HL Active Savings to get a competitor

firestone

masonic said:

firestone said:

masonic said:

firestone said:

masonic said:

firestone said:

masonic said:

Why would they get an adviser involved in the sale unless they were pushing products for which it was a regulatory requirement? If you are investing under advice, then you should automatically assume there is risk involved. Too many times people have started threads asking about savings accounts they've invested in that have turned out not to be savings accounts.

Guess its their business plan as an article from last year on the FT site mentions it so its not like its hidden and  they also mention charities as another subset but its certainly a savings account.To be fair having mentioned them i was just replying to the use of the word dodgy which to me seems the same or One step removed from calling it a con/scam which seems wrong for this product but accept others may disagree but not sure why
Why they work the way they do i have no knowledge but the same partner Bank and BS that work with HL seem to have been happy working with them as well for a longer time without seeing any problem with how the product is offered or anything wrong (i assume the banks did some DD)
Guessing they do not need my help so i will stop before someone says i am a rep

It's the act of enticing people in with a juicy savings account and then foisting an advisor onto them that's being described as dodgy. Dodgy as in dishonest, and dodgy as in of low quality. People who need financial advice should find an IFA. To be clear I've no issue with the part of the service that can be used without committing to speak to one of their advisers. But then again, why should those sensible customers who just want a savings account be denied the best rates?

Have not seen the act of enticing people in with a juicy rate and foisting an adviser onto them and my wife has never been approached about it so i could call your interpretation as dodgy,but that is your right.

I'm going on information posted to this thread by others. If that information is shown to be incorrect (that you must agree to speak to one of their advisers to get access to the best savings accounts) I would change my opinion, but I can only reassure you that I am being completely candid about my views about what has been written about Octopus in this thread and not in the least bit dodgy.

firestone said:

They do offer different terms to another part of the market but not rates as far as i know.But Banks and even NS&I etc offer different rates/terms based on amounts of money or maturing funds its all just a business decision the same as Octopus have made

Once again, I have no issue with any organisation offering a range of different products with different terms or tiered interest rates. To quote my earlier post "It's the act of enticing people in with a juicy savings account and then foisting an advisor onto them that's being described as dodgy. Dodgy as in dishonest, and dodgy as in of low quality. People who need financial advice should find an IFA."

firestone said:

You call it dishonest but the likes of Metro,Shawbrook and Close Brothers etc do not seem to agree  so guess we should agree not to agree

Where have Metro, Shawbrook and Close Brothers endorsed the practice of pushing customers into speaking to a financial adviser when all they want is a savings account? Or are you saying those organisations won't let you open a savings account with them unless you agree to speak to their chosen financial adviser either?

They do not say you have to speak to an adviser or be enticed in only that they seem to offer a couple of different terms if you adviser is One they use - that hardly seems dishonest and they seem quite happy for the likes of FT & Money Observer mention it

Ok, so they are not offering these other savings products at all to retail customers? Only those who have a pre-existing advisory relationship? So people who do not already have a qualifying adviser cannot see these products at all?

firestone said:

I was not saying the partner banks have endorsed the practice of pushing customers onto an adviser via Octopus (seems to be what somebody on here believes?) only that them partner Banks and BS have after checking out their business plan were happy to proceed with them

If a company approaches a savings provider and says 'we'd like to market one of your accounts to our customer base' it would be evaluated in terms of profitability first and foremost. So it would be best to simply deduce that the savings provider believed it could get sufficient new business to justify the integration.

To be fair if a couple of people said they did not like the product or web site etc i would not even have replied as its a fair point to make but words like dodgy or dishonest did not seem right but Que Sera.
Having used the product for a cashback deal at the start and moved on i have no real thought either way on how they operate but the fact they offer 1 year term in One product and 18/24 months in another does not seem dishonest and is in fact the reason i moved on but i did not think it dodgy just a fact of how they work  

masonic

firestone said:

masonic said:

firestone said:

masonic said:

firestone said:

masonic said:

firestone said:

masonic said:

Why would they get an adviser involved in the sale unless they were pushing products for which it was a regulatory requirement? If you are investing under advice, then you should automatically assume there is risk involved. Too many times people have started threads asking about savings accounts they've invested in that have turned out not to be savings accounts.

Guess its their business plan as an article from last year on the FT site mentions it so its not like its hidden and  they also mention charities as another subset but its certainly a savings account.To be fair having mentioned them i was just replying to the use of the word dodgy which to me seems the same or One step removed from calling it a con/scam which seems wrong for this product but accept others may disagree but not sure why
Why they work the way they do i have no knowledge but the same partner Bank and BS that work with HL seem to have been happy working with them as well for a longer time without seeing any problem with how the product is offered or anything wrong (i assume the banks did some DD)
Guessing they do not need my help so i will stop before someone says i am a rep

It's the act of enticing people in with a juicy savings account and then foisting an advisor onto them that's being described as dodgy. Dodgy as in dishonest, and dodgy as in of low quality. People who need financial advice should find an IFA. To be clear I've no issue with the part of the service that can be used without committing to speak to one of their advisers. But then again, why should those sensible customers who just want a savings account be denied the best rates?

Have not seen the act of enticing people in with a juicy rate and foisting an adviser onto them and my wife has never been approached about it so i could call your interpretation as dodgy,but that is your right.

I'm going on information posted to this thread by others. If that information is shown to be incorrect (that you must agree to speak to one of their advisers to get access to the best savings accounts) I would change my opinion, but I can only reassure you that I am being completely candid about my views about what has been written about Octopus in this thread and not in the least bit dodgy.

firestone said:

They do offer different terms to another part of the market but not rates as far as i know.But Banks and even NS&I etc offer different rates/terms based on amounts of money or maturing funds its all just a business decision the same as Octopus have made

Once again, I have no issue with any organisation offering a range of different products with different terms or tiered interest rates. To quote my earlier post "It's the act of enticing people in with a juicy savings account and then foisting an advisor onto them that's being described as dodgy. Dodgy as in dishonest, and dodgy as in of low quality. People who need financial advice should find an IFA."

firestone said:

You call it dishonest but the likes of Metro,Shawbrook and Close Brothers etc do not seem to agree  so guess we should agree not to agree

Where have Metro, Shawbrook and Close Brothers endorsed the practice of pushing customers into speaking to a financial adviser when all they want is a savings account? Or are you saying those organisations won't let you open a savings account with them unless you agree to speak to their chosen financial adviser either?

They do not say you have to speak to an adviser or be enticed in only that they seem to offer a couple of different terms if you adviser is One they use - that hardly seems dishonest and they seem quite happy for the likes of FT & Money Observer mention it

Ok, so they are not offering these other savings products at all to retail customers? Only those who have a pre-existing advisory relationship? So people who do not already have a qualifying adviser cannot see these products at all?

firestone said:

I was not saying the partner banks have endorsed the practice of pushing customers onto an adviser via Octopus (seems to be what somebody on here believes?) only that them partner Banks and BS have after checking out their business plan were happy to proceed with them

If a company approaches a savings provider and says 'we'd like to market one of your accounts to our customer base' it would be evaluated in terms of profitability first and foremost. So it would be best to simply deduce that the savings provider believed it could get sufficient new business to justify the integration.

To be fair if a couple of people said they did not like the product or web site etc i would not even have replied as its a fair point to make but words like dodgy or dishonest did not seem right but Que Sera.
Having used the product for a cashback deal at the start and moved on i have no real thought either way on how they operate but the fact they offer 1 year term in One product and 18/24 months in another does not seem dishonest and is in fact the reason i moved on but i did not think it dodgy just a fact of how they work  

I think I've been very clear why I used the terms 'dodgy' and 'dishonest' in this thread. In my last post I asked 3 questions to clarify if the dodgy and dishonest practice I objected to was actually going on at Octopus. You've not answered any of them. 'I don't know' would be a perfectly acceptable answer.

So, one last time, I think the labels dodgy and dishonest are absolutely justifiable if either of the following is true:

• Octopus is offering these products to retail savers without a pre-existing relationship with an adviser, on the condition that they sign up with a qualifying adviser
• These products are visible to retail savers without a pre-existing relationship with an adviser, but there is no online route to apply (i.e. they are advertised to generate leads for the advisory service through customer services)

I'm sure you can agree, those practices are dodgy if Octopus is engaged in them.

As I have said, I believe I have been very clear, and no reasonable person could misunderstand the points I have made. Further attempts to respond to my posts while not addressing the contents of my posts will be interpreted as deliberate misrepresentation and misdirection.

firestone

Not sure why i would need to use deliberate misdirection and i have answered how i see fit and based on what i know from using them once before.But i can only answer on what i can see from the website which is also there for you to look at.If you have decided it is dishonest then that is perfectly your right and i would guess however i answer you will not change your mind but that is fair as you have not changed mine
They have a savers link with 2 fixed term products and no mention of advisers or mention the need to get One
They have an advisers link which is for advisers only to join with a fixed fee if required and extra fixed term products and what type of client they have in mind charity,company & trust etc
They also have a business account with an extra 3 month account (so maybe the advisers should complain that is dodgy?)
I can see no mention or intent of pushing people to an adviser but i can have no way of knowing if it happens but the fact they offer different term lengths does not seem dishonest and for the One year in both markets they offer the same 0.75% so no gain in going through a different route
As also mentioned in an earlier post my wife rung on maturity of a bond to ask if they planned on offering an ISA or longer term and they answered they had a longer term bond and would send the link for T&Cs
no subterfuge or mention of going through an adviser (but that was 18 months ago so not sure of the practice now) 
Sorry if the answers are not in the format you want but i am now off to read Monevator and go for a walk in the rain

bowlhead99

masonic said:
I think I've been very clear why I used the terms 'dodgy' and 'dishonest' in this thread. In my last post I asked 3 questions to clarify if the dodgy and dishonest practice I objected to was actually going on at Octopus. You've not answered any of them. 'I don't know' would be a perfectly acceptable answer.

To be fair, he is talking about an account his wife opened a couple of years ago and what they did at launch, and likely doesn't have the inside scoop on exactly what is available to current new customers; his wife is using a fixed product; in replying to your post he mentioned that 'i have no real thought either way on how they operate' and that if people had simply said they didn't like the product he wouldn't have even commented further, but just that they don't seem like a dodgy or not-honest operation.

He's not beholden to you for your 3 questions, so the idea that if someone adds comments to the thread to continue to share aspects of their experience without specifically answering your questions to which they may not know the answer, you will interpret their replies as "deliberate misrepresentation and misdirection" seems like you have got out of bed the wrong side this morning.

I think the labels dodgy and dishonest are absolutely justifiable if either of the following is true:
- Octopus is offering these products to retail savers without a pre-existing relationship with an adviser, on the condition that they sign up with a qualifying adviser
- These products are visible to retail savers without a pre-existing relationship with an adviser, but there is no online route to apply (i.e. they are advertised to generate leads for the advisory service through customer services)
I'm sure you can agree, those practices are dodgy if Octopus is engaged in them.

I don't have the details of Octopus's operation to say if either are true. However, I doubt that they are advertising a savings rate to you and then saying you can only have it by buying an advised service. The way the Octopus cash works is that you open the account by saying how much you are putting in and what term, and they allocate your money across the best-paying partner accounts for the fixed term you want, making use of your FSCS capacity at each bank or building society (i.e. first 85k in the highest paying one, next 85k in next best, remainder in the next) and then when it comes to maturity they will again select the best underlying partner bank for the same term and ask you if you want to renew it, and give the option of another term if you want a different one instead. You can tell them if you already have balances at some of their banking partners so that they can avoid going over your FSCS threshold as they allocate out your deposit. Maybe there is some underlying banking partner who only wants money that's come from advised clients, thereby restricting the options for customers who aren't advised, though I doubt it.

