Leaving HL without transfer charges

naedanger

lejog2003 wrote: »

I had to wrest the promise to refund any increased charges out of HL and as ffthingamabobby said, it was like pulling a tooth, so I wouldn't say it had set a precedent.

While I agree people have had to be very persistent, I think everyone who has had an official final response (i.e. a response that also states that if the customer is still unhappy they can take their complaint to FOS) has been told their exit fees will be waived.

No-one should be discouraged from demanding that their exit fees are refunded. The process should also now be quicker.

I don't think there is any precedent (yet) of HL saying we will not pay your exit fees and you should take your case to FOS if you are unhappy.

Chris2000

There is a good chance that one or more of the regulatory bodies will force them to waive exit penalties for customers who are materially adversely affected by the new charges. HL would get much more goodwill and positive PR if they did this publicly and voluntarily, because it’s the right thing to do, instead of waiting until the complaints flood in and they are forced into it. Although it's probably too late now.

If they persist with the hard line (and consequent loss of goodwill) then in many cases the FOS case fee would be higher than the exit penalties they are being asked to waive, so it would be a double own goal. I don't think they are that stupid.

If and when they do eventually announce an exit fee waiver, they should simultaneously sack whoever took the decision not to offer one from the start. This has caused bad feeling and negative PR that was both predictable and totally avoidable. I will give them this advice for free!

lejog2003

naedanger wrote: »

While I agree people have had to be very persistent, I think everyone who has had an official final response (i.e. a response that also states that if the customer is still unhappy they can take their complaint to FOS) has been told their exit fees will be waived.

No-one should be discouraged from demanding that their exit fees are refunded. The process should also now be quicker.

I don't think there is any precedent (yet) of HL saying we will not pay your exit fees and you should take your case to FOS if you are unhappy.

I wasn't talking about or considering exit fees, I was talking about being charged the increased platform fees from March until the date of transfer.

Socrates, like me, has Vanguard funds and may, like me, want to carry out in-specie transfer to avoid repaying any 0.5% dilution levy on a cash transfer. I initiated a transfer around 20th Jan and have been told by HL it may take until mid-April to complete, starting now it may take until May.

AFAIK I'm the only person here that has been told that any increased charges levied in March or later will be refunded.

I realise that everyone's circumstances are different, but for me the exit charges are a flat £75 and my main concern has always been the £120 per month increase in platform charges. Obviously the later that people transfer, the longer the period they will be subject to the new charges, the more likely increased platform fees will outweigh exit charges.

naedanger

Chris2000 wrote: »

There is a good chance that one or more of the regulatory bodies will force them to waive exit penalties for customers who are materially adversely affected by the new charges.

Initially I thought the FCA would step in. But given the length of time that has passed this seems unlikely (though I hope I am wrong). Of course the more people that write to the FCA and complain the more likely they will act. But unfortunately apart from a few people on this forum there does not seem to be sufficient vocal protest to get the regulatory bodies interested.

If they persist with the hard line (and consequent loss of goodwill) then in many cases the FOS case fee would be higher than the exit penalties they are being asked to waive, so it would be a double own goal. I don't think they are that stupid.

They will stick to the hard line because it is in their commercial interest. For each person who complains to the end of their complaints handling process many, many others will either have given up or not started.

They will not want cases going to FOS, not because it costs them a few hundred pounds (that is chicken feed), but because if FOS upholds a lot of similar cases they will be obliged to take action and review the underlying cause. They don't want customers on mass having an opportunity to exit freely as many might choose to leave. Barriers work.

If and when they do eventually announce an exit fee waiver, they should simultaneously sack whoever took the decision not to offer one from the start. This has caused bad feeling and negative PR that was both predictable and totally avoidable. I will give them this advice for free!

It is not just the decision not to offer to waive exit fees. It is the decision to issue a very misleading letter and to not give customers client specific information. These decisions will go to the very top of the company so if anyone is sacked they will most likely be a scapegoat.

Chris2000

lejog2003 wrote: »

Out of interest to who should you complain about HL's failure to identify a complaint or to "explain to the complainant promptly and, in a way that is fair, clear and not misleading, its assessment of the complaint, its decision on it, and any offer of remedial action or redress". I doubt I can be bothered now, but someone might fancy having a go.

I'm not sure exactly but I'd suggest informing the Financial Conduct Authority with a clear cc: to the Group Compliance Director at HL.

Failure to deal with complaints properly is a breach of the regulations. Isolated procedural failures can occur but it would be more serious if there was evidence that management had been aware of systematic failure to follow the correct process for identifying and handling complaints, and did not take corrective action. In such cases the regulator may consider that a more severe penalty is necessary.

If anyone from HL is reading MSE in an official capacity then they would be wise to inform management of the allegations reported here, as it would appear that several people have not had their complaints officially recognised as such.

I suspect HL will be recording more than 527 complaints about Investments in H1 2014:
http://www.hl.co.uk/about-us/regulatory-complaints-data

masonic

lejog2003 wrote: »

I wasn't talking about or considering exit fees, I was talking about being charged the increased platform fees from March until the date of transfer.

When you reject a price increase and demand a free exit, then the new charges cannot be enforced, so there isn't a difference in terms of the law. The only issue would have been if HL was prepared to let it go to the Ombudsman over rejection of the new fees, which your case suggests they wouldn't (and nobody else has obtained a decision on that matter so far, but presumably your monthly charges of £120 are particularly high).

Even if they did let it go to the Ombudsman, it's inconceivable a free exit would be permitted but the rejection of the new terms would not. If you do not have the right to reject the new terms (and not be bound to them) then you do not have a right to a free exit.

naedanger

lejog2003 wrote: »

I wasn't talking about or considering exit fees, I was talking about being charged the increased platform fees from March until the date of transfer.

Socrates, like me, has Vanguard funds and may, like me, want to carry out in-specie transfer to avoid repaying any 0.5% dilution levy on a cash transfer. I initiated a transfer around 20th Jan and have been told by HL it may take until mid-April to complete, starting now it may take until May.

AFAIK I'm the only person here that has been told that any increased charges levied in March or later will be refunded.

I realise that everyone's circumstances are different, but for me the exit charges are a flat £75 and my main concern has always been the £120 per month increase in platform charges. Obviously the later that people transfer, the longer the period they will be subject to the new charges, the more likely increased platform fees will outweigh exit charges.

Sorry I misunderstood.

(If someone complains to the bitter end of their complaints handling process, I would expect any excess costs (over what they would have been on the current structure) during the transfer process to be refunded. If HL refused to do so then I expect they would lose at FOS, provided the transfer was initiated without undue delay.

If my transfer is not completed before the new charges kick in and HL levy any new charges then I will ask for the excess to be refunded. And if they don't I will take them to FOS if necessary.)

masonic

naedanger wrote: »

If my transfer is not completed before the new charges kick in and HL levy any new charges then I will ask for the excess to be refunded. And if they don't I will take them to FOS if necessary.)

I'm of the same view, and we should be able to do so under the cover of our original complaint and the initial response saying they won't refund the new charges (which for about £11 per month, they'd be silly to do in my case).

masonic

Chris2000 wrote: »

I suspect HL will be recording more than 527 complaints about Investments in H1 2014:
http://www.hl.co.uk/about-us/regulatory-complaints-data

I wonder if in that table "Complaints upheld by firm" includes those where they still think they were right but have offered what the customer asked for as a gesture of goodwill.

Chris2000

lejog2003 wrote: »

AFAIK I'm the only person here that has been told that any increased charges levied in March or later will be refunded.

I realise that everyone's circumstances are different, but for me the exit charges are a flat £75 and my main concern has always been the £120 per month increase in platform charges.

I will be looking for the same outcome.

Meanwhile I'm struggling to get my transfer started. I want to move some tracker funds in specie to a platform that has no percentage fees. Halifax/IWeb is my first choice but they haven't cleared one of my funds for ISA eligibility yet and they've added a different class of institutional HSBC units to the ones HL use.

[As an aside, the class they have added looks interesting:
http://www.halifaxmarketwatch.co.uk/cgi-bin/digital/security.cgi?username=&ac=&id=134123

The KIID claims a total ongoing charge of 0.02%. Can it be right that this fund class is available with no further ongoing costs except dealing charges? Even on a £1bn fund, 0.02% doesn't pay for much fund management unless it's fully automated. All the other unit classes I've seen have higher ongoing charges, including the clean class at 0.17%.]