Can Halifax Investment Stop a cheque they have sent me?

PeacefulWaters

It's traditional to acknowledge question posed by others with answers.

It helps to give you a more complete response to your original post.

Vortigern

Ludmilla58 wrote: »

These are shares I bought many years ago through a ShareSave scheme of the insurance company I worked for. I cannot remember how they came to be through Halifax Inv Serv.

Your ShareSave savings would have been held in a Halifax SAYE account until you exercised the option to buy the shares. Halifax (or your employer) would have suggested that you put the shares in a Halifax S&S ISA. You accepted their suggestion (probably)

My former employer had a similar sharesave scheme. I saw no value in paying Halifax to hold the shares in an ISA. I declined their suggestion. No 'advice' was offered.

If you say which insurer you used to work for, people might be able to help you understand what happened to the value of your shares.

le_loup

I'm afraid none of us is giving the poster what she wants to hear, therefore it's all a waste of time.

angiepops

dunstonh, please could you outline the type of service the Halifax might have provided for the annual fee that Ludmilla58 says she paid for many years?
With direct regard to Ludmilla58's posting: I don't think she was being naive or unrealistic in expecting professionalism and accuracy from the Halifax; and she was entitled to believe that was what the annual fee was for.
Ludmilla58 relied on the expertise of the Halifax and she acted upon that reliance, to her financial detriment. That, in my opinion, is why the Halifax compensated her for the contracts she had entered into in reliance of their mis-statement (not 'for the inconvenience', which is what the £500 offer on the table represents). The Halifax has done only so much as the law would require, should Ludmilla58 have decided to sue for negligent mis-statement as per Hedley Byrne v Heller.
I think the Halifax should give her the whole £8,500: after all, they told her that was the amount she would receive, they endorsed that statement by issuing a cheque for the stated amount, and they only stopped the cheque after Ludmilla58 had paid it into her bank account. But they're more likely to reward the incompetence of their organisation by dishing out bonuses to their executives, I expect.

Archi_Bald

Halifax charges are detailed on their website: http://www.halifax.co.uk/sharedealing/charges/

And probably referenced in the contracts you say she had entered into (although she said: "I cannot remember how they came to be through Halifax Inv Serv.") - should be easy enough to check.

She is, of course, free to take her case to the FOS, or even to Court, if she is certain of her case. Understanding the meaning of the term financial advice, versus the meaning of a service, would be a fundamental pre-requisite in assessing the chances of winning any more than Halifax have already offered. Also worth remembering that the FOS can also reduce the offer by the bank, including completely rejecting a complaint.

dunstonh

dunstonh, please could you outline the type of service the Halifax might have provided for the annual fee that Ludmilla58 says she paid for many years?

Probably very little other than a nominee service and ISA returns and dividend administration.

I think the Halifax should give her the whole £8,500

That would just be silly.

after all, they told her that was the amount she would receive

So, next time a mistake is made where you overpay someone, they should be allowed to keep that money rather than return the difference?

PeacefulWaters

angiepops wrote: »

dunstonh, please could you outline the type of service the Halifax might have provided for the annual fee that Ludmilla58 says she paid for many years?
With direct regard to Ludmilla58's posting: I don't think she was being naive or unrealistic in expecting professionalism and accuracy from the Halifax; and she was entitled to believe that was what the annual fee was for.
Ludmilla58 relied on the expertise of the Halifax and she acted upon that reliance, to her financial detriment. That, in my opinion, is why the Halifax compensated her for the contracts she had entered into in reliance of their mis-statement (not 'for the inconvenience', which is what the £500 offer on the table represents). The Halifax has done only so much as the law would require, should Ludmilla58 have decided to sue for negligent mis-statement as per Hedley Byrne v Heller.
I think the Halifax should give her the whole £8,500: after all, they told her that was the amount she would receive, they endorsed that statement by issuing a cheque for the stated amount, and they only stopped the cheque after Ludmilla58 had paid it into her bank account. But they're more likely to reward the incompetence of their organisation by dishing out bonuses to their executives, I expect.

Welcome to the forum. It's good to have two brand new posters contributing to the same thread.

You do realise the annual fee is somewhere in the region of £12. While there is a duty of care to get basic administration right the fee was to cover little more than the maintenance of a tax free wrapper and the regulatory cost that goes with it.

You would think that an individual would have known something was wrong when they got £8,500 instead of £1,695. Most likely they thought they'd keep quiet and keep their fingers crossed.

There's the FOS and there's the courts still available. I suspect neither would improve the current level of compensation. Indeed, it could be reduced.

If I was in the OP's shoes today I'd be chuffed with the current outcome, take the money and that would be the end of it.

inflationbuster

@Ludmilla58 - How much did you pay in total?

Ludmilla58

Thank you to Peaceful Waters for bringing to my attention some of the do's and don'ts that as a new user to a forum I was unaware of. I would especially like to thank angiepops for the comments and am relieved that at least someone else believes that those that purport to be professionals and for whose services we pay for their 'expertise' should act in a professional manner and accept responsibility for any negligent acts and angiepops clearly has a good knowledge of the law, which unfortunately I do not have. I would also thank dunstonh since even though dusntonh clearly does not agree with my view, has acted in a courteous manner and dealt with the facts objectively. When I posted on the forum I naively believed that anybody that posted a reply would have at least been courteous. Unfortunately certain members have not acted with such courtesy and I do not intend to qualify their poor behaviour any further. Before I retired the shares in question had ranged from as high as £8+ to as low as £1+ . So the original figure which they quoted and for which they sent a cheque (which worked out at about £5+ a share) was well within that range. In hindsight I wish I had sold them when they were £8+ but they were put aside for a 'rainy day'. The 'rainy day' was last May which is why I cashed them in. If I hadn't needed the money they would still be sat in Halifax and I would not have had all the hassle that the whole experience has entailed. They may not be a financial adviser but they were happy to accept my money to act on my behalf in the oversight of the investment I had and in my opinion they were negligent and they admitted they had made an error. Looks like angiepops is right, the money that was allocated to me probably will go on bonuses.

Archi_Bald

Ludmilla58 wrote: »

Looks like angiepops is right, the money that was allocated to me probably will go on bonuses.

Unless you are you now accusing Halifax of theft by not paying you the value the shares were sold at (minus relevant charges), there is no spare money in the first instance. So how could it possibly go towards a bonus?