Leaving HL without transfer charges

naedanger

kfsimpson wrote: »

Thanks. I didn't jump in Jan/Feb, as many did, but waited to see how things would settle. In the end, nothing much did change, so started the transfer in May. Like many others, I would have preferred to stay with HL, but the cost would have been too high.
From what you write sounds as if my next step should be to go to FOS. It's free, so I suppose I have nothing to lose. It's a few hundred pounds, so a not trivial sum, but it is more the principle, and I too am quite stubborn. Any advice anyone can offer on points to highlight or pitfalls to avoid most welcome. I can show that I acted in time to avoid the cash exit charge, but there was no option to exit by a given date to avoid fund exit fees. Looking at the booklet we were sent back in Jan, it does say this charge is changed, but refers only to SIPP in the text.
Did others see that HL have dropped the probate fee? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/11030536/Hargreaves-Lansdown-drops-Isa-death-fee-and-share-vote-charge.html Perhaps they've decided that it's better publicity to drop that and to change on waiving other unfair fees.
Thanks as ever for your input!

I am glad you are going to take it to the Ombudsman since I too think the principle is important.

Unfortunately the FCA didn't seem to think so when I tried to get them to take an interest. They don't seem to be proactive and seem much less customer focused than the OFT were (though the OFT has now been replaced by some other body). I wonder if HL have realised the FCA are soft and are now taking a harder line because of the lax regulation.

Since I complained to the FOS I should be able to find my complaint and cut and paste something together. I should get time either today or over the weekend and will paste the draft on this thread when I have it.

naedanger

Re my previous post, the following is suggested draft text for the FOS complaint form. Change anything you do not agree with or which you prefer to word differently. (However there is no need to use your own wording if you agree with what is being said. Standard wording is OK provided it says what you want.)

Note you need to insert an amount of compensation to claim for your time and effort. This is in addition to the exit charges. There are also a few other notes to read after the end of the draft text.

For box – “Please tell us what your complaint is about”

As part of the Retail Distribution Review, Hargreaves Lansdown along with other platform providers, will be prevented from receiving commission payments from fund managers. To offset most of this loss they have made significant unilateral increases to the charges that their customers must pay. But, unlike most other providers, they have refused to waive their normal exit fees. This is both unfair and clearly contrary to OFT and FCA guidance.

I believe a contract is unbalanced, and contrary to the The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, if it gives the provider freedom to increase its charges (to offset the loss of other revenue) without giving its customers freedom to reject those increased charges by exiting freely.

It is unfair for Hargreaves Lansdown to only offer two unacceptable options i.e. to either (1) accept charges I would never have originally agreed to, or (2) pay to avoid these changes. Neither option is reasonable. To be reasonable they also need to offer either (a) the option to continue the contract on the current charges or (b) the opportunity to exit without charge.

If, as Hargreaves Lansdown believe, they can change their charges without giving customers the option to exit freely, provided the change is for a valid reason specified in the contract, then any existing charging structure can become meaningless as it can be changed and customers cannot move away without incurring unexpected costs. It should be noted that “valid reasons” still give the provider huge areas of discretion for increasing charges. For this reason the OFT believes that a valid reason for changing a contract, such as a regulatory change, is NOT a valid reason for changing the price UNLESS consumers are given an opportunity to exit free of charge. (See section 12.4 and footnote 30 on page 58 of the OFT document "Unfair contract terms guidance: Guidance for the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999" dated September 2008)

A unilateral price increase EVEN IF IT IS FOR A VALID REASON without giving customers an opportunity to exit freely is against OFT and FCA guidance. This is based on reading (1) OFT "Unfair contract terms guidance: Guidance for the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999" dated September 2008, and (2) FSA Finalised Guidance "Unfair contract terms: improving standards in consumer contracts" dated January 2012. (In the interests of brevity, I have not quoted the relevant sections leading me to conclude that Hargreaves Lansdown charge increases are contrary to OFT and FCA guidance unless customers are given an opportunity to exit freely, but if you disagree with this statement please let me know so that I can justify it.)

As a result of Hargreaves Lansdown's actions I have incurred unfair exit charges and had to spend a significant amount of time and effort to obtain fair treatment. I am therefore claiming for both the exit costs, with interest, and a contribution of £[insert amount] to partly compensate me for my time and effort in dealing with this matter.

