Vanguard Asset Management, Ltd · DRN-5615666

The complaint Mr K complains that Vanguard Asset Management, Ltd (‘Vanguard’) delayed the transfer of his stocks and shares ISA to an ETF with another provider. What happened Mr K decided to move his stocks and shares ISA from Vanguard and invest in an ETF with Company A. Vanguard received a valid transfer request from Company A on 16th December 2024. Vanguard completed the sale of funds on 27th December 2024 and transferred the proceeds to Company A on 23rd January 2025. Mr K complained about the time the process took. He felt the transaction should have been completed quicker and said the delay had caused him financial loss, as his new investment was purchased at a higher price than if he’d been able to invest sooner. Vanguard accepted both that there was a delay in completing the transfer process and also that they were responsible for this delay. They calculated the financial loss caused to Mr K as £341.17 and paid it to Company A that day. However, instead of sending £341.17 they sent £314.17. They rectified the error 4 days later on 10th March 2025, sending the remaining £27 and offering Mr K £50 in compensation for the error. Vanguard also offered Mr K £25 as compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to him by the delayed transfer overall. Mr K was unhappy with both compensation amounts, as well as with the calculation for financial loss that Vanguard had carried out. He brought the complaints to our service where they were considered by an investigator. The investigator thought that £50 compensation for the error in paying the redress was fair. He was satisfied the financial loss calculation was correct, but he felt £100 was more appropriate compensation for the delayed transfer, given the frustration and uncertainty caused to Mr K and the impact Vanguard’s failings had on him. Vanguard accepted these outcomes but Mr K disagreed with them, so the cases were passed to me. 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. Mr K has complained about how the payment of £341.17 financial loss was calculated, which I will address in this decision. He has also complained about how the payment of this redress was delayed. This complaint point was originally set up as a separate complaint but I have dealt with it as part of this decision, because it stems directly from the same event – the delay of the ISA transfer. Mr K has also complained about how the transfer of the residual balance from his ISA account was delayed. This was raised as part of a separate case against Vanguard, so I will not consider it within this decision.

-- 1 of 3 --

The delay of the transfer and the calculation of financial loss Vanguard have said that the ISA funds should have been sold on the 23rd rather than 27th December 2024. They’ve also said the transfer of proceeds to Company A should have occurred on the 7th instead of 23rd January, had there not been delays. Given the transfer was received on 16th December 2024, I’m satisfied that both 23rd December 2024 and 7th January 2025 are reasonable timescales, taking into account Vanguard’s internal service standards. As Vanguard said there was a delay of 4 days in selling the ISA funds, they’ve checked to see if this caused Mr K any financial loss – ie. if they had sold his shares on the earlier date, would he have received more money? The calculation indicated a small loss of £1.78. I’ve seen the redress calculations Vanguard carried out. Having considered the sell prices they’ve used to make this comparison, I’m satisfied this calculation was fair. Vanguard also accepted that they caused a delay in transferring the ISA proceeds to Company A, thereby causing a delay in the ETF being purchased. The units Mr K bought were more expensive by the time Company A purchased them on 23rd January. This meant Mr K was able to buy fewer units than he would have been able to buy on 7th January, had there been no delays. Mr K’s financial loss is the difference between the units purchased on 23rd January and what he should have been able to buy on 7th January, had the proceeds been transferred that day, and had he not lost out on £1.78 due to the delay in selling the funds in December. To calculate this loss, Vanguard used the actual unit price Mr K paid on 23rd January, which is confirmed as £92.24 in an email from Company A following the purchase. For 7th January, Vanguard used the unit closing price of £89.06. I’m satisfied these figures have been chosen correctly. The calculations showed that Mr K would have been able to buy an additional 4 units without the delays caused. Therefore I would expect Vanguard to redress Mr K by paying him the cost to buy those additional 4 units on the day they completed the calculation and sent the redress to Company A. Vanguard calculated this would have been £341.17. I recognise that there was a delay in sending this full redress payment to Company A as Vanguard made an error and the first payment was £27 short. I’ve checked if the delay in sending the £27 resulted in any further loss to Mr K, but the unit price at closing on 10th March 2025 was £84.57, less than the unit price used to calculate the redress. Taking everything into account, I’m satisfied the methodology is fair, the figures used were correct and that Mr K has been compensated as I’d expect for the financial loss caused by Vanguard’s delay. Mr K asked to see the calculations Vanguard made, as he believed they were inaccurate. Our investigator provided a summary of these calculations directly from Vanguard, but Mr K disputed the accuracy. In particular, he disagreed with the figures Vanguard used for the 23rd January 2025 part of the calculation in relation to the price per unit and number of units bought in the relevant fund. I can see a typo was made with the unit price, listing it as £92.42 instead of £92.24. This typo was a result of sharing Vanguard’s own summary of the calculation rather than the calculation itself. I can see the correct price was the one actually used in Vanguard’s calculation. In conclusion, I’m satisfied £341.17 is fair compensation for the financial loss Mr K suffered due to Vanguard’s delays in transferring the ISA funds. Compensation for the ISA transfer delay I’ve also considered the compensation payment as Mr K feels it is insufficient. He has said

-- 2 of 3 --

he shouldn’t have had to chase Vanguard for updates during the delays, and I agree. I have taken this into account, along with: - The length of the delay – Vanguard said the ETF purchase should have completed on the 7th rather than the 23rd of January 2025. - The fact Vanguard calculated and paid Mr K the financial loss he suffered as a result of the delays. - The total compensation being awarded to Mr K for linked complaints he has raised with our service which relate to the same series of events. Taking everything into account, I think £100 is fair and reasonable compensation for the frustration, uncertainty and inconvenience Mr K experienced in relation to the transaction being delayed. The delay in paying redress for financial loss As established above, I think £341.17 was the correct figure for the financial loss redress payment Vanguard should have sent Company A on 6th March 2025. However, they initially sent Company A £27 less, in error. I’ve considered all the circumstances including: - The fact this error came after Vanguard had already caused delays with the transfer. - The amount that was missing from the payment - £27. - The fact Vanguard rectified the error within 4 days, sending the remaining amount and offering Mr K compensation. - The fact this error did not lead to further financial loss. - The total compensation being awarded to Mr K for linked complaints he has raised with our service which relate to the same series of events. Having done so, I’m satisfied that £50 is fair and reasonable to recognise the error that occurred and the impact it may have had on Mr K. My final decision I uphold this complaint. Vanguard Asset Management, Ltd should pay Mr K a total of £150 compensation, if it has not done so already. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr K to accept or reject my decision before 17 April 2026. Artemis Pantelides Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --