Tony Hetherington is Financial Mail on Sunday’s ace investigator, fighting readers’ corners, revealing the truth that lies behind closed doors and winning victories for those who have been left out-of-pocket. Find out how to contact him below.
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.
Payout: Barclays accepted that its delay left Mr M out of pocket
Anyone who has ever held warrants will know the feeling of waiting and hoping, watching 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 evidence 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 certificate that would allow you to trade, and the Ombudsman’s investigator ruled that a fair outcome would be for Barclays to pay you the profit you would have made in April last year, which was £10,628.
But then the brokers objected. They asked for a fresh review of all the documents 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 earlier, 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 customer requested in a timely manner, which ultimately delayed Mr M’s ability to exercise 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.
Halifax ignored my sister’s role as trustee
Halifax sent £300 to our reader to say sorry
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 Delgado’. He claims to have found that someone of your surname died in 2008, leaving $5.6million (about £4.6million) but with no family to inherit it. He wants you to pose as a relative, 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 $3million 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 falling 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.
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.