Don't use Hargreaves Lansdown

[Deleted User]

No, when I found an alternative provider, I already had HLs declaration.

The issue for any potential DB pension transfer through Hargreaves Lansdown is that they will not sign the application form of an alternative provider chosen by their client. It is highly unlikely that an alternative provider will facilitate such a transfer with a blank box where the financial adviser's declaration should be. Thus, the insistent client is unable to exercise her prerogative and transfer against their advice. Such was my experience.

Anyone considering a DB transfer via HL should be aware of this catch.

xylophone

I'm loathed

Oh, surely not!:)

bowlhead99

SonOf wrote: »

It is because you wanted them to do something that they are not able to do. HL also said they would sign the form once you have found a provider that will accept the transfer and paid their fee.

This is not an HL issue. Going by the FOS response, HL were willing to sign the declaration once you found your chosen pension provider.

I think this is missing the nuance of the complaint, which ZPZ explains below. It seems to be that they *would* produce a confirmation that they had provided the advice, and FOS says they did provide it. What they wouldn't do is 'sign the form' provided by the new provider:

ZingPowZing wrote: »

No, when I found an alternative provider, I already had HLs declaration.

The issue for any potential DB pension transfer through Hargreaves Lansdown is that they will not sign the application form of an alternative provider chosen by their client. It is highly unlikely that an alternative provider will facilitate such a transfer with a blank box where the financial adviser's declaration should be. Thus, the insistent client is unable to exercise her prerogative and transfer against their advice. Such was my experience.

The 'trap' which ZPZ doesn't want others to fall into is:

- HL will review your fund and give their advice on the options

- For an extra fee, HL will implement the plan using their own products, if the outcome is positive.

- HL will also confirm that they have provided advice. They do this by issuing a written declaration, which is all they need to do. As per the FOS link, they did it on 13 April: "Hargreaves Lansdown did provide Mr W with a declaration confirming that it had provided independent advice".

- That confirmation that they have provided the advice *should* be enough for a receiving scheme to process a transfer, if they want the business; it is a regulatory requirement that the receiving scheme is satisfied that advice has been given (even if it is negative).


What ZPZ has discovered, which is where his idea of a 'trap' comes in, is that receiving schemes do not want to take risks in these matters and will have their own standardised compliance processes which the frontline staff of the receiving schemes do not want to overrule (more than my job's worth).

In the case of the particular receiving scheme, the scheme said that Mr W would need to fill out a form or some package of application or transfer documentation, and some part of that form or package had a declaration (printed by the receiving firm) which HL would need to sign so that the receiving firm would know that HL provided the advice.

HL had already provided a suitable statement which would allow the receiving firm to conclude that advice had been provided:"Hargreaves Lansdown did provide Mr W with a declaration". So from their end, the requirement was met.

Unfortunately for Mr W, HL did not want to go a step further and sign another form in the format requested by the receiving scheme. They were under no obligation to assist Mr W making a transfer against their advice, whether that was by identifying or recommending a receiving scheme, or by helping to complete the documentation of the receiving scheme. They provided a confirmation that suitable advice had been provided, and all Mr W needed to do was to identify a scheme who would take that confirmation that suitable advice had been provided, and proceed with the transfer.

But Mr W selected a receiving scheme who - when concluding whether or not Mr W had been advised on the transfer - didn't want to mess around with standalone 'declaration of advice' documents from HL, as had been provided to Mr W. They wanted to have HL sign an integrated 'I provided advice to Mr W' section within their application form, because that's what they like to receive.

HL didn't need to do that. And the receiving scheme didn't need to demand that, because the Declaration of Advice, produced by HL, was surely evidence that the requirement for Mr W to receive advice on the suitability of the transfer had been met.

So really the crux of the whole complaint is that the staff at the receiving scheme chose not to proceed with the transfer without HL signing further documentation to supplement the standard declaration of advice already provided. Faced with that issue, Mr W could have either escalated the problem (of the receiving scheme not accepting a valid Declaration) to more senior ranking compliance staff at the receiving scheme, or sought a different receiving scheme.

Instead, he decided to pursue HL with a complaint that they would not sign some other scheme's form. The complaint against HL failed because they had acted correctly. They advised against the transfer and they do not need to find and select a receiving scheme, or fill out any receiving scheme's paperwork. They were paid to provide advice, and they made a declaration saying they had provided it, and the FOS was happy with those actions.

As an alternative to getting the receiving scheme to accept the HL Declaration of Advice, or finding a different receiving scheme, Mr W decided to find a different adviser who would sign the receiving scheme's proprietary forms, so he got there in the end and is now angry with HL.

