Leaving HL without transfer charges

naedanger

bigadaj wrote: »

Not a bad idea but in some ways it would actually be anti competitive, why limit some charges and not others.

So long as the charges are open, and they come down heavily on those firms that try and change terms and conditions up unilaterally.

I think Totton, when he or she said fix exit fees, meant fix the problems they are causing (I would guess by prohibiting them if the supplier's terms are not fixed) rather then set them at a fixed amount. If that is what he or she is saying I think I agree with both of you.

Firms should either offer fixed terms, where neither the supplier or customer can change them (other than in a way exactly determined in the contract) or either party should be allowed to terminate with a relatively short notice period with no penalty.

It is interesting that many of these contracts seem to allow the supplier to terminate them without reason, with little notice, and without paying any amounts to customers to cover their administrative costs of transferring to another provider. You would think that to be balanced customers should have a similar option. Indeed that is the way many financial contracts work e.g. bank accounts.

They seem to be wanting to tie their customers to fix terms but keep as many options open for themselves, which seems very unbalanced.

naedanger

nxdmsandkaskdjaqd wrote: »

I have emailed HL, via secure message, on Saturday. However, no reply to date, despite 2 reminders.

Either they are very busy, or don't care about me!

Did you head up your emails "OFFICIAL[or FORMAL] COMPLAINT" just in case HL pretend they had not realised you were complaining. This should not be necessary but they did not recognise my first complaint as such, even although I used the word complaint in the body of the text.

If it is a formal complaint then HL will have their own formal process they are meant to follow, which I think includes acknowledging the complaint within 5 days.

masonic

Totton wrote: »

I would like to see the FCA sort out the issue of exit fees and impose a set-cost for any account closures. Until they do so there will be a constant problem when companies amend their pricing and folk look for the cheapest service again and again. Fixing exit-fees may well be the single best way to force platforms to set and retain pricing at levels the customers would support, until then we will probably see a perpetual stream of people complaining about changing fee structures and exit fees.

They don't really need to meddle with the cost of account closures, all they need to do is be tougher about what happens when costs are hiked. Ofgem and more recently Ofcom have managed to do this - if you reject price increases then you are free to dissolve energy/mobile phone contracts at no cost with no need to argue with your provider. Why not for investment accounts?

flusk

For the previous posters wondering how long it takes HL to process a complaint sent by secure message. In my case I received no response by secure message, but the proforma 'goodwill' letter offering to waive the charges turned up in the post 4 days later.

Thanks to all the previous posters for their help!

jamesd

bigadaj wrote: »

So long as the charges are open, and they come down heavily on those firms that try and change terms and conditions up unilaterally.

So, something like 65% of all HL customers have a total pot size of less than £25,000. At 0.45% that is an annual charge of £112.50. Say they hold ten investments and want to do an in-specie transfer for them. At £25 per investment HL will charge £250. Of course, it's worse for most of that 65% or so because they would have lower annual charge but the same exit cost.

It is a failure to treat customers fairly and use of exit charges to limit competition by making it too expensive to leave, even in normal circumstances, without a contract change.

JasonPr

naedanger wrote: »

OFFICIAL COMPLAINT – Refusal to Waive Exit Charges Following Unilateral Charge Increases

Please accept this letter as a formal complaint that you are refusing to allow me to exit freely from my Hargreaves Lansdown accounts following your unilateral increase in charges. (The new charges include a new fee for receiving half yearly paper statements, a new account closure fee, a new fee on cash transfers to another provider, a new fee for probate valuations, and a separate fee for holding investment trusts. And that is only some of them.)

Thanks for re-posting the complaint letter. I'll use it right now. Note that the "and a separate fee for holding investment trusts" should be removed, as I believe that fee has been removed in the meantime (or maybe I got that wrong).

bigadaj

jamesd wrote: »

So, something like 65% of all HL customers have a total pot size of less than £25,000. At 0.45% that is an annual charge of £112.50. Say they hold ten investments and want to do an in-specie transfer for them. At £25 per investment HL will charge £250. Of course, it's worse for most of that 65% or so because they would have lower annual charge but the same exit cost.

It is a failure to treat customers fairly and use of exit charges to limit competition by making it too expensive to leave, even in normal circumstances, without a contract change.

Yes, but people would have the chance to move in cash or consolidate funds with drawbacks, my point is that is it actually a. Good thing to limit some charges, or is that working against competition.

Fees for exit are some thing I've been very conscious of given these changes, but it's. Question of comparing all costs for each individuals circumstances and making a decision based on that. Unilateral changes to a contract are obviously not fair but if charges are clear on entry then I can't see a particular problem with that aspect.

Of course many of the people in your example might be confused by this but it's a consequence of HLs policies, you can complain or work around these. It may show a drawback in terms of competition with a relatively big and dominat player in the diy market, but it's a commercial decision they will hopefully suffer from both in terms of regulator repercussions and bad pr and movement out of funds, hopefully without charges or with minimal cost.

naedanger

JasonPr wrote: »

Thanks for re-posting the complaint letter. I'll use it right now. Note that the "and a separate fee for holding investment trusts" should be removed, as I believe that fee has been removed in the meantime (or maybe I got that wrong).

Thanks for spotting. I will try and edit my post to remove that wording.

macmuck

I want to thank all contributors to the thread for all the helpful advice and esp to naedanger here for the template that saves us so much trouble.

My wife and I only transfered our ISA's to HL at the beginning of December and I am wondering if the new charges were posted by then...i do not recall seeing them or hearing about them at this time?
I have seven funds and my wife has six...total just 15K.
Im just sending of the template now to see how we go..I have cashed in one fund but dont see why it should cost us a fortune to do the lot, given how far they have moved the goalposts! Wish us luck.Will report back...
Also going to IWEB. May even self-select, given some of the rubbish they want you to pay good money for!

gadgetmind

macmuck wrote: »

I am wondering if the new charges were posted by then...i do not recall seeing them or hearing about them at this time?

No, they weren't. HL said they'd have their new charges settled by late 2013, but they procrastinated, delayed, delayed some more, announced, back-pedalled, panicked, did specialsecret offers, and generally behaved like totally unprofessional headless chickens.

Meanwhile, BestInvest (we also have ISAs and SIPPs with them) have continued to impress the hell out of me.