lot more sense if the customer directed the initial request to the old manager. It seems like an unnecessary step to send to the new manager merely to have it forwarded to the old manager (who may then contact the customer to confirm before acting on the proxy request). If the new manager is not acting in a role of managing the transfer for the customer, what is the point of them being involved in the process until step 3. Perhaps I should suggest this as part of the major overhaul to in specie transfers that desperately needs to take place.

In the case of zedray, it appears we have a situation in which HL transferred the holding to II in April and II held it for 2-3 months before applying it to zedray's account. This mirrors my own experience that holdings were being applied to my account with transfer dates a month or more in the past.

zedray - out of interest what was the 'Trade date' recorded against the transfer in your trading history?

Porcupine

I'm now 14 weeks in. All my funds have transferred across except:

One investment trust is still at HL
One fund has disappeared into the ether
Another fund has been double-credited at iWeb (about half as much as the missing fund)
My cash is still at HL.

Sigh. Time to fire off some more messages. iWeb don't do secure messaging and don't recommend email for account comms - might have to write them a letter.

zedray

masonic wrote: »

zedray - out of interest what was the 'Trade date' recorded against the transfer in your trading history?

I've had a look on the II site just now. The missing fund shows up as having been received in April, the day before HL's deal date.

Nixter

Has anyone sent a secure message to iii in the last couple of weeks? I'm now in my third week and have yet to receive any reply from these clowns.

They must be at the point of breakdown due to all these transfers.

lejog2003

masonic wrote: »

(F) is whoever you sent the transfer form to, which normally would be the destination platform, in this case II.

If a client requests a firm (F) to transfer the title to a retail investment product which is held by F .....

No it is specifically stated that (F) are the current holders of the investment product not necessarily the recipient of the transfer form. You can request (F) to transfer the title via submission of a form to (P), although this is not explicitly stated. So (F) is HL not ii.

masonic wrote: »

Edit: In fact, it would probably be best to lodge a formal complaint to both organisations and that way you can ask the FOS for advice on which of the complaints to refer to them.

Indeed!

lejog2003

Nixter wrote: »

Has anyone sent a secure message to iii in the last couple of weeks? I'm now in my third week and have yet to receive any reply from these clowns.

They must be at the point of breakdown due to all these transfers.

Which is highly annoying of course, since they are still offering incentives to transfer when they seem unable to cope with current transfers.