HSBC UK Bank Plc · DRN-6188265

The complaint Mrs M suffered various delays when transferring her investment portfolio from HSBC UK Bank Plc (HSBC) to her new Bank, resulting in a financial loss. What happened Mrs M submitted a request in January 2025 to transfer her investment portfolio from HSBC to her new Bank. Due to various delays, the transfer wasn’t completed until August 2025. Mrs M has said that this resulted in financial loss and missed investment opportunities. Mrs M submitted a complaint to HSBC about this. HSBC issued a final response in March 2025 saying that it had received the correct transfer request paperwork from her new Bank on 18 February 2025. It also said that it was allowed up to six weeks to complete a non-ISA transfer. It accepted however, that it had caused a short delay and made a payment of £150 to Mrs M, that it believed was fair and reasonable for the upset caused. Mrs M remained unhappy and referred her complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service. Mrs M said she waited to make any investment transactions as HSBC had said the transfer of the portfolio would happen within a few days. She said the transfer was mishandled from the outset resulting in prolonged uncertainty, causing significant emotional distress, loss of time and disruption to her financial planning. Mrs M also said due to the delays in accessing her funds, she was forced to make an unplanned sale of some of her shares. Mrs M was seeking compensation of £50,000 for the overall impact of the delays. The Investigator considered the complaint and accepted that the transfer of the investment portfolio to the new Bank, took significantly longer than it should’ve. The Investigator was persuaded that most of the delays were caused by HSBC. She noted that HSBC had paid £150 in compensation but didn’t agree this amount accurately reflected the distress and inconvenience Mrs M experienced. The Investigator thought an additional £350, bringing the total payment to £500, was fair and reasonable in the circumstances. The Investigator wasn’t persuaded that Mrs M experienced a financial loss due to missed investment opportunities or that HSBC should be held accountable for Mrs M’s decision to sell some of her shares. But she thought that if Mrs M was paying higher fees with HSBC than her new Bank then she should also be compensated for this as the delayed transfer meant Mrs M had paid HSBC’s fees for longer. HSBC agreed to pay the extra compensation. Mrs M didn’t accept the Investigator’s view, saying that the proposed £500 total compensation didn’t proportionately reflect the nature, duration and consequences of HSBC’s failings. Mrs M said £50,000 represented a restrained and reasonable remedy, not a punitive one.

-- 1 of 3 --

The Investigator wasn’t persuaded to change her opinion in respect of the amount of compensation. The Investigator asked if Mrs M would accept a lesser amount, if HSBC were prepared to increase their offer. HSBC weren’t however prepared to increase the offer above the £500 already proposed by the Investigator, so the complaint has been passed to me to make a decision. I contacted both sides to ascertain what level of fees Mrs M was paying for her arrangements with HSBC and her new Bank. Based on the evidence provided, I explained that I was satisfied Mrs M was paying higher fees for her new Bank to manage her investment portfolio, so I didn’t think there was any additional compensation due here. 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. Both Mrs M and HSBC accepted the Investigator’s view of 23 January 2026 in respect of the delays caused throughout the transfer. So, I don’t intend to address this aspect further. Instead, I’ll focus my decision on the remaining issues in dispute; the compensation awarded for the impact of the delays, Mrs M’s belief that HSBC should be held responsible for lost investment opportunities and that HSBC should also be held accountable for the sale of some shares. Having considered everything submitted, I’ve reached the same conclusions as the Investigator for essentially the same reasons. I’ll explain why. Mrs M said in her response to the Investigator’s view that for a prolonged period, her portfolio wasn’t meaningfully accessible or actionable. So, while the Investigator had said Mrs M wasn’t out of the market, she said in reality she had no ability to manage her investments. Based on the evidence I’ve seen, HSBC confirmed that if the stock hadn’t been transferred to the broker, then Mrs M could still contact the HSBC call centre and request to sell the stock. HSBC have also confirmed that she could still use the online banking platform or contact the helpline had she been out of the country at the time. I’m not therefore persuaded that Mrs M had no ability to manage her investments during this time, although I can appreciate why she didn’t choose to do so. Mrs M has said she disagrees that HSBC shouldn’t be held accountable for her decision to sell part of her holdings. Mrs M has said her decision to sell was taken during a period where she had been placed in a prolonged state of anxiety and impaired control by HSBC’s delays. However, I’ve not seen enough evidence to support this or to persuade me that HSBC should be held responsible for her decision to sell. Mrs M has said that she needed to sell these investments to meet essential financial obligations, but she hasn’t explained why she wouldn’t have had to sell them anyway to meet the same financial obligations if the transfer had completed sooner. So, I’m not persuaded that the delay in the transfer completing had an impact here. Mrs M said the delay was more than an administrative delay and had become unexplained institutional inaction. Mrs M also said that her transfer was held up within HSBC’s internal work queues, and the delays weren’t due to the complexity of the transfer but HSBC’s internal processes. Mrs M therefore considered the proposed award of £500 was inadequate and felt a more proportionate remedy was £50,000. I’ve considered this carefully, but I’m not persuaded from the evidence that any additional compensation is necessary here, and that the combined compensation of £500 is fair and

-- 2 of 3 --

reasonable in the circumstances. I think £500 reflects the degree of actual distress and inconvenience this would’ve caused, given that I think Mrs M was still able to manage her investments during this time. So, I think HSBC should make an extra payment of £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused to Mrs M to resolve this complaint, in addition to the £150 already paid. I’m satisfied that this is fair compensation in the circumstances. Mrs M has confirmed that she is currently paying higher fees with her new Bank, than with HSBC. There is therefore no additional award to be given in respect of this because if the investment portfolio had transferred sooner, Mrs M would’ve been paying higher fees for longer. My final decision For the reasons set out above, I’m upholding Mrs M’s complaint in part. My decision is that HSBC UK Bank Plc should make a payment of £350 to Mrs M. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs M to accept or reject my decision before 22 April 2026. Lee Williams Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --