Tony Hetherington, the renowned investigator for Financial Mail on Sunday, is dedicated to fighting for readers’ rights, uncovering hidden truths, and achieving justice for those who have suffered financial loss. If you need to contact him, you can find his details below.
D.R. shared his experience, stating that his financial adviser, David Howe, convinced him to invest £25,000 in shares. However, upon further investigation, D.R. discovered that Howe had purchased the shares in his own name, claiming it was not an issue. When D.R. contacted the company, they revealed that Howe had informed them that the £25,000 was a personal loan from D.R.
In response, Howe offered to repay the £25,000 plus 3% interest, but only when he eventually sold the shares. Tony Hetherington investigated the matter and found that while Howe is indeed a financial adviser registered with the Financial Conduct Authority, it’s important to note that this registration only came into effect in December 2020.
Hetherington delved deeper into the timeline of events, discovering that when the discussion of purchasing shares in Adviser Services Holdings Limited (ASHL) took place between D.R. and Howe, it was September 2020 and Howe was not yet a financial adviser. However, it was clear that he intended to join ASHL and acquire shares in the company, which he eventually did.
Evidence showed that D.R. transferred £25,000 to Howe’s bank account, and in text messages, D.R. requested to see all the share details. Howe responded, promising to send the share certificate but failed to do so. When D.R. asked if Howe could sell the shares, Howe replied with a vague response. Hetherington noted that Howe’s lack of denial regarding the shares and the certificate raised suspicions about the true nature of the transaction.
To gain further clarity, Hetherington approached Michael Couzens, the head of ASHL, regarding the situation. Couzens admitted that the entire situation was confusing, as D.R.’s dispute with Howe had entangled ASHL as well. Couzens confirmed that D.R. would never have been eligible to become a shareholder in ASHL since shares were only offered to employees or prospective employees.
ASHL questioned Howe about the text messages, which he dismissed as friendly banter. However, if the £25,000 was indeed a loan, the absence of a formal agreement raised doubts. Hetherington gave Howe an opportunity to respond, questioning the logic behind his proposal to repay D.R. only when he sold the shares. According to contract guidelines, any informal loan should be repayable upon demand. In his response, Howe claimed that he and D.R. were friends at the time and accused D.R. of malicious intent.
Hetherington countered Howe’s accusation, stating that D.R. had every right to expect either the shares or a monetary reimbursement and that this was by no means a malicious expectation. Howe further claimed that he never solicited a loan from D.R. and asserted that D.R. insisted on providing the money for him to purchase the shares personally. Howe also stated that he had offered to repay the loan immediately with 8% interest, not the originally mentioned 3%, but D.R. declined this offer. Nonetheless, Howe maintained that the offer to repay the loan and interest remained open.
When Hetherington communicated Howe’s offer to D.R., D.R. accepted it and agreed to the repayment, amounting to £27,000 in total, as a means of resolving the matter. However, a week later, Howe stated that he was on annual leave and would consult his solicitor upon his return to draft a formal contract. The promised “immediate” repayment seemed to disappear, replaced by vague references to a “reasonable time frame.”
Howe eventually sent a contract to Hetherington, which D.R. signed, and £27,000 was deposited into D.R.’s account, three weeks after accepting the initial offer. While this outcome provided some closure, Hetherington expressed confusion over the idea that a professional adviser would borrow such a large sum without any evidence of the loan, interest rates, or repayment terms.
In a separate case, Mrs. J.G. revealed her experience with courier company Evri (formerly Hermes), which repeatedly invoiced her for additional charges, claiming her parcels exceeded weight limits despite her careful measurements. Determined to resolve the issue, Mrs. J.G. began photographing her parcels on the scales. However, a recent incident involved the sale of a bike, which resulted in Evri refusing to deliver the bike until additional charges were paid. Faced with an impatient buyer, Mrs. J.G. reluctantly paid the extra charges, and the bike was promptly delivered. Mrs. J.G. assured Hetherington that she had measured and weighed the bike meticulously, confirming that it comfortably fell below Evri’s weight limit of 15 kilograms.
Hetherington stepped in to address the problem and contacted Evri on behalf of Mrs. J.G. In response, Evri apologized for the inconvenience and promptly refunded the extra charges. However, Hetherington noted that the use of the term “immediately” was inaccurate as it took several weeks for the refund to be processed.
Lastly, Ms. J.P. sought Hetherington’s assistance regarding delayed payment from Sun Life Financial of Canada (SLFC) following the death of her father. Upon contacting SLFC, Ms. J.P. was informed that they were currently handling claims submitted five to six months prior, while her own claim was only one month old. SLFC cited reasons such as Covid and system migration as explanations for the delays. The amount owed to Ms. J.P. totaled £35,000.
Hetherington previously believed that SLFC processed claims promptly, except in complex cases. However, after receiving several complaints about delays due to system migration, Hetherington contacted SLFC to address the issue and also inquired about the return of the certified copy of Ms. J.P.’s father’s will. SLFC acknowledged that their new system launch caused delays but assured that responding to claims in a timely manner remained their priority. Consequently, SLFC paid the outstanding £35,000, along with interest. Regrettably, the certified copy of Ms. J.P.’s father’s will was mistakenly destroyed, so SLFC offered further compensation to make amends.
If you suspect you have been a victim of financial misconduct, please reach out to Tony Hetherington by writing to Financial Mail at 9 Derry Street, London W8 5HY, or emailing [email protected]. Due to the high volume of inquiries, personal replies may not be possible. Please include copies of original documents, as they cannot be returned.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
