It is nearly six years since Neil Woodford’s investment empire began to crumble when dealings in the flagship Woodford Equity Income Fund (WEIF) were abruptly suspended. The £3.7billion fund, stuffed full of inappropriate, illiquid assets, never re-opened.
It was dismembered, resulting in painful losses for most of the 300,000 investors trapped in WEIF at the time its doors were shut. Paltry compensation, paid last year, failed to make good their losses.
Yet the debacle is far from over. Disciplinary action against Woodford by the City regulator rumbles on, albeit at the speed of a three-toed sloth.
At some stage, maybe in my lifetime, maybe not, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) will be in a position to hold the fund manager to account. But I don’t hold out much hope on that front given the FCA’s ineptitude and Woodford’s wiliness.
Then there is the High Court group claim that litigation specialist RGL has brought against wealth manager Hargreaves Lansdown (HL) for the part it played in persuading customers to join the Woodford party – despite growing concerns within the business that WEIF was sailing close to the wind.
RGL’s claim against HL, which delists from the stock market this week, was issued two-and-a-half years ago – a story which Wealth exclusively revealed. It seeks to recover the losses that investors suffered as a result of HL continuing to recommend WEIF right up to its suspension in June 2019.
Since then, RGL has been building the claim. On Friday, it told me that it has just added a further 1,700 investor claims, bringing the total to around 8,300. It says the average claim is around £20,000 (including interest) with the total value of the group claim likely to be in excess of £200million.
RGL says High Court proceedings will begin in late May when all claims will be served on HL. In the meantime, it has set April 30 as the deadline for any remaining HL customers to jump on board the claim.
Neil Woodford’s investment empire began to crumble nearly six years ago, when it emerged his £3.7billion fund was stuffed full of inappropriate, illiquid assets
Anyone interested in joining can do so at woodfordlitigation.com – including those who were no longer invested in the fund at the time the shutters came rattling down. It is free to join, with RGL taking a slice of the bounty only if the group claim is successful.
Given this is the last chance saloon for victims of the Woodford investment scandal to make good their losses, it’s worth joining.
Victory for Ted… but now I’ve been muzzled by insurer
Cabbie Patrick Derrane and wife Clare, a nurse, with Ted
A bowlful of good news for a change on pet insurance.
Following a story I wrote two weeks ago on the bewildering decision of an insurer to deny a claim made by reader Patrick Derrane after his dog Ted was clipped by a car, the company in question (Perfect Pet) has seen sense and coughed up – with £761 on its way to Patrick.
As I explained in my original report, Patrick regularly walks Ted, a nine-year old schnoodle, in a park near his home in Banstead, Surrey. Like most other dog owners in the park, he lets Ted off the lead so he can have a good run around.
Patrick had never had an issue with Ted until one morning in January when the dog picked up a scent and followed it out of the park. Although Patrick chased after him, Ted ran out into the road and was hit by a car.
Fearing Ted had broken his right hind leg, Patrick rushed him to a vet where he was examined and X-rayed. Within 24 hours, he was right as rain.
The London cabbie, married to nurse Clare, thought he would have no problem getting a claim approved by Perfect Pet. But it declined the claim on the grounds that he had failed to take ‘proper care and attention to prevent the accident’. Patrick contacted me, stating he had cancelled the policy and added: ‘I am not prepared to give the insurer another penny.’
My article and Patrick’s subsequent reference to it on website Trustpilot caused Perfect Pet to do a U-turn. A member of its ‘customer resolution team’ wrote to him stating she had researched the Lady Neville Recreation Ground from where Ted had run.
Her analysis? ‘As it is not a requirement for dogs to be kept on leads within the recreation ground, and it is a relatively well-secured area, I am happy to review your claim.’
Her verdict? Net of excesses and other deductions, he was owed £761.
The sting in the tail? He was requested to remove the reference to my article in his Trustpilot post on the grounds it ‘encouraged’ other people to read it – and thereby breached the website’s guidelines on the use of promotional material.
Utter tosh. It asked Patrick to delete the reference because it did not want people to realise that Perfect Pet Insurance does not always live up to its name. More like Imperfect Pet Insurance.
Greedy firms still want cash Isas axed
Although Wednesday’s Spring Statement from the Chancellor will (thankfully) not include any reduction in the right for people to save – rather than invest – into a tax-friendly Isa, change is coming as sure as night follows day.
You can smell it in the air and in every press release issued by those companies (investment platforms and asset managers) who want the Isa market to themselves. Down with cash, they say – investments all round.
In the past week, we have had figures published that highlight the amount of tax relief (£2.1billion) that cash Isa savers enjoyed in the tax year ending April 5, 2024. And we have had some rather questionable analysis from an outfit called Plum, which says the country’s ‘top’ investment Isa holders have built pots worth more than 13 times the size of the largest cash Isas.
In other words, investing is good, saving is bad.
For many up and down the country, cash Isas are the bedrock of their household finances. As Phillippa Cardno, chief executive of Newbury Building Society, told me: ‘Many individuals are simply not in a financial position to risk their limited savings in investment Isas.’
Spot on. We should have a choice as to how we use our £20,000 annual Isa allowance – in cash, shares or a mix of the two.
Cash Isa savers must not be discriminated against to feed the already fat profits of the investment industry.
Hands off our cash Isas.
Some links in this article may be affiliate links. If you click on them we may earn a small commission. That helps us fund This Is Money, and keep it free to use. We do not write articles to promote products. We do not allow any commercial relationship to affect our editorial independence.
