Leaving H&L without transfer out Fees

dunstonh

The HL unbundled tariff started on 1st March 2014. The closure charge and transfer charge were in that tariff but did not start until 2nd June 2014.

There was a 3 month window to leave without incurring charges from the start of the new tariff. However, the new tariff was published in January 2014. So, it was closer to 5 months for being aware.

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=59557 (note in there the strange ombudsman comment about the DIY service and advice - it indicates a lack of awareness by some ombudsman of the areas they review).

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=44565
http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=82445

There were no complaints recorded as upheld by an ombudsman on this subject (indeed, their stats overall are pretty good. with 30 rejections and 1 upheld covering all areas).

However, my understanding is that in doing so, they could get their complaint thrown out as vexatious without costing the business anything.

The FOS would never treat a complaint about charges as vexatious. Prior to PPi you could count the number of cases treated as vexatious each year on one hand. Since PPI, they have increased the level given the volume of cases Claims companies refer to them where there is no PPI. They eventually took the view that a complaint being referred to the FOS about a PPI sale where no PPI existed should be classed as vexatious. In 2013/14 that accounted for 6% of complaints.

bowlhead99

Gadfium wrote: »

If you really feel that it is unfair, then you should complain to the company involved. If you are not satisfied, then go to the Ombudsman. After all, thats exactly what the service is there for.
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/consumer/complaints.htm

And it's nowhere near to being a criminal offence :mad:

dunstonh wrote: »

You mean blackmail them?

Clearly there was no suggestion that it would be a criminal offence to make a complaint. These days blackmail is not only used to describe the criminal act but also other lesser actions involving putting pressure on someone to do something or else you'll do something which will cost them more or hurt them. Those sorts of actions which may imply dubious moral character sometimes use the term blackmail, e.g. "emotional blackmail" when someone manipulates another's feelings to achieve an objective.

As masonic said, someone aware of the changes who decided to carry on under the new regime might be considered to be on shaky ground morally if they now try to get their way by threatening to take their complaint to the FOS at more cost to the business. The complaint might have had merit a couple of years back but it seems to me that the charge changes become less 'unfair' with each passing day - as they are no longer being imposed on an unknowing audience, but by someone who knows the deal and continues to use the service and the current published terms while it remains convenient for them.

Some people will try their luck knowing it'll cost the business 10x the amount they'd like to claim, in cold hard cash or lost management & administration time, if they do not bend over for the customer's vexatious or frivolous complaint. I don't think it's difficult to characterise that as 'blackmail' even if it does not match the seriousness of the criminal offence with that name.

Arguably when kids in fancy dress come round to your house at Halloween and threaten a 'trick' if you don't provide them with a 'treat', that also has the characteristics of blackmail. Analogies are interesting sometimes.

masonic

dunstonh wrote: »

The HL unbundled tariff started on 1st March 2014. The closure charge and transfer charge were in that tariff but did not start until 2nd June 2014.

There was a 3 month window to leave without incurring charges from the start of the new tariff. However, the new tariff was published in January 2014. So, it was closer to 5 months for being aware.

That is true for the account closure charge and cash transfer charge, but the in specie transfer charge of £25 per holding was introduced prior to the other changes and that was the charge most complained about. There would not have been any upheld FOS complaints relating to this in specie transfer charge because HL decided to waive it or refund it for anyone who got as far as receiving a final response to their formal complaint. However, there were at least a few upheld complaints in relation to other platforms not waiving in specie transfer charges that were levied on customers who exercised their right to dissolve the contract in response to a price change which they did not accept. For example, FOS reference 1398-5749/GS/IV26 (which is not published, but a transcript can be found here). I believe there was at least one other decision relating to YouInvest as well.

The FOS would never treat a complaint about charges as vexatious. Prior to PPi you could count the number of cases treated as vexatious each year on one hand. Since PPI, they have increased the level given the volume of cases Claims companies refer to them where there is no PPI. They eventually took the view that a complaint being referred to the FOS about a PPI sale where no PPI existed should be classed as vexatious. In 2013/14 that accounted for 6% of complaints.

That's interesting, thanks.

naedanger

masonic wrote: »

That is true for the account closure charge and cash transfer charge, but the in specie transfer charge of £25 per holding was introduced prior to the other changes and that was the charge most complained about.

Exactly. The principle of an exit charge is reasonable. However to levy that charge (as HL did) on the customer, when it was the supplier that wished to end the existing arrangement (i.e. on the previously agreed terms), was outrageous. The practice seems so self evidently unfair I am surprised it gets the support it does.

I am far more irritated about the fact that companies get away with such practices (and gain financially as a result) than I am about the occasional vexatious complaint made by a customer (who will waste their time and make no financial gain).

naedanger

bowlhead99 wrote: »

Clearly there was no suggestion that it would be a criminal offence to make a complaint. These days blackmail is not only used to describe the criminal act but also other lesser actions involving putting pressure on someone to do something or else you'll do something which will cost them more or hurt them. Those sorts of actions which may imply dubious moral character sometimes use the term blackmail, e.g. "emotional blackmail" when someone manipulates another's feelings to achieve an objective.

I understand and recognise the meaning of "blackmail" as you used it. However I don't think any sensible large financial company would (or should) yield to such a tactic.

Nor would I suggest that OP complain with that aim, and I would not expect such tactics to work.

My own view is set out in post 9, which is that the OP has a legitimate complaint and should in theory win but may well not do so in practice. Furthermore it will be a lot of effort making such a complaint and the gain, even if he wins, will be small.