But the fact that Mr W chose that course of action to move forward with his problem doesn't mean HL are the issue. The receiving scheme that he selected, and their intransigence (lack of flexibility / jobsworth customer service function) is the issue.

So from the above, I do agree that there is some sort of trap for the unwary. HL will provide advice and confirmation of advice. But won't find you a scheme to take your money against advice, and will not fill out the in-house forms of the scheme that you've got lined up to take the money. If you want to use HL for the advice and then proceed regardless, *you* have to identify for yourself a scheme that will

i) take your money without positive advice ;and
ii) will accept an HL-produced Declaration of Advice as evidence that you received advice, without demanding that HL fill out a special box on a form.

The regulations do not say HL must fill out forms, the regulations say that the receiving scheme must be satisfied that the person received suitable advice in relation to the transfer. If HL provide a Declaration of Advice and the receiving scheme says [whiny voice] "but I don't know if I believe that piece of paper, you must go and get your adviser to fill out my special form", that is not HL's fault. Pick a different receiving scheme.

xylophone

The issue for any potential DB pension transfer through Hargreaves Lansdown is that they will not sign the application form of an alternative provider chosen by their client. It is highly unlikely that an alternative provider will facilitate such a transfer with a blank box where the financial adviser's declaration should be. Thus, the insistent client is unable to exercise her prerogative and transfer against their advice. Such was my experience.

Anyone considering a DB transfer via HL should be aware of this catch.

The HL PTS had both given the advice/recommendation in writing and signed the necessary declaration - he just wouldn't sign your chosen provider's form.

Since you had the documents above (which proved you had taken the necessary advice), why was a signature on the form necessary?

xylophone

Above post crossed with bowlhead's while I was reading back through the thread.

And he has correctly identified the issue - I had originally said that the OP needed to have ascertained that regardless of whether the advice was positive or negative, the HL PTS would sign the necessary declaration - it seems I should have added "in the form prescribed by the chosen provider"!

Why does the attitude of both make me want to knock their heads together?:)

[Deleted User]

-" They wanted to have HL sign an integrated 'I provided advice to Mr W' section within their application form, because that's what they like to receive. HL didn't need to do that."

bowlhead is correct: HL refused to sign a declaration stating that they had provided me with financial advice after they had provided me with financial advice because they didn't have to; they are entitled to be disobliging, and have the Financial Ombudsman to back them up.

Hargreaves Lansdown were not asked to complete, arrange, facilitate or endorse the transfer; they had only to vouch that they had provided financial advice. But as bowlhead says, they didn't need to do that. They wouldn't even communicate with Xafinity.

No blame at all is attached to the alternative chosen provider: their compliance team quite rightly baulked at the idea of facilitating a transfer on uncompleted paperwork. Following on, I tried
EBS
Intelligent Money
James Hay
Old Mutual Wealth
AJ Bell
Curtis Banks


In addition, I took advice from:

Pension Advisory Service
FCA
Rowan Dartington
Which? Helpline
and an IFA with experience of transferring from my DB scheme.

I have read since that AJ Bell are willing to accept a transfer on HLs terms - that is, without confirmation from an adviser on their paperwork. But all the above told me at the time that I would not be able to transfer in such circumstances.

[Deleted User]

bowlhead99 wrote: »

I think .. Pick a different receiving scheme.

Excellent advice for HL insistent clients ending up in the same position.

Who?

bowlhead99

ZingPowZing wrote: »

-" They wanted to have HL sign an integrated 'I provided advice to Mr W' section within their application form, because that's what they like to receive. HL didn't need to do that."

bowlhead is correct: HL refused to sign a declaration stating that they had provided me with financial advice after they had provided me with financial advice because they didn't have to; they are entitled to be disobliging, and have the Financial Ombudsman to back them up.

It seems like you are painting HL as bad guys here because they 'refused to sign a declaration stating they had provided me with financial advice'... which sounds terrible, implying that they provided advice, charged a fee, and then wouldn't admit to it.

Whereas, actually, according to both you and the FOS, HL did indeed provide 'a declaration stating that they had provided you with financial advice'.

The FOS are backing them up because they provided a perfectly valid declaration, as they were required to do.

You chose to use a receiving firm that did not want to read the declaration prepared by HL stating that they had provided you with financial advice, and demanded that they instead signed some other declaration stating that they had provided you with financial advice. This is a problem with your receiving firm being inflexible due to that receiving firm's policy, which is not accommodating to prospective customers, instead erring on the side of caution - a preference to turn away business in certain circumstances rather than embracing it.

Hargreaves Lansdown were not asked to complete, arrange, facilitate or endorse the transfer; they had only to vouch that they had provided financial advice. But as bowlhead says, they didn't need to do that. They wouldn't even communicate with Xafinity.

They would have 'facilitated the transfer' if they had communicated with Xafinity and signed Xafinity's form, and they didn't want to do that, because they didn't want to help you doing something which they had advised against, and nobody had a gun to their head, so they are entitled not to do it.

They did provide you with a Declaration of Advice which demonstrated and declared that they had advised you in relation to the transfer. You were unable to convince Xafinity to accept it. You think it is HL's fault that Xafinity don't want to read and accept the document that HL prepared. But Xafinity's procedures can't possibly be the fault of HL.

No blame at all is attached to the alternative chosen provider: their compliance team quite rightly baulked at the idea of facilitating a transfer on uncompleted paperwork.

Their compliance team had developed an internal requirement to collect documentation in a certain manner. This is because they wanted to come up with a one size fits all solution for ensuring that customers had received the requisite advice in a way that caused minimum cost and effort on Xafinity's part. It is driven by the fact that Xafinity don't want to employ people to examine documents produced by third parties and exert judgement, because it is more effort for them to do that. Instead they want a dumb checkbox solution for their frontline staff to be able to look at with minimum pay and training and not need to escalate anything for management to consider on a case by case basis.

That is what you get with a cheap service, such as the one you selected from Xafinity. Though their service is inadequate (it is quicker for them to reject you as a customer rather than give you good customer service and seek a sensible way to get comfortable with accepting you as a customer), you don't blame them for their lack of service. You decided that you should not blame that service provider at all for wanting to use a dumb checklist instead of reading the documentation prepared by HL, so you will not 'attach any blame at all' to Xafinity.

It seems to me a bit shortsighted to say that despite HL providing you with advice and a declaration that they had provided it, you won't apportion any blame to Xafinity for refusing to accept the declaration and you will instead apportion 100% of the blame to HL for not signing a second declaration. I agree with FOS that HL are not to blame, as they provided you with the declaration evidencing that you had received advice (even before you had settled their invoice).

The fact that your chosen scheme did not want that declaration and sought some other declaration instead, because that's what they prefer to do, is a product of your chosen scheme offering a cheap and inflexible approach to taking on this kind of business. Some providers don't offer it at all. So, I can understand their business model.

But basically the fact you then had to go and buy advice and a signature from another adviser in order to proceed with your transfer to Xafinity is either your fault for wanting to go with Xafinity despite their policies or Xafinity's fault for setting their policies. It's not HL's fault that you persisted with Xafinity. You told Xafinity that you had a declaration that HL gave you advice, and offered to provide it to Xafinity, but Xafinity said "na na na I'm not listening, get me a different declaration or go away".

"No blame at all is attached to the chosen provider" ? That's your prerogative to attach it to HL. But as an impartial observer, this thread could easily be called 'Don't use Xafinity or you might have to get advice twice because they are inflexible on the exact form of advice declaration they will accept'.

Following on, I tried
EBS
Intelligent Money
James Hay
Old Mutual Wealth
AJ Bell
Curtis Banks


In addition, I took advice from:

Pension Advisory Service
FCA
Rowan Dartington
Which? Helpline
and an IFA with experience of transferring from my DB scheme.

I have read since that AJ Bell are willing to accept a transfer on HLs terms - that is, without confirmation from an adviser on their paperwork. But all the above told me at the time that I would not be able to transfer in such circumstances.

I can't speak for any of the pension firms, though I know anecdotally most don't have much flexibility around taking on business which involves DB transfers against advice, due to potential future liability coming back to bite them somehow. So shopping around to do a transaction that most in the industry do not want to touch, is always going to be an annoying and time-consuming process involving lots of legwork.

I am not sure what 'advice' you got from the FCA as you wouldn't expect them to recommend individual firms, merely tell you the rules. I'd be surprised that the FCA would have given you advice that said an advisor needs to fill in a receiving scheme's form, because their own regulations don't suggest that at all, and the FOS were happy with HL's behaviour.

ZingPowZing wrote: »

bowlhead99 wrote:

...pick a different scheme

Excellent advice for HL insistent clients ending up in the same position.

Who?

I have no idea, as I don't have a DB scheme nor want to carry out a transfer against advice.

xylophone

We don't know whether or not the HL position is the standard position or the position that is taken by some or most advisers?

And this means that anybody seeking a transfer out needs to ask the adviser before engaging him whether he will provide the required declaration to the ceding and receiving schemes in the manner that those schemes prescribe.

[Deleted User]

Sorry bowlhead, I read your post but missed the bit where the layman finds a provider who will accept a transfer on HLs terms by contacting..who did you recommend?