Not upheld: Investment mis-selling complaint against Hargreaves Lansdown Asset Management Limited (HLAM)
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6294568 of 2026-06-24T00:00:00+00:00. Investment mis-selling complaint against Hargreaves Lansdown Asset Management Limited (HLAM). Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6294568 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-24T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Hargreaves Lansdown Asset Management Limited (HLAM) |
| Product | Pension |
| Claim type | Investment mis-selling |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | None. The complaint was not upheld and no action was ordered. |
Summary
Mr P complained that HLAM prevented him from selling 11,000 Novo-Nordisk ADR shares in his SIPP on 5 November 2025 when he received error messages and the market maker withdrew their quote. He argued this was a fundamental system error in calculating his holdings and sought HLAM to honour the higher online price he had previously seen. HLAM investigated and found no miscalculation of holdings, attributing the issue to failed order attempts due to trade size and liquidity. The ombudsman found no evidence of a system miscalculation, determined that HLAM's terms fairly covered the situation as a service interruption, and noted that HLAM had advised Mr P to trade immediately if he wished rather than wait for complaint resolution. The complaint was not upheld.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found no evidence of a miscalculation of Mr P's share holdings. HLAM's records and IT investigation indicated the error was caused by failed order attempts due to trade size and liquidity, combined with the market maker withdrawing the quote. The terms and conditions clause A12 fairly covers situations where trades cannot be executed due to unavailable or withdrawn quotes. The ombudsman rejected Mr P's argument that this was a fundamental system error rather than a service interruption, finding the terms sufficiently broad to cover the situation. Regarding the price difference, the ombudsman noted that quotes are indicative and not guaranteed until executed, and HLAM cannot retrospectively honour unexecuted quotes. The ombudsman also found HLAM was not responsible for subsequent price movements, as HLAM had advised Mr P to trade immediately if he wished rather than wait for complaint resolution, and Mr P made the decision to delay trading with full knowledge of the eight-week investigation timescale.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Hargreaves Lansdown Asset Management Limited (HLAM), all decisions | 6 | 0% |
| Investment mis-selling, all decisions | 14,163 | 37% |
| Pension, all decisions | 15,602 | 47% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website