Don't use Hargreaves Lansdown

[Deleted User]

Except I cannot pay for advice.
That's the Catch22.

[Deleted User]

Cannot not pay for advice, I meant to write.

That alone skews the advice clients pay for:

JoeCrystal

DairyQueen is not wrong on the status of Hargreaves Lansdown. It is clear that they are not independent and can only supply “restricted advice” service. Their terms and conditions are pretty clear on that.

Interestingly enough, it does have a section on transferring a DB pension which is provided by a Pension Transfer Specialist which I found most surprising! HL is not the first name to come to mind when dealing with advice on transferring DB pension schemes! Here is the information below quoted from Financial Advice: Key facts about our costs and service booklet:

Transferring a Defined Benefit pension
Defined Benefit pension transfer advice is complex and recommendations are provided by a Pension Transfer Specialist. Advice on transferring Defined Benefits Schemes is based on a Specialist Transfer Value Analysis, for which a fixed charge is applied per scheme.

How much does this service cost?
The Specialist Transfer Value Analysis costs £1,250 plus VAT. If you decide to proceed to a recommendation following the analysis. The following charges will apply and are based on the value of the funds being transferred:
• 2% of the first £200,000
• 1% of the balance between £200,000 and £1,000,000
• 0% of the balance over £1,000,000
All the above charges are subject to VAT where applicable.

Anyway, I would not use Hargreaves Lansdown for any financial advice! ZingPowZing, please post the link to the decision eventually; I think it would be an interesting read at least.

AnotherJoe

ZingPowZing wrote: »

Cannot not pay for advice, I meant to write.

That alone skews the advice clients pay for:

Then use the edit button.


Back on topic, I see no general reason in your lengthy rant to not use HL apart possibly from giving advice on DB transfers. What about all the rest of their services ? You didn't mention their top [STRIKE]50[/STRIKE] 49 recommended funds for example



Anyway, one key bit of knowledge you are probably missing that's of key importance to your post, there have already been decisions by the regulator that merely by providing a report, even if it advises against transferring, the advisor has been guilty of aiding a transfer which was not in the best interest of the client, and the advisor has to pay compo ! Yes, Nanny State gone mad, dont blame them blame the FCA. No doubt HL are working to that basis as they do when they annoyingly ask me 20 questions every year. Its all to cover their a***s and again the NS is to blame.

Kentish_Dave

If you’d appreciate the perspective of a professional, this is like complaining to the GMC that your GP refused to write a letter to the surgeon who you’d asked to staple your testicles to the 09:20 departure from King’s cross to York, as he feared that any communication could be seen as tacit acquiescence.

jamesd

ZingPowZing wrote: »

Hargreaves Lansdown wouldn't sign the other's application form, effectively thwarting the process until the deadline ran out.

While my view may change[STRIKE] after reading the report:

1. the law requires proof that advice has been taken
2. you presumably knew this and regardless of what their advice would be knew that the law would be complied with and you could transfer because you'd taken advice
3. Hargreaves Lansdown refused to tell the DB provider that you had taken advice
3b. perhaps as well as not merely signing the form: provider phones them and they say no advice given or don't reply
4. the DB provider presumably refused to accept a copy of the advice and bill for it as proof of advice. The law doesn't require signing a specific form, merely proving advice.

So key issues:

a. did Hargreaves Lansdown clearly and obviously tell you before you engaged them that if their advice was not to transfer they would attempt to prevent the DB scheme from obtaining proof of advice, thereby frustrating a key part of the service you were purchasing?
b. did the receiving scheme refuse to accept the advice and bill for it as proof of advice or did Hargreaves Lansdown block this somehow?

Assuming a they were not clear then my initial thought is that Hargreaves Lansdown should be compelled to pay you redress to put you in the position you would have been in if they had confirmed that you'd taken advice, likely consisting of:
A. the cost of the second advice and
B. investment gains or losses that were missed because of the delay and
C. some amount for inconvenience and distress

In addition:

D. Parliament was clear that getting advice was desired and the government accepted this feedback and modified the proposed legislation to require the scheme with safeguarded benefits to verify that advice had been provided.
D1. As a matter of public policy it is harmful for advice providers to try to circumvent the law by refusing to say that advice has been taken and the Ombudsman should refer Hargreaves Lansdown to the FCA so that enforcement action to compel them to say they provided advice can be taken.

But this is subject to change based on the actual facts and the Ombudsman opinion.

Put simply, you complied with the law and Parliament's intent and Hargreaves Lansdown appears to have improperly blocked you.[/STRIKE]

jamesd

Kentish_Dave wrote: »

If you’d appreciate the perspective of a professional, this is like complaining to the GMC that your GP refused to write a letter to the surgeon who you’d asked to staple your testicles to the 09:20 departure from King’s cross to York, as he feared that any communication could be seen as tacit acquiescence.

