Hargreaves Lansdown Asset Management Limited · DRN-5943466

The complaint Ms T complains that she told Hargreaves Lansdown Asset Management Limited (HL) about her disabilities in February 2025, but it took HL too long to make a note of her circumstances and provide reasonable adjustments. Ms T also complains about the adjustments HL have put in place as she doesn’t feel they are enough. What happened In February 2025 Ms T sent two emails, although only one of which was received by HL. The first email raised a complaint about a trade she was trying to execute, and then it said “I suffer from several disabilities so am entitled to special measures and reasonable adjustments”. The second email had more information. It repeated the statement above and said: “I’d like to request specialist support with the application, a dedicated point of support for clients with disabilities from the vulnerable client team, technical support on how to set up and manage stop losses to prevent this happening again and also an agent on the trading desk who can support me with orders when the application is down or frozen as the website is difficult for me to access on adapted phone”. The email also said waiting on the phone was difficult as she got anxious and because prices were changing by the minute, so she needed someone who was available “in a timely manner”. She also requested the data on the app to be refreshed more often. On 10 April HL contacted Ms T and discussed her complaint in more detail and the matter was referred, a week later, to HL’s Vulnerable Client team for review. Unfortunately, it seems the wrong process was followed and as a result the matter wasn’t actioned. Further contact by Ms T was made on 16 and 27 June 2024 and in July – but HL acknowledged to this service that “no significant attempt to reach out and offer support was made during that period”. In its final response, HL didn’t agree it had done anything wrong. It signposted Ms T to links on its website about the support that it offered or asked her to get in touch with it to explain what specific adjustments she needed. A further subsequent response asked Ms T to explain in more detail what adjustments she needed. One of our investigators thought that HL had made appropriate adjustments – in particular, waiving telephone dealing charges to accommodate her need to speak to someone. However, she agreed that it wasn’t reasonable to expect HL to give her a dedicated trader or direct line to one. She also concluded that HL took far too long to accommodate Ms T’s needs and to respond to her. She considered that given the level of distress that was caused to Ms T due to this delay meant that HL ought to pay additional compensation. Ms T agreed with the compensation amount recommended by the investigator but didn’t think the adjustments HL had made were enough.

-- 1 of 3 --

HL didn’t agree with the investigator. In summary, it said that it never received the second email Ms T says she sent. It said this was the only email that contained specific adjustments Ms T was looking for and set out the precise nature of her vulnerabilities. It said that as it hadn’t been provided with an original copy, with metadata included, it couldn’t be sure that email was sent. As an agreement couldn’t be reached, the case was passed to me to consider. 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. Having done so, I agree with the investigator’s conclusions and for broadly the same reasons. In line with this service’s approach to compensation for distress, upset and worry, I’ve considered whether the overall sum of £750 (an uplift of £400 compared to HL’s existing offer) is fair and reasonable in the particular circumstances of Ms T’s case. Generally, an award of over £300 and up to around £750 might be fair where the impact of a mistake has caused considerable distress, upset and worry. Particularly in situations where the impact lasts over many weeks or months. In this case, it’s clear to me that Ms T’s first email (the one that did not contain the specific adjustments she wanted) already put HL on notice that it had a vulnerable customer that potentially required some adjustments to help support her use of HL’s service. I acknowledge that this first email didn’t specify exactly what support Ms T needed, but it was incumbent on HL to reach out to her, in a timely fashion, and understand her needs. It didn’t do this for a number of months. It’s also not in dispute that in April and June 2025, Ms T was more specific about the adjustments she needed – but it took a number of months for HL to properly look into Ms T’s requests. I note that in deciding to increase the compensation payable to Ms T, HL itself acknowledged that it took too long to reach out to Ms T and offer her support or understand her needs better. I think this delay is significant – particularly given the nature of the service Ms T was looking to use and needed support with. I accept Ms T’s comments about the fast-moving nature of the stock market and therefore the impact the above delays had on her. Furthermore, I’ve also taken into account that part of the impact on Ms T is the fact that she thought she had already communicated, quite clearly, what her needs were. I can see there’s been some back and forth with the investigator about the second email Ms T says she sent on 27 February 2025, a few minutes after the first email. HL has no record of this email and it asked for some additional evidence to verify that this email was in fact sent by Ms T. I’ve considered whether I needed this additional evidence, but I’m satisfied that on the balance of probabilities Ms T probably did send it. I think she’s been very consistent throughout her complaint that she communicated her needs to HL (although I accept she also said she’d done this when she opened her account, and that isn’t the case) and I’m not persuaded there’s enough evidence to suggest Ms T deliberately created the email after the complaint. However, I also accept that HL has no record of ever receiving this email.

-- 2 of 3 --

So in terms of HL’s ability to engage with the content of the second email Ms T sent, I agree that it couldn’t. But if it had properly dealt with the first email, in which she outlined her disability, and her subsequent contact with HL in April, June and July 2025, it would’ve explored the adjustments and support she said she needed much sooner. This means that I think from Ms T’s perspective, the overall distress and inconvenience she has experienced went on for several months – and carried on at times of market volatility and, for her specifically, some financial loss due to investments that didn’t work out for her. Whilst none of the market impact on her investments was directly related to HL’s failure to thoroughly communicate with Ms T, it’s clear to me that the distress and inconvenience she experienced during that time would’ve been significantly alleviated had she had earlier conversations with HL about her needs and the support she was after. Overall, I therefore agree with the investigator’s award. In terms of the adjustments HL has made, I’m sorry to disappoint Ms T, but I don’t have much to add to what the investigator has said. I’m satisfied HL has acted fairly and reasonably by essentially allowing Ms T to benefit from telephone dealing at online dealing prices – this directly addresses her concerns about using the app and trading online. I’m not persuaded it would be fair and reasonable to be critical of HL for not providing her with a dedicated trader or telephone line – in my view that’s not a reasonable adjustment in the circumstances, because it would require HL to fundamentally alter the service it offers. Other adjustments relate to the communications Ms T has explained she needs from HL – I can see that it has made a detailed record of those needs and has put plans in place to ensure, as far as possible, that it communicates with Ms T in a way that is consistent with those needs. I’m not persuaded there was any reason for HL to have restricted Ms T’s account at the outset of prevented her from trading. For all these reasons, I uphold Ms T’s complaint and I award £750 – this includes HL’s revised award of £350 (if it hasn’t already been paid), plus an additional sum of £400. My final decision My final decision is that I uphold Ms T’s complaint and require Hargreaves Lansdown Asset Management Limited to pay the sum above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Ms T to accept or reject my decision before 3 April 2026. Alessandro Pulzone Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --