Leaving HL without transfer charges

dutchism1958

yatinsardana wrote: »

Thanks, I'm going to play the waiting game for a few weeks I think. Firstly, I'm still waiting for HL to acknowledge my message - if they don't in the next 2 days, I'll write to them asking to do so.

Then obviously depending on their response I'll decide when to make the transfer. I'm getting quite eager to just make a move and settle down in my new home i.e. III !

I wanted to start investing in some funds soon but now I don't want to add any holdings with HL before I move.

I received my letter waiving charges in 5 days from sending a secure message,however HL forgot to include my wife's account so a further secure message reminding them of my request for her was sent and i got the successful reply in writing 5 days later so it seems to be running a little smoother?.

yatinsardana

dutchism1958 wrote: »

I received my letter waiving charges in 5 days from sending a secure message,however HL forgot to include my wife's account so a further secure message reminding them of my request for her was sent and i got the successful reply in writing 5 days later so it seems to be running a little smoother?.

Sounds very promising indeed. Was yours a fairly straight forward case? Reading about cases back in January and February, it definitely seems like they're not giving much of a fight with waiving charges. Why should they? They're in the wrong here.

I just genuinely wish that the FOS or whichever authority is responsible for it would force HL to waive all charges rather than HL only waiving charges for those who make a formal complaint.

I can imagine many passive investors (like my sister), who're with HL and either aren't aware of the increase in charges or don't appreciate how it may affect them, don't do anything about this and obviously if and when they want to leave, it's too late for them and they end up paying hundreds if not thousands in exit fees!
Unfair!

vectistim

I sent HL a secure message on Friday, chasing things up (application sent to Cavendish 19/2), and no reply as yet.

naedanger

yatinsardana wrote: »

Sounds very promising indeed. Was yours a fairly straight forward case? Reading about cases back in January and February, it definitely seems like they're not giving much of a fight with waiving charges. Why should they? They're in the wrong here.

I just genuinely wish that the FOS or whichever authority is responsible for it would force HL to waive all charges rather than HL only waiving charges for those who make a formal complaint.

I can imagine many passive investors (like my sister), who're with HL and either aren't aware of the increase in charges or don't appreciate how it may affect them, don't do anything about this and obviously if and when they want to leave, it's too late for them and they end up paying hundreds if not thousands in exit fees!
Unfair!

The body responsible for ensuring financial providers abide by the rules and treat their customers fairly is the Financial Conduct Authority. However they do not deal with individual complaints. If you wish to complain about a company's general practices then it is the FCA you should complain to. I have done this in respect of Hargreaves Lansdown. They wrote back to me essentially saying (1) thanks, (2) we have passed your complaint to the team responsible for supervising Hargreaves Lansdown, and (3) you will not hear further from us because we cannot legally tell you about any investigations we conduct. (That was the jist of their reply, but it was quite formal.)

In practice I suspect the more complaints they receive about an issue the more likely they will be to act. If you wish to send them a letter I can prepare a draft based on my complaint. Just don't expect them to jump and take immediate action. Nevertheless I think the more people that complain the better, and it gives the FCA ammunition when dealing with companies if they can say they have received complaints on the issue.

The role of the FOS is to consider individual complaints after a provider's own complaint procedure has been exhausted. They don't consider general issues only individual complaints. If they receive many similar cases, where customers are being badly treated in the same way, then they may refer the general issue to the FCA (as well as obviously dealing with the specific complaints). (And the matter coming from FOS rather than an individual is likely to carry more weight with the FCA.) Companies therefore will tend to want to avoid many similar cases, where they are probably in the wrong, reaching FOS in case it results in action that requires them to change their practices. I suspect that is at least partly the reason why HL are agreeing to waive their exit charges for those who formally complain. (They don't want the matter reaching FOS, at least too often.)

Your complaint to HL is at the initial stage. They say they aim to reply within 5 working days. Therefore there is probably little point chasing them until after this time. (If you sent the message using their system you know they have received it.) So far all formal complaints (like yours) have been successful as far as I am aware.

yatinsardana

naedanger wrote: »

The body responsible for ensuring financial providers abide by the rules and treat their customers fairly is the Financial Conduct Authority. However they do not deal with individual complaints. If you wish to complain about a company's general practices then it is the FCA you should complain to. I have done this in respect of Hargreaves Lansdown. They wrote back to me essentially saying (1) thanks, (2) we have passed your complaint to the team responsible for supervising Hargreaves Lansdown, and (3) you will not hear further from us because we cannot legally tell you about any investigations we conduct. (That was the jist of their reply, but it was quite formal.)

In practice I suspect the more complaints they receive about an issue the more likely they will be to act. If you wish to send them a letter I can prepare a draft based on my complaint. Just don't expect them to jump and take immediate action. Nevertheless I think the more people that complain the better, and it gives the FCA ammunition when dealing with companies if they can say they have received complaints on the issue.

The role of the FOS is to consider individual complaints after a provider's own complaint procedure has been exhausted. They don't consider general issues only individual complaints. If they receive many similar cases, where customers are being badly treated in the same way, then they may refer the general issue to the FCA (as well as obviously dealing with the specific complaints). (And the matter coming from FOS rather than an individual is likely to carry more weight with the FCA.) Companies therefore will tend to want to avoid many similar cases, where they are probably in the wrong, reaching FOS in case it results in action that requires them to change their practices. I suspect that is at least partly the reason why HL are agreeing to waive their exit charges for those who formally complain. (They don't want the matter reaching FOS, at least too often.)

Your complaint to HL is at the initial stage. They say they aim to reply within 5 working days. Therefore there is probably little point chasing them until after this time. (If you sent the message using their system you know they have received it.) So far all formal complaints (like yours) have been successful as far as I am aware.

Thank you so much, really well explained. It's much clearer!

I'm very keen to complain to FCA regarding their general practice. It doesn't matter to me much that they won't act on it immediately but I just think it's unfair how companies can make such changes then be arrogant enough to take a stance that they're not doing anything wrong.

I'm happy for them to increase the charges but I just think as a matter of principle they should publicly allow people to leave free of charge for a window of period.

If you don't mind sharing your draft complaint and also if you could tell me how to contact them, I'd love to send them a message! Hopefully it'll count to something in a few months time.

naedanger

yatinsardana wrote: »

Thank you so much, really well explained. It's much clearer!

I'm very keen to complain to FCA regarding their general practice. It doesn't matter to me much that they won't act on it immediately but I just think it's unfair how companies can make such changes then be arrogant enough to take a stance that they're not doing anything wrong.

I'm happy for them to increase the charges but I just think as a matter of principle they should publicly allow people to leave free of charge for a window of period.

If you don't mind sharing your draft complaint and also if you could tell me how to contact them, I'd love to send them a message! Hopefully it'll count to something in a few months time.

I think your concerns align closely with my own, being that the issue is not that HL increased their charges but rather that they did so without properly informing their customers and without giving their customers the opportunity to exit without charge. Therefore hopefully my text will be reasonably suitable for you.

I did not find an obvious address to send my complaint so I just sent it to the FCA's CEO. I did get a reply saying it had been forwarded to the appropriate team. (They took quite a long time to reply, from memory around a fortnight, but I did not need to send them a reminder. )

I have put a few comments an the end of the draft.

[Insert your name and address]

[Date]

Mr Martin Wheatley
CEO
Financial Conduct Authority
25 The North Colonnade
Canary Wharf
LONDON
E14 5HS


Dear Mr Wheatley,

Concerns about FCA's Regulatory Oversight of Hargreaves Lansdown

I am writing to you because it is not clear to whom within the FCA I should address my concern, which is that the FCA are not taking action to investigate the manner in which Hargreaves Lansdown is implementing changes to it charges. These changes I believe affect well over 500,000 customers.

My concern is not that Hargreaves Lansdown have increased their charges but rather the manner in which these increases have been implemented. In particular they have:

1. issued a highly misleading letter on the changes to all their customers,
2. made no attempt to give customers meaningful client specific information,
3. not recognised legitimate complaints,
4. unfairly discouraged customers from taking their complaints further, and
5. imposed charges on exits that are unfair terms according to OFT guidance.

By doing this Hargreaves Lansdown are preventing many of their customers from making informed decisions and are placing unfair barriers on them obtaining competitive terms elsewhere. This risks seriously undermining some of the aims of the Retail Distribution Review.