Not even remotely close. It's more akin to a doctor with an NHS contract refusing to report a patient having acquired an infection in the practice because doing so might cause them to incur costs.

You've also clearly demonstrated a lack of professionalism by your choice of analogy. It's entirely possible that Hargreaves Lansdown advised against transferring because it exceeded their own risk tolerance even though the customer would be better off. You and I lack the information needed to have a view on whether this transfer was or wasn't likely to benefit ZingPowZing. Neither of us can have a useful opinion on the quality or merits of the advice because we lack the facts needed to form an opinion.

But what currently seems clear is that by refusing to say that they had provided advice, Hargreaves Lansdown acted improperly and must be compelled to act properly in the future.

We also don't know the exact nature of the complaint the Ombudsman ruled on so we don't know what was said about what currently appears to be unambiguously improper conduct. It might not have even reached the actual Ombudsman stage of the FOS process yet.

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

We got as far as a DB transfer here, but OP won’t tell us why?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=76104707

bowlhead99

jamesd wrote: »

But this is subject to changed based on the actual facts and the Ombudsman opinion.

Put simply, you complied with the law and Parliament's intent and Hargreaves Lansdown appears to have improperly blocked you.

jamesd wrote: »

We also don't know the exact nature of the complaint the Ombudsman ruled on so we don't know what was said about what currently appears to be unambiguously improper conduct. It might not have even reached the actual Ombudsman stage of the FOS process yet.

JoeCrystal highlighted HL's service offering in post #15, which is a two stage process.

Firstly for £1250+vat (which is a flat fee for any size of pot and a lot lower than what IFAs typically charge for DB pension transfer advice, from anecdotes on this forum) they will conduct a Transfer Value Analysis. This is presumably the report described by FCA in the 2018 COBS update for pension transfers as a "Transfer Value Comparator" - which indicates the value of the benefits that would be given up (what it would cost to replace them).

Then having created that report (which would be a mandatory precursor to actually giving advice, and which FCA say should form part of the overall advice/recommendation eventually given), if you decide to proceed to a recommendation having seen the analysis, they can go on to sell you proper advice / recommendation and implement it for you. The cost of doing that is on a percentage of assets basis. So a (say) £500k pot would cost £7k for a recommendation having paid the token £1.25k+ VAT for initial value analysis.

They will need to be paid the £1.25k whether or not the pension transfer appears to be 'good value'.

It's not clear from the OP whether, after they conducted the flat-fee value analysis (e.g., you have a CETV offer of £500k but it would cost £700k to obtain a comparable level of income from an insurer), what happened next.

Was he told that they didn't want to sell him a 'recommendation' for £7k on whether to transfer and how to invest the £500k, because their recommendation might be: don't do it at all? So he is out £1.25k and needs to engage a different adviser if he wants to be able to tell a receiving scheme that he's been advised on the transfer: because all he knows so far is a likely real-world cost of replacing the benefits, compared to the CETV offered - and has not actually been formally advised how best to go forward with a transfer?

Or, perhaps the OP decided that he should proceed to the recommendation stage because he really wanted to do the transfer come what may, and he needed that 'regulated advice / recommendation' to be able to move his money to HL or to anywhere else, so he paid them the £7k for a full recommendation [for a £500k pot, just my example figures], and the recommendation was don't do it.

If it's the latter case, I can see Jamesd's point that: advice has been received and the receiving scheme should be able to review the reports and the invoice for the advice service and determine for themselves that advice has been received in relation to transferring out of this specific scheme. For their risk management/ internal control procedures, they also have to verify that advice was provided (i.e. there is a risk that OP faked the report to save himself some cash) - in which case they should be able to verify with HL that the advice did take place, otherwise HL are deliberately obstructing the aims of the legislation.

However, if it's the former case, and advice has not actually been provided because either (a) HL declined to provide the advice / recommendation service after they had already shown through the TVC report that the CETV was worse than the guaranteed benefits ; or (b) the client did not want to "proceed to a recommendation" for £7k knowing it was likely to be negative, instead hoping his initial £1.25k spend was enough to qualify for a transfer with someone else; then HL should not need to tell the receiving scheme that they advised him on the transfer, as all they did was produce a value analysis report.

I will admit to not having read all the primary legislation on what exactly constitutes the required level of 'advice' for a transfer. Perhaps the published FOS decision will shed more light on the facts, circumstances and reasoning.

GDB2222

If the OP paid for a full advice service, I think it's inherent that that requires confirmation to the DB scheme.