Leaving HL without transfer charges

juliamarsh

Good for you ffacoffipawb. It is outrageous that they have treated you differently from others and I wouldn't mind betting that they backtrack once they receive your latest message! Best of luck, and they will get the same response from me if they refuse me a waiver! Thanks for sharing your very useful information.

naedanger

ffacoffipawb wrote: »

. You are giving some customers a free exit, but you have refused to offer me the same opportunity.

...

The lady at the ombudsman's office who I spoke to a few minutes ago was very helpful and took down the relevant details and she gave me a reference to put in to my form which I will be posting tonight. I have printed off the secure messages and also some of the posts here showing that HL are waiving some people's charges but not others.

I expect FOS will be very sympathetic to your case.

naedanger

lejog2003 wrote: »

Which makes it a commercial reason for the change, not a change enforced by regulation.

Indeed, I completely agree.

I have never accepted that their changes were required by regulation. They are in response to regulatory change but these regulatory changes did not require them to increase their charges. They could comply with the new regulations by simply stopping the £1 or £2m per month charge for passive funds and no longer accepting commission from fund managers.

They obviously did not want to do this for commercial reasons so their changes were in response to regulation but were not required by regulation.

However I think they should be free to make changes to their charges but only if their customers are equally free to reject them by exiting without charge. Otherwise the contract is clearly unbalanced as the provider can force an unexpected adverse consequence on their customers, which they cannot avoid without suffering an unexpected loss.

jamesd

If you have received a custom charges offer from HL please complete these two polls, preferably before you have decided whether you wish to accept their terms, so you're not bound by any confidentiality agreement contained within them:

HL customer charges custom offers
HL customer caps custom offers

le_loup

darren72 wrote: »

Are you going to AJ Bell directly, or through one of the cheaper companies they manage SIPP's for (ie, iweb, Halifax) ?

AJB may be running Halifax's operation but ... there's no comparison when it comes to website or offerings in terms of funds.

lejog2003

ffacoffipawb wrote: »

They had plenty of time and opportunity to reconsider, but turned me down. So I sent them the following ...

<snip>

The lady at the ombudsman's office who I spoke to a few minutes ago was very helpful and took down the relevant details and she gave me a reference to put in to my form which I will be posting tonight. I have printed off the secure messages and also some of the posts here showing that HL are waiving some people's charges but not others.

Yes no reason to delay, on reflection its obvious that the email I received was a clumsy cut and paste job with a number of errors if it was an answer to my complaint, so I too will be phoning the ombudsman tomorrow. Missive to HL -

Can you please inform me whether or not your email is HL's final response to my formal complaint in a written letter dated 22nd Jan? It claims to be in response to communication of January 17th, but I have no record of any correspondence (email or written) on that day.

If so, you have not addressed my concern that HL will be charging the increased fees from 1st March even if a transfer has been initiated, only confirmed that you will waive transfer fees. Since my letter of complaint HL have informed me that transfer can be expected in early to mid April. I will be discussing the adequacy of your reply with the Ombudsman to see whether I can press forward with a complaint to them since you have ignored this concern.

I reject your offer of a 0.2% management fee capped at £250k. This turns a 1800% rise into a still unacceptable 700% rise and is still highly uncompetitive.

ffacoffipawb

lejog2003 wrote: »

Yes no reason to delay, on reflection its obvious that the email I received was a clumsy cut and paste job with a number of errors if it was an answer to my complaint, so I too will be phoning the ombudsman tomorrow. Missive to HL -

Can you please inform me whether or not your email is HL's final response to my formal complaint in a written letter dated 22nd Jan? It claims to be in response to communication of January 17th, but I have no record of any correspondence (email or written) on that day.

If so, you have not addressed my concern that HL will be charging the increased fees from 1st March even if a transfer has been initiated, only confirmed that you will waive transfer fees. Since my letter of complaint HL have informed me that transfer can be expected in early to mid April. I will be discussing the adequacy of your reply with the Ombudsman to see whether I can press forward with a complaint to them since you have ignored this concern.

I reject your offer of a 0.2% management fee capped at £250k. This turns a 1800% rise into a still unacceptable 700% rise and is still highly uncompetitive.

Hmm, if they offered me that I would have stayed. They can't get anything right, they must have Frank Spencer in charge.

lejog2003

I spoke to the FOS helpline today and they were helpful - to a point. They will write to HL urging them to give a final response on my concern about new fees. I also got a reference number but no complaint until HL utter the words final response.

ffacoffipawb

ffacoffipawb wrote: »

They had plenty of time and opportunity to reconsider, but turned me down. So I sent them the following ...


=====================================


In view of the arrogance and contempt my complaint regarding an unfair exit charge has received from yourselves, and the way you are waiving other people's charges and not mine and offering others a lower fee to remain with yourselves (interesting information courtesy of the MSE Forums and as a result I have spoken to the Financial Ombudsman about your unfair penalty charge and I have completed their form as a result of your 'final response'.

I believe that by denying me a free exit your unilateral increase in charges is both unfair and contrary to FSA and OFT guidance. For example section 12.4 of the OFT's “Guidance for the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999” published in September 2008 highlights that a valid reason for varying a contract, such as a regulatory change, is NOT sufficient for a price change to be fair. Consumers must also be given the chance to cancel freely. You are giving some customers a free exit, but you have refused to offer me the same opportunity.


=====================================


The lady at the ombudsman's office who I spoke to a few minutes ago was very helpful and took down the relevant details and she gave me a reference to put in to my form which I will be posting tonight. I have printed off the secure messages and also some of the posts here showing that HL are waiving some people's charges but not others.

Success .....


Dear Mr xxxxx

I can confirm a final response was issued to your complaint yesterday which I believe will address your concerns. I have provided a further copy below.

Mr xxxxx
xxxxx
xxxxx
xxxxx
xxxxx


CWJ/xxxxx
06 February 2014

Dear Mr xxxxx,

I write further to your recent communication in which you expressed your dissatisfaction regarding the introduction of our new Vantage charging structure. I am sorry to learn that you are unhappy with the new charges and that you believe Hargreaves Lansdown are required to permit you to exit your contract without levying our normal exit charges. Hopefully the explanation I have provided below will clarify matters for you.

As our letter of 13th January explained, new regulations introduced by the Financial Conduct Authority come into force on 6th April which dictate how investment platform providers can be remunerated for their services. While the main focus of the changes has been in relation to the impact on funds, the changes in regulations actually apply to all elements of the provision of platform services. The aim of the new regulations is to ensure that a platform presents such products or types of products to its customers on an equal footing and to eradicate cross subsidisation between them. The rules therefore allowed for Hargreaves Lansdown to differentiate - and required us to rebalance - our platform charges for different types of retail investment product, for example active and passive funds.

In terms of whether we are required to allow our clients to exit their contract free of charge as a result of the introduction of our new tariff, I can confirm that we have taken legal advice and conducted extensive research on the subject – consulting the relevant legislation, regulatory guidance and undertakings. Essentially, the rules indicate that provided the changes are made for a valid reason which is specified within the contract and that requisite notice has been provided, there is no requirement for us to waive our exit charges. We believe we have met these criteria and as a result we are entitled to levy our exit charges.

In your case however, we recognise that you feel very strongly on this particular issue. Hargreaves Lansdown have always aimed to be viewed as a fair and reasonable company and as such, given your strength of feeling on the subject, we would be happy as a gesture of goodwill, to waive our transfer charges, for any transfer request received within 1 month of the date of this letter. I trust you will find this to be a reasonable outcome to your complaint.

If however, you think that I have misunderstood anything about your complaint, or you would just find it helpful to go through my findings, please do not hesitate to contact me. I have enclosed a copy of our complaints procedures for your reference.

However, if you are not satisfied with the outcome of your complaint and do not think that contacting me will help; you can refer this matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service. I have enclosed a booklet with further information. It is important to note that any referral to the Financial Ombudsman Service must be made within six months of the date of this letter.

Yours Sincerely



Ciara Ward-Jenkins
Senior Client Services Manager


============================


I have responded thus ....


Thank you for waiving the fees, which is the only sensible and fair thing to do, though getting this waived by yourselves has been like getting teeth pulled.

The transfer is already in hand and the forms from Sippdeal / Youinvest (their form and your own) should be with you any day now.


=============================


They say "Hargreaves Lansdown have always aimed to be viewed as a fair and reasonable company". I'm sorry, but I think they have sullied that reputation. I need to ring the Ombudsman and tell them 'job done'.


EDIT: Strange that this does not tie in with their secure message final response which told me to go whistle. The threat of the Ombudsman is obviously a very strong persuader.

afwone

ffacoffipawb wrote: »

Success .....


EDIT: Strange that this does not tie in with their secure message final response which told me to go whistle. The threat of the Ombudsman is obviously a very strong persuader.

Well done for getting the right result in the end. Seems that you need to complain till you are blue in the face with this company.

Mind you, they do seem to be addressing your complaints faster than they are mine. So far I only have a secure message telling me to go whistle...