Leaving HL without transfer charges

Doctor_Who

It's post #3 here

forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=488538

sorry, can't post links!!

Rollinghome

Doctor_Who wrote: »

It's post #3 here

forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=488538

sorry, can't post links!!

That seems to be a thread about punch recipes, and very good they look too.

Snowman's spreadsheet v.7 is here

Doctor_Who

Sorry....when I edited the post because I couldn't include the link the last digit of the forum address was accidentally deleted....should have been

forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4885384

it's amazing it linked to anything :beer:......just trying to diversify the forum a bit !!

bigadaj

Doctor_Who wrote: »

Sorry....when I edited the post because I couldn't include the link the last digit of the forum address was accidentally deleted....should have been

forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4885384

it's amazing it linked to anything :beer:......just trying to diversify the forum a bit !!

Well combining those two threads could come to an interesting conclusion, either reckless investment or throwing things at a certain company in Bristol shouting 'come on out, I'll take on the lot of you with your outrageous charges' a la Delia.

gadgetmind

bigadaj wrote: »

come on out, I'll take on the lot of you

Meanwhile, we're all punch drunk from the platform's hiking their fees and looking around for dry land.

Financial_Saddler

Sent off mine and the wife's SIPP & ISA transfer forms to II today.
Had received a 0.25% offer from HL ( capped at £1m funds per account - very generous! ) as part of their damage limitation exercise.
Incidentally, HL's shares are now down 13% since they announced their new charges. Ouch.

gadgetmind

Financial_Saddler wrote: »

Incidentally, HL's shares are now down 13% since they announced their new charges. Ouch.

The top guys cashed out big time before they published their suicide note.

And , of course, they still haven't jumped and still seem to claiming it was a plea for help rather than an unambiguous declaration of intent.

That they are now allowing some customers to exit without fees is a credit to them. OTOH their special offers to other customer as an inducement to stay seems most odd.

Shouldn't their published rates (tiered, capped, whatever) be what's available to all, and should clandestine deals really be business as usual? Is this nod-and-a-wink approach really what RDR was designed to achieve?

naedanger

gadgetmind wrote: »

That they are now allowing some customers to exit without fees is a credit to them.

Not in my view. As far as I can see they are motivated purely be commercial self interest rather than any desire to treat customers fairly. They are simply paying up at the last moment before the Financial Ombudsman Service forces them to.

If they were doing it for any customer focused reason they would offer it to all customers. And they are not giving customers a concession, merely offering to pay what they should be paying anyway.

Rollinghome

naedanger wrote: »

Not in my view. As far as I can see they are motivated purely be commercial self interest rather than any desire to treat customers fairly.

Agreed. Any pretence otherwise became nonsense after they dishonestly suggested to clients whose claims they initially dismissed that the new fees were demanded by regulatory changes, including charging for ITs differently to other shares, before entirely reversing their position.

They were eventually compelled to reluctantly concede and with little grace but only to customers who who were clearly determined with their complaint and likely to take the matter to the FOS. As far as I'm aware they haven't contacted any customers who didn't complain and will still take account closure fees from thousands of new investors who bought Royal Mail shares when they sell their shares.

The decent thing to do would be to contact those clients at least to tell them the closure fee won't apply without waiting for them to complain. They haven't come out of this well.

jamesd

gadgetmind wrote: »

Shouldn't their published rates (tiered, capped, whatever) be what's available to all, and should clandestine deals really be business as usual? Is this nod-and-a-wink approach really what RDR was designed to achieve?

Customer retention offers are pretty much routine in other businesses, though not usually accompanied by a non-disclosure agreement.

It'll be interesting to see what they make of the retention offer I'll propose them offering me, based on what they have said in analysts briefings and what I could get elsewhere. It'll still leave my account as profitable as ten to twenty average accounts, but maybe they'll choke on how much lower it is than their standard offer and the ones they have made so far and decide they just don't want the money. In which case I'll just walk.