Finally in the interests of a fair process I would ask that any information HL provide to you is shared with me. (Likewise I am happy that you share with them any information I provide.)


For box - “How do you want the business to put things right for you?

Hargreaves Lansdown need to refund with interest all exit charges they have levied and pay an amount of £[insert amount] to partially compensate me for my time and effort in dealing with this matter.

---

Notes regarding the above draft text and the process

1) Please insert (in two places) an amount to claim as compensation for your time and effort dealing with this matter. I suggest you claim an amount equal to £10 per hour spent (with a minimum of £25). When estimating your time be honest but cover all time, for example include any time online researching the matter. (I claimed £100, which HL paid.)

2) I don't think there is any risk of the case being time barred (contrary to what I implied in a recent post) provided you submit your claim within 6 months of HL's decision. (I think you have something like six years to first bring a claim but then once started you need to take it to the Ombudsman within 6 months of HL's decision.) So I don't think we need cover why the claim was not sooner.

3) The process after submitting the FOS form can be very slow. When it reaches the top of the queue an adjudicator will first review it, and may contact you and HL. In my case HL then offered what I was seeking, so it was settled at that point. Otherwise the adjudicator would have made a decision. You or HL can then appeal that decision. (So if you are unhappy with the adjudicator's decision it seems obvious that you should appeal.) Then if either you or HL appealed the Ombudsman will decide. So it can take a long, long time. But once the form is submitted it should not take up any more of your time.

4) Whether the complaint is upheld will probably depend more on the particular adjudicator/ ombudsman dealing with it than anything else.

kfsimpson

naedanger wrote: »

Re my previous post, the following is suggested draft text for the FOS complaint form. Change anything you do not agree with or which you prefer to word differently. (However there is no need to use your own wording if you agree with what is being said. Standard wording is OK provided it says what you want.)

Note you need to insert an amount of compensation to claim for your time and effort. This is in addition to the exit charges. There are also a few other notes to read after the end of the draft text.

For box – “Please tell us what your complaint is about”

As part of the Retail Distribution Review, Hargreaves Lansdown along with other platform providers, will be prevented from receiving commission payments from fund managers. To offset most of this loss they have made significant unilateral increases to the charges that their customers must pay. But, unlike most other providers, they have refused to waive their normal exit fees. This is both unfair and clearly contrary to OFT and FCA guidance.

I believe a contract is unbalanced, and contrary to the The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, if it gives the provider freedom to increase its charges (to offset the loss of other revenue) without giving its customers freedom to reject those increased charges by exiting freely.

It is unfair for Hargreaves Lansdown to only offer two unacceptable options i.e. to either (1) accept charges I would never have originally agreed to, or (2) pay to avoid these changes. Neither option is reasonable. To be reasonable they also need to offer either (a) the option to continue the contract on the current charges or (b) the opportunity to exit without charge.

If, as Hargreaves Lansdown believe, they can change their charges without giving customers the option to exit freely, provided the change is for a valid reason specified in the contract, then any existing charging structure can become meaningless as it can be changed and customers cannot move away without incurring unexpected costs. It should be noted that “valid reasons” still give the provider huge areas of discretion for increasing charges. For this reason the OFT believes that a valid reason for changing a contract, such as a regulatory change, is NOT a valid reason for changing the price UNLESS consumers are given an opportunity to exit free of charge. (See section 12.4 and footnote 30 on page 58 of the OFT document "Unfair contract terms guidance: Guidance for the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999" dated September 2008)

A unilateral price increase EVEN IF IT IS FOR A VALID REASON without giving customers an opportunity to exit freely is against OFT and FCA guidance. This is based on reading (1) OFT "Unfair contract terms guidance: Guidance for the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999" dated September 2008, and (2) FSA Finalised Guidance "Unfair contract terms: improving standards in consumer contracts" dated January 2012. (In the interests of brevity, I have not quoted the relevant sections leading me to conclude that Hargreaves Lansdown charge increases are contrary to OFT and FCA guidance unless customers are given an opportunity to exit freely, but if you disagree with this statement please let me know so that I can justify it.)