In summary, Hargreaves Lansdown have implemented the increases in a manner that puts their own commercial interest far ahead of its duty to treat customers fairly.

I am not concerned for myself and am aware of my rights to complain, to the FOS if necessary. However I believe that to have a competitive financial services industry it is important that the regulator ensures, in a timely manner, that companies comply with regulations. The matter I am concerned about directly affects hundreds of thousands of customers and so is very significant.

I am very happy to elaborate on the claims I have made if they will be taken seriously.

Your sincerely

[Name]


Please note:
1. The wording is drafted to be relevant to the FCA by making clear my concern is with their lack of action and not regarding my specific case. (This was to avoid them passing the buck e.g. to FOS or HL.) I also tried to get across the issue I was concerned about affected a lot of customers.
2. I believe it would have been better to send the letter direct to the team supervising either HL or the implementation of the Retail Distribution Review. However I do not know who they are. I received a response saying my concerns were passed to the relevant team, so hopefully it got there.
3. I kept the letter short. Partly to try to keep it punchy and partly because I could not be bothered writing a longer letter if it was not really read. No-one ever asked me to elaborate on my concerns. Hopefully that was because they were clear rather than because no-one was interested.
4. Obviously change any wording as you see fit. However should any of the wording agree with your own views there is no need to change the text for the sake of it. (There is nothing wrong with standard wording provided it captures what you want to say.)

yatinsardana

naedanger wrote: »

I think your concerns align closely with my own, being that the issue is not that HL increased their charges but rather that they did so without properly informing their customers and without giving their customers the opportunity to exit without charge. Therefore hopefully my text will be reasonably suitable for you.

I did not find an obvious address to send my complaint so I just sent it to the FCA's CEO. I did get a reply saying it had been forwarded to the appropriate team. (They took quite a long time to reply, from memory around a fortnight, but I did not need to send them a reminder. )

I have put a few comments an the end of the draft.

[Insert your name and address]

[Date]

Mr Martin Wheatley
CEO
Financial Conduct Authority
25 The North Colonnade
Canary Wharf
LONDON
E14 5HS


Dear Mr Wheatley,

Concerns about FCA's Regulatory Oversight of Hargreaves Lansdown

I am writing to you because it is not clear to whom within the FCA I should address my concern, which is that the FCA are not taking action to investigate the manner in which Hargreaves Lansdown is implementing changes to it charges. These changes I believe affect well over 500,000 customers.

My concern is not that Hargreaves Lansdown have increased their charges but rather the manner in which these increases have been implemented. In particular they have:

1. issued a highly misleading letter on the changes to all their customers,
2. made no attempt to give customers meaningful client specific information,
3. not recognised legitimate complaints,
4. unfairly discouraged customers from taking their complaints further, and
5. imposed charges on exits that are unfair terms according to OFT guidance.

By doing this Hargreaves Lansdown are preventing many of their customers from making informed decisions and are placing unfair barriers on them obtaining competitive terms elsewhere. This risks seriously undermining some of the aims of the Retail Distribution Review.

In summary, Hargreaves Lansdown have implemented the increases in a manner that puts their own commercial interest far ahead of its duty to treat customers fairly.

I am not concerned for myself and am aware of my rights to complain, to the FOS if necessary. However I believe that to have a competitive financial services industry it is important that the regulator ensures, in a timely manner, that companies comply with regulations. The matter I am concerned about directly affects hundreds of thousands of customers and so is very significant.

I am very happy to elaborate on the claims I have made if they will be taken seriously.

Your sincerely

[Name]


Please note:
1. The wording is drafted to be relevant to the FCA by making clear my concern is with their lack of action and not regarding my specific case. (This was to avoid them passing the buck e.g. to FOS or HL.) I also tried to get across the issue I was concerned about affected a lot of customers.
2. I believe it would have been better to send the letter direct to the team supervising either HL or the implementation of the Retail Distribution Review. However I do not know who they are. I received a response saying my concerns were passed to the relevant team, so hopefully it got there.
3. I kept the letter short. Partly to try to keep it punchy and partly because I could not be bothered writing a longer letter if it was not really read. No-one ever asked me to elaborate on my concerns. Hopefully that was because they were clear rather than because no-one was interested.
4. Obviously change any wording as you see fit. However should any of the wording agree with your own views there is no need to change the text for the sake of it. (There is nothing wrong with standard wording provided it captures what you want to say.)

Thank you so much, naedanger! I shall get on it and send the letter as soon as possible!

fozzeh

naedanger wrote: »

I think your concerns align closely with my own, being that the issue is not that HL increased their charges but rather that they did so without properly informing their customers and without giving their customers the opportunity to exit without charge. Therefore hopefully my text will be reasonably suitable for you.

I did not find an obvious address to send my complaint so I just sent it to the FCA's CEO. I did get a reply saying it had been forwarded to the appropriate team. (They took quite a long time to reply, from memory around a fortnight, but I did not need to send them a reminder. )

I have put a few comments an the end of the draft.

[Insert your name and address]

[Date]

Mr Martin Wheatley
CEO
Financial Conduct Authority
25 The North Colonnade
Canary Wharf
LONDON
E14 5HS


Dear Mr Wheatley,

Concerns about FCA's Regulatory Oversight of Hargreaves Lansdown

I am writing to you because it is not clear to whom within the FCA I should address my concern, which is that the FCA are not taking action to investigate the manner in which Hargreaves Lansdown is implementing changes to it charges. These changes I believe affect well over 500,000 customers.

My concern is not that Hargreaves Lansdown have increased their charges but rather the manner in which these increases have been implemented. In particular they have:

1. issued a highly misleading letter on the changes to all their customers,
2. made no attempt to give customers meaningful client specific information,
3. not recognised legitimate complaints,
4. unfairly discouraged customers from taking their complaints further, and
5. imposed charges on exits that are unfair terms according to OFT guidance.

By doing this Hargreaves Lansdown are preventing many of their customers from making informed decisions and are placing unfair barriers on them obtaining competitive terms elsewhere. This risks seriously undermining some of the aims of the Retail Distribution Review.

In summary, Hargreaves Lansdown have implemented the increases in a manner that puts their own commercial interest far ahead of its duty to treat customers fairly.

I am not concerned for myself and am aware of my rights to complain, to the FOS if necessary. However I believe that to have a competitive financial services industry it is important that the regulator ensures, in a timely manner, that companies comply with regulations. The matter I am concerned about directly affects hundreds of thousands of customers and so is very significant.

I am very happy to elaborate on the claims I have made if they will be taken seriously.

Your sincerely

[Name]


Please note:
1. The wording is drafted to be relevant to the FCA by making clear my concern is with their lack of action and not regarding my specific case. (This was to avoid them passing the buck e.g. to FOS or HL.) I also tried to get across the issue I was concerned about affected a lot of customers.
2. I believe it would have been better to send the letter direct to the team supervising either HL or the implementation of the Retail Distribution Review. However I do not know who they are. I received a response saying my concerns were passed to the relevant team, so hopefully it got there.
3. I kept the letter short. Partly to try to keep it punchy and partly because I could not be bothered writing a longer letter if it was not really read. No-one ever asked me to elaborate on my concerns. Hopefully that was because they were clear rather than because no-one was interested.
4. Obviously change any wording as you see fit. However should any of the wording agree with your own views there is no need to change the text for the sake of it. (There is nothing wrong with standard wording provided it captures what you want to say.)

Good letter that "Vantage service has 520,000 clients" according to This Is Money.

For elaboration, they may take case studies so there is always the pick of the bunch!

Totton

£Nash£ wrote: »

Hmm, I was within an hour of starting a SIPP with HL but decided to look at this forum for information on Best SIPPs. I am having doubts about HL now. Does anyone have any advice for me?

I'm with HL and am very happy with their service, however a lot of people are unhappy with HL due to their pricing model. The 'lang cat' has a useful table on SIPP costs, I have copied the address below if you want to take a look.

http://langcatfinancial.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/SIPP-1.png

ztkr

£Nash£ wrote: »

Hmm, I was within an hour of starting a SIPP with HL but decided to look at this forum for information on Best SIPPs. I am having doubts about HL now. Does anyone have any advice for me?

HL is fairly competitive for SIPPs, certainly if you have £20,000 or less to invest. Not the cheapest, but not bad. The differences in £'s for fees for smaller investors are not massive either. (I'm assuming there that you are considering HL for the quality of their service and/or security of being the biggest provider).