Various other financial firms quite legitimately have some products that are not offered to all customers so that they can have some exclusivity. I have a normal boring citibank account but maybe if I were willing to put £150k of investments with them and get my own relationship manager through citigold there would be a better deposit account - likewise if I went with Barclays Wealth whose advisers are qualified to talk about all sorts of stuff, vs normal basic Barclays customer service staff who aren't. At Lloyds as a relatively higher income customer I've periodically been invited to have a 'service review' with the CRM, though I know this will consist of them trying to find out more about me and if there are other things they can offer me that I might be interested in (i.e. is a sales practice), even though it's ostensibly to find out if they are doing a good job and whether there are things that are useful to me that I was unaware of - hoping for me to think it good customer service for a highly valued customer, rather than a sales meeting).

Certainly it's not beyond the realms of possibility that a customer service person would say in answering a question about what accounts were available, 'if you're looking to go off-menu from the standard options I listed, let me introduce you to our adviser' and the adviser really means internal sales person who can promote other suitable products as well as some cash accounts of alternate maturities.  Particularly in the early stages of Octopus Cash they were adding new partners all the time (e.g. at launch they had 3 banks doing the one year term, couple of years later it was 6, they now have 10+ partners but they won't all offer all the different maturities. So feasibly when this was a newish product in 2018 when his wife was opening an account, an 'advisor' might know they were just launching an 18 month account term but only the 1 and 2 year options are on the online form yet so you need a paper form  -  oh and as you are depositing £200k with us are you the kind of person who could make use of an IHT ISA?

I expect it would be the last part of that sentence you'd object to, but have no idea if that sort of fishing expedition really happens. They do have a 'cash hub' portal product for advisers and intermediaries to manage their client accounts, and maybe that gives access or ability to sign up clients for fixed deposit lengths that are only available to 'existing customers' (e.g. a 3 year term offered to someone with a maturing deposit) rather than what is available for new customer signups (6,12,18,24 months or the two rolling notice-period options). 

FWIW, to me Octopus as an organisation do not come across as a 'dodgy' home for your money. Aside from this cash product they have a variety of other things under the brand, such as VCTs with some unique structures, niche ISAs, a couple of OEICs, p2p property, and a very big institutional side where they manage billions in the real estate and venture space. So, they are trusted by institutions and intermediaries, which is why they and happy customers would perhaps raise eyebrows if people say they sound 'dodgy' or 'dishonest'. But I do understand that what you're getting at is that it sounds like an aggressive sales tactic rather than an illegitimate firm. Even if true (which it may not be) - that wouldn't bother me one jot, if the product is decent.

Back on thread topic, I'm a customer of AJ Bell Youinvest for investment accounts and will watch what they do here with interest (excuse the pun). Not that I have a lot of cash sitting around, but my pensioner parents have investment ISAs and some surplus cash and it would be convenient to just be able to have that all set up under the one account view - Youinvest does allow 'family' view or trade execution rights from one account to another after you fill in the permission form, but I don't know if they intend to offer the cash product under the same part of the account view or as a separate module.

masonic

firestone said:

Not sure why i would need to use deliberate misdirection and i have answered how i see fit and based on what i know from using them once before.

I'll take that to mean that you don't know whether or not they use the dodgy practices I have described. I just wanted a straight answer to my questions. I asked you because I thought you knew or still had access to their platform, and you declined to inform me you did not.

firestone said:

But i can only answer on what i can see from the website which is also there for you to look at.

The information is not available on their website, it is hidden from those who are not already customers. Until a current customer comes along, all we have to go on is what you have stated about their practices. What you have stated is indicative of Octopus engaging in these dodgy practices. It is right that forum members should be warned this may be the case. If more information comes to light, it may be possible to state categorically whether Octopus is engaged in these dodgy practices.

firestone said:

If you have decided it is dishonest then that is perfectly your right and i would guess however i answer you will not change your mind but that is fair as you have not changed mine

I have decided that these practices are dishonest; I have not made my mind up about whether Octopus is engaged in them. I'm disappointed that you don't agree with me that enticing people with a juicy savings account and then foisting an advisor onto them would constitute a dodgy practice. My objective is not to change your mind, it is to warn others to potentially save them from an unpleasant experience I have suffered in the past.

firestone said:

They have a savers link with 2 fixed term products and no mention of advisers or mention the need to get One
They have an advisers link which is for advisers only to join with a fixed fee if required and extra fixed term products and what type of client they have in mind charity,company & trust etc
They also have a business account with an extra 3 month account (so maybe the advisers should complain that is dodgy?)

No, the advisors should not complain unless they are offered an equivalent product in exchange for doing something financially stupid. That would be analogous to the scenario we are discussing.

firestone said:

I can see no mention or intent of pushing people to an adviser but i can have no way of knowing if it happens but the fact they offer different term lengths does not seem dishonest and for the One year in both markets they offer the same 0.75% so no gain in going through a different route

I have already stated I agree with the highlighted part. It is only the potential pushing of people to an adviser that I have taken issue with, not the existence of different products for different categories of consumers. It is only dishonest if the savers who do not qualify for the product can access it by doing something financially stupid, such as engaging with a tied adviser vs seeking independent financial advice.

firestone said:

As also mentioned in an earlier post my wife rung on maturity of a bond to ask if they planned on offering an ISA or longer term and they answered they had a longer term bond and would send the link for T&Cs
no subterfuge or mention of going through an adviser (but that was 18 months ago so not sure of the practice now) 
Sorry if the answers are not in the format you want but i am now off to read Monevator and go for a walk in the rain

That's good news, but I'll suspend judgement until more information comes to light. Enjoy your walk.

masonic

bowlhead99 said:

masonic said:
I think I've been very clear why I used the terms 'dodgy' and 'dishonest' in this thread. In my last post I asked 3 questions to clarify if the dodgy and dishonest practice I objected to was actually going on at Octopus. You've not answered any of them. 'I don't know' would be a perfectly acceptable answer.

To be fair, he is talking about an account his wife opened a couple of years ago and what they did at launch, and likely doesn't have the inside scoop on exactly what is available to current new customers; his wife is using a fixed product; in replying to your post he mentioned that 'i have no real thought either way on how they operate' and that if people had simply said they didn't like the product he wouldn't have even commented further, but just that they don't seem like a dodgy or not-honest operation.

He's not beholden to you for your 3 questions, so the idea that if someone adds comments to the thread to continue to share aspects of their experience without specifically answering your questions to which they may not know the answer, you will interpret their replies as "deliberate misrepresentation and misdirection" seems like you have got out of bed the wrong side this morning.

What I was getting annoyed with was the misrepresentation of the point I was making in order to chastise me for a point I was not making. Over successive posts I refined and clarified my point to the degree that I did not believe it could be reasonably misunderstood and simply drew a line beyond which I could not accept further such misrepresentations as being honest misunderstanding. Perhaps you are correct that I don't have the patience for saying the same things over and over again in a thread today.

bowlhead99 said:

Certainly it's not beyond the realms of possibility that a customer service person would say in answering a question about what accounts were available, 'if you're looking to go off-menu from the standard options I listed, let me introduce you to our adviser' and the adviser really means internal sales person who can promote other suitable products as well as some cash accounts of alternate maturities.  Particularly in the early stages of Octopus Cash they were adding new partners all the time (e.g. at launch they had 3 banks doing the one year term, couple of years later it was 6, they now have 10+ partners but they won't all offer all the different maturities. So feasibly when this was a newish product in 2018 when his wife was opening an account, an 'advisor' might know they were just launching an 18 month account term but only the 1 and 2 year options are on the online form yet so you need a paper form  -  oh and as you are depositing £200k with us are you the kind of person who could make use of an IHT ISA?

I expect it would be the last part of that sentence you'd object to, but have no idea if that sort of fishing expedition really happens. They do have a 'cash hub' portal product for advisers and intermediaries to manage their client accounts, and maybe that gives access or ability to sign up clients for fixed deposit lengths that are only available to 'existing customers' (e.g. a 3 year term offered to someone with a maturing deposit) rather than what is available for new customer signups (6,12,18,24 months or the two rolling notice-period options).

Yes, my objection is along those lines. Some years ago I decided to open a cash ISA in branch in a certain building society. When they started checking over and processing my application, I was ushered into a side room to speak with an adviser, who then launched into pressure-selling me a guaranteed equity bond. It was framed as part of the process. I knew enough to see straight away this was a poor product with limited upside and a fair risk of just returning capital at the end of the term. I knew I didn't want it, but it was quite an ordeal to convince them they were wasting their time with me. They had an answer for everything. It is that sort of thing I find objectionable, and I've seen enough threads over the years from people who have taken out poor value products sold to them by so-called advisers to speak out against such practices at every opportunity.

firestone

Sorry that you had a bad experience before and assume it was with somebody else? if you are disappointed that i don't agree that they are offering a juicy savings account(both accounts pay the same) and foisting an adviser on them its because i don't believe that's whats happening and clicking the adviser link on the home page would back that up to me and is free and able to look at before joining or login 
I would agree with you if they forced or soft pushed the adviser they use to only recommend One of their VCT or mortgages as then yes that would be wrong but again i don't think its happening(and i assume would make them a tied adviser) but like you i have made a judgement One way and you have gone another
It could an adviser is offering One of their savings bonds and also maybe a fund from another provider who knows but its certainly possible and earn a commission in that way with Octopus gaining nothing       But that is not a lot different to the others who run these type of savings plans sending you emails with details of their top 20 or 50 funds or latest IPO and people investing without advice which of course they are free to do as an investor but then run the risk of doing what you call "financially stupid" but with the platform gaining in fee's etc
Maybe somewhere there is somebody who joined HL Active Savings and then moved onto Woodford after seeing One of their lists and is not to happy (should point out i have been impressed with Active savings as well)

firestone

masonic said:

bowlhead99 said:

masonic said:
I think I've been very clear why I used the terms 'dodgy' and 'dishonest' in this thread. In my last post I asked 3 questions to clarify if the dodgy and dishonest practice I objected to was actually going on at Octopus. You've not answered any of them. 'I don't know' would be a perfectly acceptable answer.

To be fair, he is talking about an account his wife opened a couple of years ago and what they did at launch, and likely doesn't have the inside scoop on exactly what is available to current new customers; his wife is using a fixed product; in replying to your post he mentioned that 'i have no real thought either way on how they operate' and that if people had simply said they didn't like the product he wouldn't have even commented further, but just that they don't seem like a dodgy or not-honest operation.

He's not beholden to you for your 3 questions, so the idea that if someone adds comments to the thread to continue to share aspects of their experience without specifically answering your questions to which they may not know the answer, you will interpret their replies as "deliberate misrepresentation and misdirection" seems like you have got out of bed the wrong side this morning.

What I was getting annoyed with was the misrepresentation of the point I was making in order to chastise me for a point I was not making. Over successive posts I refined and clarified my point to the degree that I did not believe it could be reasonably misunderstood and simply drew a line beyond which I could not accept further such misrepresentations as being honest misunderstanding. Perhaps you are correct that I don't have the patience for saying the same things over and over again in a thread today.

bowlhead99 said:

Certainly it's not beyond the realms of possibility that a customer service person would say in answering a question about what accounts were available, 'if you're looking to go off-menu from the standard options I listed, let me introduce you to our adviser' and the adviser really means internal sales person who can promote other suitable products as well as some cash accounts of alternate maturities.  Particularly in the early stages of Octopus Cash they were adding new partners all the time (e.g. at launch they had 3 banks doing the one year term, couple of years later it was 6, they now have 10+ partners but they won't all offer all the different maturities. So feasibly when this was a newish product in 2018 when his wife was opening an account, an 'advisor' might know they were just launching an 18 month account term but only the 1 and 2 year options are on the online form yet so you need a paper form  -  oh and as you are depositing £200k with us are you the kind of person who could make use of an IHT ISA?

I expect it would be the last part of that sentence you'd object to, but have no idea if that sort of fishing expedition really happens. They do have a 'cash hub' portal product for advisers and intermediaries to manage their client accounts, and maybe that gives access or ability to sign up clients for fixed deposit lengths that are only available to 'existing customers' (e.g. a 3 year term offered to someone with a maturing deposit) rather than what is available for new customer signups (6,12,18,24 months or the two rolling notice-period options).

Yes, my objection is along those lines. Some years ago I decided to open a cash ISA in branch in a certain building society. When they started checking over and processing my application, I was ushered into a side room to speak with an adviser, who then launched into pressure-selling me a guaranteed equity bond. It was framed as part of the process. I knew enough to see straight away this was a poor product with limited upside and a fair risk of just returning capital at the end of the term. I knew I didn't want it, but it was quite an ordeal to convince them they were wasting their time with me. They had an answer for everything. It is that sort of thing I find objectionable, and I've seen enough threads over the years from people who have taken out poor value products sold to them by so-called advisers to speak out against such practices at every opportunity.

Sorry if you think i was trying to chastise you or misrepresent or that you was not getting through to me but to be fair it felt the same way back and maybe i was more concerned with the words dodgy or dishonest kinda attached to One of my posts rather then explaining the ins and outs of the product

But guess your not signing up have a good day

masonic

firestone said:

Sorry that you had a bad experience before and assume it was with somebody else?

It was the building society experience I described in my reply to bowlhead above.

firestone said:

if you are disappointed that i don't agree that they are offering a juicy savings account(both accounts pay the same) and foisting an adviser on them its because i don't believe that's whats happening and clicking the adviser link on the home page would back that up to me and is free and able to look at before joining or login 
I would agree with you if they forced or soft pushed the adviser they use to only recommend One of their VCT or mortgages as then yes that would be wrong but again i don't think its happening(and i assume would make them a tied adviser) but like you i have made a judgement One way and you have gone another

In that case I don't think we're in disagreement. My position is I don't know whether or not it's happening. Earlier posts in the thread seemed to suggest it definitely was happening, and later posts have cast doubt on this. My recent posts have been about the practice itself being wrong and the importance that savers are wary if pursuing products that aren't available through the normal retail channels. I do not believe people's money is unsafe in the normal savings products offered by Octopus where there are no strings attached.

firestone said:

It could an adviser is offering One of their savings bonds and also maybe a fund from another provider who knows but its certainly possible and earn a commission in that way with Octopus gaining nothing       But that is not a lot different to the others who run these type of savings plans sending you emails with details of their top 20 or 50 funds or latest IPO and people investing without advice which of course they are free to do as an investor but then run the risk of doing what you call "financially stupid" but with the platform gaining in fee's etc
Maybe somewhere there is somebody who joined HL Active Savings and then moved onto Woodford after seeing One of their lists and is not to happy (should point out i have been impressed with Active savings as well)

It think it was colsten who mentioned the costs and commission; I've focused on the quality and independence of the advice. I agree with you and have also spoken out against investment marketing material and the HL 'Wealth' lists, but people can choose simply not to read those or throw them away, and have to take action of their own volition to end up being harmed by them. I consider direct sales worse as the tables are turned and one has to actively avoid taking something up - the path of least resistance is to just go along with it and let it happen.