Hargreaves Lansdown Asset Management Limited · DRN-5921600

The complaint Miss W established a Property and Financial Affairs Lasting Power of Attorney (‘LPA’) in 2011, her brother (who I’ll refer to as ‘Mr A’) was named in the LPA as an attorney. Mr A is also acting as Miss W’s representative in this complaint. Miss W complains that Hargreaves Lansdown Asset Management Limited trading as Hargreaves Lansdown (‘HL’) required a doctor’s note before it would apply the LPA to her HL pension policy. Miss W also complains about HL’s actions when she tried to contact it to discuss the LPA and this requirement. What happened Miss W called HL on 24 October 2024. Amongst other things, the following occurred during this call: • Miss W was unable to provide HL with details of her secure HL number for security purposes and didn’t want the number to be reset. • Miss W explained she wanted to discuss an extra support and accessibility need. HL confirmed it was ok for her to speak with it about this if it wasn’t account specific. • Miss W said she previously setup a LPA knowing her condition would deteriorate, and that Mr A would be submitting a copy of her LPA to HL. • HL thanked Miss W for letting it know and confirmed it could take up to ten working days from receipt for a LPA to be applied to an account. Mr A then wrote to HL and explained he wanted to register Miss W’s LPA, which he was enclosing. HL replied to Mr A on 14 November 2024 and noted, amongst other things, that: • It had received Miss W’s LPA, but wasn’t able to accept it at that time. • On page six of the LPA there was a restriction in place that stated, “This Lasting Power of Attorney cannot be used until I lack mental capacity”. And HL said that because of this, to “activate the Power of Attorney, we require a letter from a doctor (e.g. a GP or medical professional) on Company Headed paper confirming that [Miss W] no longer has capacity.” • If Miss W had mental capacity, it wouldn’t be able to accept the LPA due to the restriction. And it wouldn’t be able to provide information to, or accept instructions from, any attorney until it had received “acceptable proof of [Miss W’s] incapacity.” Miss W called HL on 6 December 2024. Amongst other things, the following occurred during this call: • Miss W asked to speak to the Client Records team and was told that team don’t talk to customers over the phone. • Miss W explained she has mental capacity, but not sufficient capacity to deal with her financial affairs.

-- 1 of 12 --

• Miss W referred to HL’s letter of 14 November 2024 and explained her GP had refused to write a letter confirming she lacked mental capacity – Miss W said she understood this, because it’s a vague term. • Miss W said her GP had passed her to an NHS coordinator to try to help her. And the NHS coordinator had spoken to a firm of solicitors on her behalf who had said a GP’s letter wasn’t needed, as it was for Miss W to decide when she was in danger of not being able to manage “complex financial needs”. • Miss W also explained her local integrated care board had written to her and provided a form to go on its records in which she was asked, amongst other things, whether she could manage her finances. She had said “no” or “not complex” on this form. • Miss W said that she could manage simple things, but even activities like filling in a cheque correctly she sometimes struggled with. • Miss W said she hadn’t accessed her HL policy for years, that it was too complicated, and that she had asked her brother and sister (her attorneys on the LPA) to take over complex financial situations for her. • Miss W explained she was vulnerable, aware of fraud and wanted to speak to a senior person who was making the decisions at HL’s end. • Miss W was asked for a secure HL number that she didn’t know but was able to provide her address and date of birth when asked. • HL said it would make a note of Miss W’s vulnerability in its records. • The HL representative Miss W was talking to explained they were speaking with the Client Records team, and the representative would give Miss W a call back when they had heard back from the Client Records team. Miss W called HL again on 11 December 2024. Amongst other things, the following occurred during this call: • Miss W was unable to provide HL with details of her secure HL number for security purposes and didn’t want the number to be reset. • Miss W explained she was very unwell and in a lot of pain. • Miss W asked to speak to an individual in the Client Records team and said she called the previous Friday but had heard nothing back from HL since then. Miss W was told her message would be passed on, but that the Client Records team don’t call customers. • Miss W explained her call was about her LPA and a letter that had been received. • Miss W said her query concerned HL saying it needed confirmation from her GP that she lacked mental capacity, and that her GP was refusing to do this. • Miss W asked if the HL representative she was talking to could “go up the chain of command” to get things sorted. • The HL representative confirmed he had reached out to the HL employee Miss W had spoken to the previous week to ask them to call her back, and that this should be later that day. Mr A wrote to HL on 19 December 2024 and noted, amongst other things that: • He wanted to complain on Miss W’s behalf about HL’s requirement that a doctor had to confirm she lacked mental capacity before it would accept her LPA, and also about HL’s customer service when Miss W tried to contact it to discuss the LPA. • HL’s 14 November 2024 letter was confused in places and it had asked for proof of incapacity, which isn’t the same as lack of mental capacity. • Miss W had spoken to two separate people at HL on 6 December 2024 and 11 December 2024. Miss W was told someone would get back to her, but no one did.

