(^) The Mail on Sunday September 1 • 2019
Barclays’ delay on
mining certificate
cost me £10,628
102 personal finance
The Readers’ Champion Probes a world of scams and scandals
T.M. writes: In 2016, I held
shares in mining company
Amari through Barclays
Stockbrokers. Amari was
bought by Australian company
Perseus Mining on terms that
included giving me warrants
exercisable at 44 cents. For
two years I pressed Barclays
for my warrant certificate, to
no avail. In 2018, Perseus
shares rose to 50 cents,
meaning I could buy at 44
cents and immediately sell at
50 cents, but I could not as
Barclays had still not
produced the warrant
certificate.
ANYONE who has ever held
warrants will know the feeling
of waiting and hoping, watch-
ing the share price rise until it
is above the exercise price and
you can turn your warrants into
shares and then sell them at an
instant guaranteed profit.
Barclays Stockbrokers
deprived you of that profit. By
the time the brokers came up
with the necessary warrant
certificate last December, the
Perseus share price had slipped
back to 44 cents and your paper
profit had evaporated.
You then complained to the
Financial Ombudsman Service.
The Ombudsman appointed an
investigator who heard from
both sides and ruled: ‘I am
satisfied there is enough evi-
dence to show that Mr M
clearly wanted to exercise
these warrants in April 2018
for 44 cents and sell them for
the price they were trading at
then, of 50 cents.’
Barclays accepted this, but
hit back that you could have
waited until March of this
year, when Perseus shares
very briefly touched 54 cents,
giving you an even bigger
potential profit.
The investigator rejected
this argument, saying: ‘I do
not think it is fair to expect Mr
M to be checking the share
price constantly and to be
ready to act on his warrants
the second the price gets to
above 50 cents.’
The blunt fact was that the
brokers took a very long time
to give you the warrant cer-
tificate that would allow you
to trade, and the Ombudsman’s
investigator ruled that a fair
outcome would be for Bar-
clays to pay you the profit you
would have made in April last
year, which was £10,628.
B u t t h e n t h e b r o k e r s
objected. They asked for a
fresh review of all the docu-
ments in the case, putting you
back to square one. ‘Am I
flogging a dead horse?’ you
asked me.
I put the same question to
Barclays Stockbrokers – now
operating under the new name
Smart Investor. This led the
brokers themselves to review
all their documents, and they
made a startling discovery.
They had thought that you
asked to turn your warrants
into shares in March 2018, just
before the Perseus shares rose
to 50 cents in April.
They have now found that
your request came much ear-
lier, so you would clearly
have had time to complete
the paperwork and pocket
the profit.
The brokers told me: ‘We
accept that we did not provide
the information that our cus-
tomer requested in a timely
manner, which ultimately
delayed Mr M’s ability to exer-
cise the warrants. We have
apologised to Mr M and
offered him £10,628 to ensure
he is not left out of pocket as a
result of the delays.’
You have told me that the
payment has arrived. An
excellent outcome.
by Tony
Hetherington
Consumer Champion of the year
PAYOUT: Barclays accepted that its delay left Mr M out of pocket
Halifax ignored my sister’s role as trustee
J.S. writes: When my sister’s
partner passed away, we
discovered she was the sole
trustee of a family trust fund
he set up in 2008. Halifax
confirmed she was also the
only beneficiary of more than
£160,000. Later, this was
found not to be so, as Halifax
said the trust deed could not
be found and the
beneficiaries could not now
be confirmed. The solicitor
acting for the estate proposed
that the partner’s two adult
children would be the natural
beneficiaries, and although
my sister has signed nothing
and agreed to nothing,
Halifax has terminated the
trust plan.
LOOKING into what you told
me was like watching an old
black and white movie
involving a pot of gold, a
missing document, and
disputed beneficiaries. The
pot of gold was held by
Halifax Financial Services,
and officials there have not
denied that your sister was
the sole trustee.
However, after apparently
telling you that she was also
the beneficiary, Halifax then
revealed that the trust deed
itself could not be found, so
there was uncertainty as to
who your sister’s partner
intended to benefit.
Halifax traced
correspondence from 2008 in
which it recommended how
the trust should operate, with
the settlor’s two adult
children as beneficiaries on
his death. What is missing, of
course, is his signature
approving this.
Your sister refused to sign
anything that reduced her
rights as sole trustee.
Nevertheless, without
informing her, Halifax
accepted legal advice and
paid out all the funds to the
two adult children.
I admit I am surprised that
Halifax took this decision
unilaterally. On the other
hand, I have to accept that if
the matter had gone to court,
the result would probably
have been the same but with
big legal costs.
Halifax has told me it
wants to apologise for failing
to tell your sister what it was
doing, and I believe it has
sent her £300 by way of
saying sorry.
Inheritance scam is 150 years old
Mrs J.H. writes: I am sending
you a letter we have received
which to me has ‘scam’
written all over it. My
husband and I are in our 80s,
but we are not stupid.
MANY thanks for sending me
the letter you received, posted
in this country but supposedly
from a Texas bank official
calling himself ‘Ronald Del-
gado’. He claims to have found
that someone of your surname
died in 2008, leaving $5.6 mil-
lion (about £4.6 million) but
with no family to inherit it. He
wants you to pose as a rela-
tive, claim the cash, and then
share the loot with him.
This fake inheritance scam is
not new. Anyone who takes the
bait and replies will be told that
to get the fictional inheritance
they must first pay taxes, legal
fees, and even bribes. Then the
fraudsters simply disappear.
But what was news to me
was the discovery of just how
old this scam really is. Making
enquiries in the US, I found a
record of a court case in 1936,
where 28 people were charged
with fraud after pocketing
$3 million from victims named
Baker, who had been told they
could claim against the estate
of someone of the same name.
And evidence was given that
the scam had already been
operating for about 70 years.
So, well done you for not fall-
ing for it.
If you believe you are the victim of financial wrongdoing, write to
Tony Hetherington at Financial Mail, 2 Derry Street, London W8 5TS
or email [email protected].
Because of the high volume of enquiries, personal replies cannot be
given. Please send only copies of original documents, which we
regret cannot be returned.
wallpaper
(WallPaper)
#1