Partially upheld: service failure - delays in adding investment entities to platform, poor communication, and inadequate complaint handling complaint against Hargreaves Lansdown Asset Management Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6275877 of 2026-05-05T00:00:00+00:00. service failure - delays in adding investment entities to platform, poor communication, and inadequate complaint handling complaint against Hargreaves Lansdown Asset Management Limited. Outcome: Partially upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6275877 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-05T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Hargreaves Lansdown Asset Management Limited |
| Product | investment platform / execution-only trading account |
| Claim type | service failure - delays in adding investment entities to platform, poor communication, and inadequate complaint handling |
| Outcome | Partially upheld |
| Remedy | No further remedy ordered. HL's existing offer of £1,456.12 (comprising £50 paid in January 2024, £300 offered for service issues, and £1,106.12 as gesture of goodwill for the 2-day AIT delay) is deemed adequate to resolve the complaint. |
Summary
Mr B, an execution-only client of Hargreaves Lansdown, complained about delays in adding two investment entities (AIT and ELMD) to the trading platform and poor, inconsistent communication from HL about their availability. AIT was delayed by 2 days and ELMD's availability was not communicated to Mr B for several weeks after it was added. Mr B claimed he lost the opportunity to invest thousands of pounds due to the confusion and delays. HL offered £1,456.12 in compensation but declined to increase this, arguing there was no evidence Mr B would have traded once the entities were available. The ombudsman partly upheld the complaint regarding poor communication and complaint handling but found no direct financial loss could be established, as Mr B never attempted to trade in either entity after confirmation of availability and had insufficient funds in his account to support his claimed investment amounts.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
While HL's communication was poor and inconsistent, particularly regarding ELMD, and complaint handling was disjointed, the ombudsman found no direct financial loss could be reasonably linked to these failures. The key issue was that Mr B did not attempt to trade in either entity after confirmation of availability was provided. The ombudsman noted that HL's delays in adding the entities were justified by regulatory requirements for due diligence on overseas stocks. Critically, the funds available in Mr B's account were significantly less than the amounts he claimed he would have invested, and his failure to trade after confirmation (repeat behaviour) suggested he would not have invested the claimed amounts even with proper communication. Without evidence of a probable transaction that would have occurred with reasonable service, no financial loss could be established.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Hargreaves Lansdown Asset Management Limited, all decisions | 593 | 17% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website