-- 2 of 12 --

• Miss W’s LPA has a section 5 restriction that says it cannot be used until she lacks mental capacity. This restriction simply prevents the LPA being used as an ordinary power of attorney, and it reflects Miss W’s previously stated wish that she wanted to manage her financial affairs for as long as she could. • Both Mr A and the other attorney on Miss W’s LPA were of the view, by November 2024, that Miss W no longer had sufficient capacity to manage her financial affairs. This judgement was based on Miss W’s own assessment of her capacity, as well as the views of family and friends who lived near her and saw her many times a week. This assessment met the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). • Had Miss W’s intention been for the assessment of her mental capacity to be carried out by a doctor, she would have stated as such in section 5 of the LPA. • If HL had concerns about the LPA or attorneys this is something it should have taken up with the Office of the Public Guardian. • It’s unreasonable for HL to make up additional conditions for accepting a LPA. • HL’s refusal to engage, or follow up in any way, with Miss W’s phone calls is unacceptable. It is her pension policy and her financial security which she was struggling to deal with. • In addition to the considerable distress and inconvenience caused to Miss W, her GP has also had to spend unnecessary time dealing with the matter. Mr A called HL on 23 December 2024. Amongst other things, the following occurred during this call: • Mr A queried whether the complaint he made the previous week had been safely received and it was confirmed that it had. • Mr A highlighted the real issue was the proper interpretation of the section 5 restriction in the LPA, but that either way a doctor’s note had been sent to HL. HL says it also received a letter on 23 December 2024 in which Miss W’s GP confirmed that, while Miss W had mental capacity, she didn’t have the ability to manage her finances due to her medical condition. Following this, HL wrote to Mr A on 7 January 2025 and said the GP’s letter was sufficient for it to apply Miss W’s LPA, and that Mr A was now able to act as Miss W’s attorney. HL responded to the complaint on 12 February 2025 and noted, amongst other things, that: • It had received the LPA document on 6 November 2024, and the LPA had been rejected because HL required further evidence. • As the LPA stipulated it wasn’t to be enforced until Miss W lacked mental capacity, it had written to Mr A to ask for further evidence of this. • It has a duty of care to its clients to ensure it is following their intentions, and it has to ensure an attorney is acting in accordance with the LPA agreement. • After it had received the letter from Miss W’s GP, the LPA was applied to Miss W’s account on 7 January 2025. • It apologised for any inconvenience caused by a delay (that occurred after it had received the GP’s letter) in applying the LPA to Miss W’s account. • It recognised there was frustration at the service received, and the delay in applying the LPA, and it had credited £50 to a bank account as a gesture of goodwill “to acknowledge the inconvenience you feel this process has caused you”. Following this, the complaint was referred to us for review in February 2025. Mr A has told us, amongst other things, that:

-- 3 of 12 --

• HL decided a doctor was needed to confirm that Miss W no longer had mental capacity. And “…there was no need or expectation on [Miss W’s] part for a doctor to make such an assessment, and that it was for the attorney(s) to assess – in consultation with [Miss W] – if she had sufficient capacity to be able to effectively manage her financial matters”. • HL was wrong not to respond to Miss W’s attempts to discuss her section 5 restriction. • It’s appreciated that HL must take reasonable steps to protect its customers interests. However, it’s not a requirement for a doctor to assess mental capacity for a Property and Financial Affairs LPA when this isn’t specified by a section 5 restriction. • Miss W’s GP was in a difficult position as he wasn’t familiar with many aspects of her finances and capabilities. Because of this, the GP made a referral to a local NHS memory clinic, which would have provided an objective assessment of some of Miss W’s capabilities. This wasn’t followed up, as HL decided to accept the first part of the GP’s letter. • There are many ways in which HL could have helped protect Miss W’s interests if it had concerns about the LPA or the attorneys. It could have sought confirmation about how the attorneys made the decision that Miss W lacked sufficient capacity, or sought a witnessed statement from Miss W about what she felt. HL could also have delayed the registration of the LPA and written to Miss W to highlight the risks of what was proposed, and explain where she could seek further help or advice. • He has spent a lot of time trying to resolve this matter. And for Miss W it’s been stressful and inconvenient, in particular as she wanted to move her pension into drawdown. • HL should make a more reasonable offer for the distress and inconvenience Miss W has suffered. • There should be a declaration that there was no need for a doctor to declare that Miss W no longer had sufficient capacity. • He queries whether HL took proper and reasonable account of Miss W’s views once it became aware that she didn’t want a doctor to assess her mental capacity. • A separate restriction Miss W set out in section 5 of her LPA, made express provision for a doctor’s involvement being needed before her home could be sold. So, at the time of setting up the LPA, Miss W was aware of what she wanted a doctor to do in terms of assessing her overall capacity. She didn’t want a doctor to assess her mental capacity, but she did want a doctor to assess her physical independence capacity. • HL has ignored a fundamental principal of the Mental Capacity Act, namely to allow/encourage the person concerned (here Miss W) to be involved in decisions affecting them. Miss W clearly had some capacity and, at the very least, HL should have considered Miss W’s views about how her LPA should have operated. • Finding a doctor to assess mental capacity for the Property and Financial Affairs LPA was very difficult. This was extremely stressful for Miss W, as she was becoming increasingly concerned about her financial future at a point when important pension decisions needed to be made. HL has told us, amongst other things, that: • It works on the assumption that its clients have mental capacity, unless it’s informed otherwise. • It would have been irresponsible and negligent for it to disregard the capacity stipulation outlined by Miss W in the LPA, and to have applied the LPA authority to her account at a point when it had no evidence she lacked mental capacity.