As a result of Hargreaves Lansdown's actions I have incurred unfair exit charges and had to spend a significant amount of time and effort to obtain fair treatment. I am therefore claiming for both the exit costs, with interest, and a contribution of £[insert amount] to partly compensate me for my time and effort in dealing with this matter.

Finally in the interests of a fair process I would ask that any information HL provide to you is shared with me. (Likewise I am happy that you share with them any information I provide.)


For box - “How do you want the business to put things right for you?

Hargreaves Lansdown need to refund with interest all exit charges they have levied and pay an amount of £[insert amount] to partially compensate me for my time and effort in dealing with this matter.

---

Notes regarding the above draft text and the process

1) Please insert (in two places) an amount to claim as compensation for your time and effort dealing with this matter. I suggest you claim an amount equal to £10 per hour spent (with a minimum of £25). When estimating your time be honest but cover all time, for example include any time online researching the matter. (I claimed £100, which HL paid.)

2) I don't think there is any risk of the case being time barred (contrary to what I implied in a recent post) provided you submit your claim within 6 months of HL's decision. (I think you have something like six years to first bring a claim but then once started you need to take it to the Ombudsman within 6 months of HL's decision.) So I don't think we need cover why the claim was not sooner.

3) The process after submitting the FOS form can be very slow. When it reaches the top of the queue an adjudicator will first review it, and may contact you and HL. In my case HL then offered what I was seeking, so it was settled at that point. Otherwise the adjudicator would have made a decision. You or HL can then appeal that decision. (So if you are unhappy with the adjudicator's decision it seems obvious that you should appeal.) Then if either you or HL appealed the Ombudsman will decide. So it can take a long, long time. But once the form is submitted it should not take up any more of your time.

4) Whether the complaint is upheld will probably depend more on the particular adjudicator/ ombudsman dealing with it than anything else.

Thnaks for all your help. I'll get onto it. Slightly worrying that it might be so dependent upon one individual, but can't do anything about that. Fingers crossed.

naedanger

kfsimpson wrote: »

Slightly worrying that it might be so dependent upon one individual, but can't do anything about that.

I agree. I have seen a couple of really bad decisions Ombudsman decisions so it is not really possible to ever be confident, even when (as here) the supplier has blatantly not complied with crystal clear guidance from the OFT.

Good luck and don't expect a quick response other than an acknowledgement from FOS.

Big_mike

So where are people leaving HL for? Liked the one stop shop approach of HL and recently came into some money (C. 25k) and had hoped to use them, so does anyone else offer similar at a lower cost?

Thanks in advance.

Mike

xylophone

So where are people leaving HL for? Liked the one stop shop approach of HL and recently came into some money (C. 25k) and had hoped to use them, so does anyone else offer similar at a lower cost?

Thanks in advance.

http://langcatfinancial.co.uk/d2cguide_pdf/Come%20and%20have%20a%20go%20final.pdf

Big_mike

Thanks xylophone, picked your link up on the other thread. Much appreciated.

joerugby

philc27 wrote: »

A few months ago, I opted to complain to HL about their revised charges. They offered me discounted fees (0.25% instead of 0.45%) to stay; so I stayed.

However, checking my HL account this week I found that they have in fact been charging me 0.45%.

So, my message to any HL customers who were offered a 'special' rate is: check your account! The figures are tucked away, so here's how:

Login to HL.
Choose one of your accounts.
Click the Account Adminstration tab.
Click View history of fees charged.
Click the fee transaction that you wish to view.

It should show a breakdown of the fees by percentage and investment type. Check you are getting the fee that you were offered!!! Repeat for each of your HL accounts (NISA, SIPP, etc).

We are paying 0.25%

C_Mababejive

joerugby wrote: »

We are paying 0.25%

For those offered 0.25% would anyone feel able to quote portfolio valuation? Is it possible to transfer cash held in an isa with HL to another ISA provider/platform and leave other money invested in funds etc ?

joerugby

C_Mababejive wrote: »

1. For those offered 0.25% would anyone feel able to quote portfolio valuation?

2. Is it possible to transfer cash held in an isa with HL to another ISA provider/platform and leave other money invested in funds etc ?

1. Approx £400,000

2. Don't understand the question