Published decisions
572
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Firm analysis
A public analysis page covering published Financial Ombudsman decisions involving Hargreaves Lansdown Asset Management Limited, including outcome context, product mix, complaint themes, and representative cases.
Published decisions
572
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
18.0%
103 upheld decisions
Page summary
572 published decisions involving Hargreaves Lansdown Asset Management Limited, with product mix, upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
572
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
18.0%
103 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 27 Jul 2026
How to use this page
The top-line cards show scale and outcome context. The ranked view and representative decisions show where the slice is concentrated and what the published decision set actually looks like.
Published decisions
572
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
18.0%
103 upheld decisions
Leading product
Investments
287 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Delay In Claim Handling
120 tagged decisions
Hargreaves Lansdown Asset Management Limited appears in 572 published decisions in this corpus. 18.0% of those decisions were upheld, which gives a public view of how often complaints involving this firm ended in a fully upheld outcome in the final published set.
Investments is the firm’s clearest product exposure in the published decisions, with 287 decisions and an upheld rate of 16.0%.
Hargreaves Lansdown Asset Management Limited's decision trail runs from 2013 to 2026. That range gives enough public history to see whether complaint exposure has been broad-based or concentrated into certain years.
In the latest year represented here, Hargreaves Lansdown Asset Management Limited appeared in 16 published decisions with an upheld rate of 31.3%.
Delay In Claim Handling is the strongest complaint-theme signal tied to Hargreaves Lansdown Asset Management Limited in the published decisions. In this corpus, those themes are the most stable public proxy for complaint “type”.
Cobs, Disp, Fca Principles, and others are the most visible precedent signals in the firm’s published decisions. That gives extra context on the rules and fairness arguments appearing most often around the firm.
Representative cases
5 examples shown
Taking everything into account and for the reasons set out above, my decision is that we can’t consider a number of issues Mr L has raised because they were not referred to us within six months of the dates that the respective final response letters were issued. It is also my final decision that I don’t uphold any aspect of Mr L’s complaint about Hargreaves Lansdown Asset Management Limited that I can consider.
View source decisionFor the reasons explained, my final decision is that I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr M to accept or reject my decision before 4 August 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons given above, I do not uphold Mr A's complaint about Hargreaves Lansdown Asset Management Limited. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr A to accept or reject my decision before 22 July 2026.
View source decisionAs can be seen with the detail outlined above, Mr M’s complaint has been taken seriously, and considerable time has been spent reviewing the relevant evidence and corresponding with the parties to reach a fair and reasonable outcome. My overall decision is that HL’s platform was not explicitly clear that automatic dividend reinvestment was not an option with VCTs.
View source decisionFor the reasons given, I don’t upon Mr C complaint about Hargreaves Lansdown Asset Management Limited trading as Hargreaves Lansdown. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr C to accept or reject my decision before 24 July 2026.
View source decision