-- 4 of 12 --

• HL didn’t request a mental capacity assessment to be undertaken, it just asked for a signed letter from her doctor confirming whether or not she had mental capacity. • Following receipt of an acceptable letter from Miss W’s GP, the LPA was successfully applied to Miss W’s account. After it received the letter from Miss W’s GP, it took nine working days to process the letter. This was outside of its Service Level Agreement (‘SLA’) and, although a complaint wasn’t made about the SLA standard not being met, it made a £50 gesture of goodwill payment in recognition of that failing. • It doesn’t agree that it hasn’t communicated with Miss W, or else that it didn’t discuss this matter with her directly. • On every occasion it spoke to Miss W during the period in question, she was unable to complete the relevant security checks, so it couldn’t discuss her account in specific detail with her, but it did what it could to provide assistance within this boundary. • It appreciates Miss W was unhappy she couldn’t speak directly to the Client Records team. However, that team is non-client facing and HL’s helpdesk staff are fully trained to be able to support clients with a variety of queries. One of our investigators reviewed Miss W’s complaint. The investigator didn’t think the complaint should be upheld and concluded it wasn’t unreasonable for HL to ask for a doctor’s letter confirming Miss W’s lack of mental capacity. Mr A wasn’t in agreement with the investigator’s findings and asked for the complaint to be reviewed by an Ombudsman. Mr A noted, amongst other things, that: • The investigator hadn’t addressed HL's refusal to allow any input from Miss W as the donor. • From the wording of the section 5 restrictions, and as Miss W had specified a doctor should assess her ability to live independently in another part of the section 5 restrictions, it can be reasonably deduced that Miss W didn’t expect a doctor would assess her capacity to manage her financial affairs. • Miss W didn’t provide any specific guidance to the attorneys in section 6 of the LPA about how to carry out their duties. • It’s accepted that, based on the wording only, it’s possible there could be some ambiguity about how to assess Miss W’s capacity to manage her financial affairs. • Given that mental capacity is essentially on a continuum, as well as being contextual, it’s quite reasonable for someone to know that they can't do a certain task or activity. And Miss W had sufficient capacity to know that she no longer had sufficient capacity to properly manage her financial affairs. • It’s difficult to understand why HL refused to allow Miss W to communicate directly with it, particularly if there was some uncertainty in HL’s mind about the section 5 restriction. HL’s aim should be to try and understand what the person wanted and, if it wasn’t entirely clear from the wording, it's hard to see why HL shouldn't take in to account the donor’s views. • While the donor can't change the LPA they can, with appropriate safeguards, help explain what they meant at the time. • While it's normal for doctors to assess if someone has the capacity to create a LPA, or to assess capacity for a Health and Welfare LPA, this is very different to assessing capacity to manage financial affairs. • The investigator was wrong to conclude that only medical professionals are qualified to assess mental capacity. The question depends on the particular activity/context. • Guidance issued by the Office of the Public Guardian addresses the situation where a donor has stated a Property and Financial Affairs LPA can only be used when they lack mental capacity. The guidance says that, in the absence of a specific instruction, it’s for the attorneys to make the decision, subject to the proper responsibilities and safeguards governing attorneys. This was Miss W’s understanding and interpretation,

-- 5 of 12 --

and it was also the understanding of both her attorneys, and her GP, who witnessed her LPA. The guidance says, amongst other things, that: “Banks and other financial institutions sometimes want written confirmation that a donor does not have mental capacity before they’ll recognise an attorney’s authority to act under an LPA. Your attorney(s) may have to ask your GP, care co-ordinator, social worker or care home staff about a mental capacity assessment. When you reach section 7 of the LPA form, you can add instructions. Some people explain how their mental capacity should be assessed, such as: "My attorneys shall only act under this power if they have obtained a written medical opinion stating that I am no longer mentally capable of managing and administering my property and financial affairs". However, if you trust your attorneys to assess your mental capacity, you do not need to add instructions like these.” • The context for a mental capacity assessment is important, and a GP would need to know about the nature of a person’s financial affairs before being able to properly say they lacked capacity. GPs are unlikely to know much about their patients’ finances. • HL hasn’t pointed to any evidence from bodies like the Royal College of General Practitioners or the British Medical Association to demonstrate GPs are able/qualified to make mental capacity assessments for Property and Financial Affairs LPAs. • A different financial institution he dealt with had accepted the attorneys’ assessment of mental capacity. • He doesn’t think HL made reasonable adjustments to its procedures to accommodate Miss W’s progressive disability. As agreement couldn’t be reached the complaint was passed to me for review. I then issued a provisional decision on the complaint. Briefly, I provisionally concluded that, given its very limited knowledge at the time, HL’s request for a doctor’s letter wasn’t an unfair or unreasonable request when it was made. But I didn’t think HL had treated Miss W fairly following the 6 December 2024 phone call. I thought HL’s failure to provide adequate customer support or meet Miss W’s needs, including its failure to follow up and engage meaningfully with concerns she raised with it when she called, caused Miss W unnecessary distress and inconvenience. As such, I provisionally found the complaint should be partially upheld and HL should pay Miss W £250 for the distress and inconvenience it caused her. In response to my provisional decision Mr A has noted, amongst other things, that: • HL should have been more flexible to meet Miss W’s needs and limitations as a vulnerable person. • HL should have taken account of what Miss W said about her LPA on 24 October 2024 and during subsequent calls. She had capacity to coherently express her wishes/interpretation of her LPA. • Safeguarding wasn’t an issue for Miss W. • An assessment needs to me made before a GP can determine capacity. • It wasn’t reasonable for HL to require a GP’s letter to confirm Miss W’s lack of capacity to manage her HL monies.

-- 6 of 12 --

• HL hasn’t provided any evidence to show that it was its policy, which would have been subject to proper internal consideration and scrutiny, to require a GP’s letter to confirm that someone has insufficient capacity to manage their finances. • Whoever made the decision that a GP’s letter was needed doesn’t appear to have been aware of the Office of the Public Guardian guidance, and possibly the implication of the Mental Capacity Act. • The views of the medical profession should be considered. Informal contact Mr A had made “with both the College and BMA was met with surprise and astonishment that anyone thought GPs were in a position or had the skills / knowledge to assess an individual’s financial situation, and in turn their capability to properly manage it”. • There was evidence Miss W lacked capacity prior to HL’s receipt of her LPA in November 2024; during the phone call on 24 October 2024 Miss W was unable to pass security, explained to HL her condition was deteriorating and said her LPA would be submitted shortly and that she wanted it registered. • It’s hard to see why Miss W could, or should, have said in her LPA that she didn’t want a doctor to be involved in any assessment of whether she lacked mental capacity. And in different circumstances, the attorneys might have wanted a medical assessment/opinion. • HL’s letter of 14 November 2024 was taken to mean that HL wouldn’t respond to communications from Miss W’s attorneys. As such, the only option was for Miss W to phone and try to get the LPA registered. This was particularly difficult and stressful for Miss W and her GP was concerned about the effect it was having on her. HL responded to the provisional decision and said, amongst other things, that: • It doesn’t agree with the outcome. • It quoted a summary of some comments Mr A had made that were referenced in the provisional decision and noted that “the underlying principle [HL was] working from in this instance – [was] that the client did indeed have some capacity. As such, if the [LPA] stated that it could only be used when the client lacked mental capacity, and [HL] had no independent evidence at the time to suggest that [Miss W] lacked capacity, and only had evidence suggesting otherwise, then it acted exactly in line with the Mental Capacity Act by not accepting the submitted documents without accompanying verification of loss of capacity. The [LPA] could not come into force until this was independently confirmed”. • It hasn’t ignored the Mental Capacity Act. The Mental Capacity Act states that it should always presume capacity unless proven otherwise. For this reason, and in line with the Act, it required confirmation from a doctor that Miss W had lost capacity. • When confirmation of loss of capacity was received, the LPA was promptly added to the account. • If it had accepted the LPA without confirmation that Miss W had lost mental capacity, it would have been acting in direct opposition to the Mental Capacity Act, and could potentially have put Miss W at risk of serious financial detriment by allowing unauthorised access to her account. • Comments that HL should have accepted, and acted upon, sensitive information by telephone without account security being successfully completed feel misplaced and open the client to the risk of fraud or account takeover. • Its helpdesk agents aren’t able to accept instructions, or confirm any account sensitive information, without the client being able to successfully pass its security procedures. This is clearly outlined within its terms and conditions which state, amongst other things, that: “We will assume that we are dealing with you and will be entitled to rely on any instructions you give us, where: (i) if dealing with us by post, you have

-- 7 of 12 --

signed a document; and (ii) if dealing with us by telephone or online, you have passed our Security Procedures. We take the security of your Account very seriously. We will do all we reasonably can to ensure that your Account is secure and to prevent its unauthorised access and use. You must take all reasonable steps to keep your Account secure and to prevent any fraudulent or unlawful use of it. This includes, but is not limited to: complying with our Security Procedures (as may be updated from time to time).” • The suggestion that it could have reached out to the nominated attorneys, before it had confirmed whether Miss W had lost capacity, doesn’t feel appropriate or reasonable given the risk posed to Miss W. The steps it took were in Miss W’s interests and the provisional decision doesn’t fully acknowledge or take this into consideration. • The Ombudsman acknowledges that HL wasn’t given enough information to understand that Miss W didn’t want to engage her GP. Therefore, it wouldn’t have known to begin discussions about the different routes Miss W could use to confirm she no longer had capacity. • It believes it was correct to be cautious when handling Miss W’s account. • At all times it tried to act in line with Miss W’s best interests and in compliance with the relevant mental health legislation and the terms of the LPA. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. When considering what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances, I need to take account of relevant law and regulations, regulator’s rules, guidance and standards, codes of practice and, where appropriate, what I consider to have been good industry practice at the relevant time. The parties to this complaint have provided detailed submissions to support their position and I’m grateful to them for doing so. I’ve considered these submissions in their entirety. However, I trust that they won’t take the fact that my final decision focuses on what I consider to be the central issues as a discourtesy. To be clear, the purpose of this decision isn’t to comment on every individual point or question the parties have made, rather it’s to set out my findings and reasons for reaching them. HL is regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (‘FCA’) and there are certain regulatory obligations, including applicable parts of the Conduct of Business Sourcebook (‘COBS’), it needs to comply with. COBS is published as part of the FCA’s Handbook and COBS 2.1.1R says that “A firm must act honestly, fairly and professionally in accordance with the best interests of its client”. The FCA also publishes high level Principles for Businesses, these are set out in the FCA handbook under PRIN. The Principles are a general statement of the fundamental obligations of firms under the regulatory system. On receipt of Miss W’s LPA, I think HL acted appropriately in identifying that the section 5 restriction meant the LPA should only be applied to Miss W’s HL policy if she lacked mental capacity. And I can’t see that anything substantive had been provided to HL at that juncture by Miss W, or her LPA attorneys, or a third party, that would have given HL reasonable cause to consider that Miss W did lack mental capacity. I’ve considered Mr A’s comments in response to my provisional decision, but I don’t agree that HL should reasonably have concluded from the 24 October 2024 phone call that Miss W did lack mental capacity.

-- 8 of 12 --

I also think HL acted appropriately in explaining to Mr A, in its 14 November 2024 letter, that if Miss W had mental capacity it wouldn’t be able to apply the LPA due to the restriction. Further, that it needed to be satisfied Miss W lacked mental capacity before it could accept instructions from Miss W’s attorneys. I’ve noted what Mr A has said about the use of the term “incapacity” but I’m satisfied the underlying intention of HL’s letter was clear. I’ve carefully considered what Mr A has said about HL’s request for the doctor’s letter confirming Miss W “no longer has capacity”. At the point it made the request, I’ve not seen that HL had previously been provided with anything which should have given it reasonable cause to consider Miss W did lack mental capacity. And, in the circumstances, I don’t think HL acted unfairly or unreasonably in making the request for the doctor’s letter when it did. Mr A has highlighted other evidence could have been made available to HL, and without a doctor’s letter being needed, to help to demonstrate why it was considered Miss W lacked mental capacity. To be clear, I’m not reaching a finding here that there weren’t any alternative ways of HL establishing whether Miss W lacked mental capacity, I’m simply saying I think, in the circumstances and given its very limited knowledge at the time, HL’s request for a doctor’s letter wasn’t an unfair or unreasonable request when it was made. For completeness, I also don’t think, at the point it wrote to Mr A on 14 November 2024, that HL ought reasonably to have inferred from the contents of Miss W’s LPA that she didn’t want a doctor to be involved in any assessment of whether she lacked mental capacity. Mr A says HL’s letter of 14 November 2024 was taken to mean that HL wouldn’t respond to communications from Miss W’s LPA attorneys. However, I still think if Miss W’s LPA attorneys considered Miss W hadn’t wanted a doctor to be involved in any assessment of her mental capacity, or if they considered it had already been established she lacked mental capacity, it was open to them to respond to HL’s 14 November 2024 letter to explain either or both of these points. To be clear, I’m not saying the attorneys did anything wrong by not doing this, I’m simply highlighting these don’t appear to have been points that HL was asked to consider by an attorney prior to Mr A’s letter of 19 December 2024. And that letter was only sent very shortly before the doctor’s letter was received by HL on 23 December 2024. Mr A wasn’t the only person corresponding with HL about the LPA. Miss W was also in contact with HL about the LPA following the letter of 14 November 2024. Miss W called HL on 6 December 2024, a summary of what I consider to be some of the key points from that phone call is set out earlier in this decision and I’ve not repeated those points in full again here. During the call Miss W doesn’t say she hadn’t wanted a doctor to be involved in any assessment of her mental capacity. However, Miss W does say her GP had refused to write a letter confirming she lacked mental capacity. And I think it’s clear from the call recording Miss W wanted to talk with HL about the fact she wanted her LPA to be applied, but couldn’t provide the doctor’s letter it had requested. Miss W also explained, amongst other things, during the call that: • She is vulnerable (which HL confirmed it would note in its records) and that while she has mental capacity, she doesn’t have sufficient capacity to deal with her financial affairs. • Her HL account is too complicated and she had asked the attorneys named on her LPA to take over. • Legal guidance had been obtained and solicitors had said a GP’s letter wasn’t needed as it was for her to decide when she was in danger of not being able to manage “complex financial needs”.

-- 9 of 12 --

• She had informed her local integrated care board that she couldn’t manage complex finances. HL told Miss W, during the 6 December 2024 call, it would contact her by phone after it had heard back from its Client Relations team. HL says a note on its system from 9 December 2024 suggests it did try to call Miss W back, but that there’s no record of the call. Miss W called HL again on 11 December 2024, a summary of what I consider to be some of the key points from that phone call is set out earlier in this decision and I’ve not repeated those points in full again here. Miss W explained to HL that she was very unwell and in a lot of pain. And, again, I think it’s clear from the call recording that Miss W wanted to talk with HL about the fact she wasn’t able to obtain the doctor’s letter it had requested. Miss W also requested the matter be escalated at HL’s end so things could be sorted. And she was told by HL that someone would call her back and that this should be later the same day. As far as I can discern from HL’s submissions no one called Miss W back. Principle 12 of the FCA’s Principles for Businesses (‘the Consumer Duty’) says a firm must act to deliver good outcomes for retail customers. That includes providing consumer support and meeting consumers’ needs throughout their relationship including when they’re vulnerable. The Consumer Duty applies to ‘open’ products and services from 31 July 2023, and to ‘closed’ products and services from 31 July 2024. The Consumer Duty builds on the FCA’s February 2021 publication FG21/1 “Guidance for firms on the fair treatment of vulnerable customers”. It emphasises that businesses should respond flexibly to the needs of customers with characteristics of vulnerability. I’m not satisfied HL responded appropriately to Miss W following her phone calls of 6 December 2024 and 11 December 2024, or that it provided appropriate support to her. I think it was very clear during the calls that Miss W wanted to talk with HL about difficulties she was having in obtaining evidence HL had said it needed before it would apply her LPA. Given what Miss W had told HL on 6 December 2024 about her vulnerability, her need for support and the difficulties she was facing, I don’t think HL attempting to call Miss W back only once on 9 December 2024 was sufficient. I also don’t think HL acted appropriately in failing to call Miss W back following the 11 December 2024 phone call. I’ve considered what HL has said about its security procedures and its terms and conditions. I appreciate Miss W was unable to provide HL with her secure HL number during phone calls, but during the phone call of 6 December 2024 HL opted to ask Miss W alternative questions (it asked for her date of birth and address) before acting on information from her. For example, after she had answered the alternative questions correctly, HL confirmed it would make a note of Miss W’s vulnerability (which she had highlighted during the call) in its records and that it would call her back after discussing what she had said with its Client Records team. And HL says its system records suggest it did then try to call Miss W back on 9 December 2024. During the phone call of 6 December 2024, Miss W had explained to HL that her GP had refused to write a letter confirming she lacked mental capacity. And, overall, I still think there were ways in which HL could have been flexible in meeting Miss W’s needs and in providing clarification on what HL’s position was if her doctor was refusing to provide the letter it had requested. For example, if having a detailed phone discussion with Miss W about this wasn’t practical due to the secure HL security number issue, or for other issues, HL could simply have explained to Miss W over the phone (having previously told her it would call back) that it would write out to her at the existing address it had for her on its system about the issues she had raised when she called. I think that would have been a fair and reasonable step for

-- 10 of 12 --

HL to take in the circumstances, to support and meet Miss W’s needs. And that doing so would have provided Miss W with appropriate clarification about what, if any, alternative options might be available to demonstrate lack of mental capacity to HL if her GP was refusing to provide a letter. Further, if HL was unable to contact Miss W after a few attempts of trying to call her back (and even if the purpose of the call had just been to let her know it would be writing to her), I think HL should still then have proceeded to write to Miss W about the issues she had raised when she called. HL didn’t do any of this, and I don’t think HL provided adequate customer support or met Miss W’s communication needs following the 6 December 2024 phone call. As I’ve explained above, I think it should have followed up with Miss W about the issues she had raised when she called. And I think an appropriate response from HL would have assisted in supporting Miss W’s understanding of what, if any options, were available to demonstrate lack of mental capacity to HL if her GP was refusing to provide a letter. Similarly, HL could have written to Mr A, who it had previously written to on 14 November 2024. And, without needing to reference the contents of its phone calls with Miss W, it could have explained to Mr A what, if any options, were available to demonstrate lack of mental capacity to HL if an individual’s GP was refusing to provide a letter. In response to my provisional decision, HL has said the suggestion it could have reached out to the nominated attorneys on this point doesn’t feel appropriate or reasonable. But the evidence shows HL had already proved willing to write out directly to Mr A on 14 November 2024 to explain a doctor’s letter was needed before it would implement the LPA. So, writing to Mr A directly to explain what was required to implement the LPA appears to have been something HL was prepared to do, and did do, at the time. And I don’t think, in the specific circumstances of this complaint, providing a supplementary written explanation to Mr A of what, if any, alternative options were available to demonstrate lack of mental capacity to HL’s satisfaction – after HL had been told by Miss W that her GP was refusing to provide a letter – would have been any less appropriate or reasonable than HL providing the earlier written explanation to Mr A on 14 November 2024. But, in any event, what I say about writing to Mr A is a secondary point because, for the reasons I’ve already explained in detail above, I think HL should have followed up with Miss W directly, by phone or by post, following the 6 December 2024 phone call. I don’t think HL treated Miss W fairly following the 6 December 2024 phone call, and I think HL’s failure to provide adequate customer support or meet Miss W’s needs, including its failure to follow up and engage meaningfully with concerns she raised with it when she called, caused Miss W unnecessary distress and inconvenience. I think it’s fair and reasonable for HL to pay Miss W £250 compensation for this. To avoid any potential misunderstanding, this £250 is separate to the £50 HL has said it previously paid for not meeting its SLA. I accept it might have taken HL’s Client Records team a little while to consider whether there was any alternative evidence it might be willing to accept, other than a doctor’s letter, to demonstrate Miss W’s lack of mental capacity. Further, that it might have taken five or ten working days, following the 6 December 2024 phone call, before HL’s Client Records team were in a position to write out to Miss W and/or Mr A about this. And that such a letter wouldn’t then have been received by Miss W and/or Mr A at a substantively earlier date to the date on which the GP’s letter was actually received by HL on 23 December 2024. So, I don’t think any failings by HL gave rise to a further delay (by which I mean in addition to the SLA-related delay HL previously identified and paid Miss W £50 for) in the LPA being applied to Miss W’s policy. And I don’t think the issues I’ve identified here caused any financial loss. However, for the reasons I’ve set out in detail above, I’m satisfied HL’s failure

-- 11 of 12 --

to provide adequate customer support or meet Miss W’s needs, including its failure to follow up and engage meaningfully with concerns she raised with it when she called, caused Miss W unnecessary distress and inconvenience and that it’s fair and reasonable for HL to compensate her for this. My final decision For the reasons I’ve explained above, my final decision is that I partially uphold this complaint and Hargreaves Lansdown Asset Management Limited trading as Hargreaves Lansdown must pay Miss W £250 for the distress and inconvenience it caused her. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss W to accept or reject my decision before 30 November 2025. Alex Mann Ombudsman

-- 12 of 12 --