Copy article

Aviva removes charge but costs clients more?

ended 05. May 2026

Aviva has told advisers it is changing how it charges its clients for cash held on its platform, removing the platform fee on cash but instead retaining a portion of the interest earned. In one example, cash earning 3.05% would result in the client receiving 1.93%, with Aviva retaining 1.12%.

Scott Gallacher, Chartered Financial Planner at Rowley Turton, said: “Aviva is clear this is a change rather than a simple reduction, but for clients the key issue is the outcome. At current interest rates, the effective cost of holding cash could be more than three times higher than the previous 0.35% platform charge. Rates would need to fall materially before clients see any benefit, which makes this look less like a change or a saving and more like a price hike. Aligning with the wider market may explain the move, but it doesn’t automatically make it good value — particularly when some platforms, such as Transact, don’t retain interest at all.”

Questions for experts:

  1. Will clients actually be better or worse off under this new structure?
  2. Is retaining part of the interest on client cash a fair charging model?
  3. Do clients properly understand the difference between removing a fee and reducing overall costs?
  4. Should platforms be clearer about the net impact on returns?
  5. Could this lead advisers to reduce the amount of cash held on platforms?

6 responses from the Newspage community

Copy all

Star Quote
Copy

Editor
Scott GallacherVerified
Director at Rowley Turton
“Most clients are likely to be worse off at current interest rates, even if the change is presented as removing a charge. Retaining part of the interest feels unfair to me, which is why we tend to avoid platforms that take this approach. Overall, for most clients it’s likely to be a modest increase in cost, but advisers — and Aviva’s direct customers — still need to consider whether a change of platform is warranted. There is a real risk clients focus on the removal of a fee without appreciating the impact on their actual returns.
Copy

Editor
Anita WrightVerified
Chartered Financial Planner at Ribble Wealth Management
It is disappointing to see Aviva move to retaining interest on client cash now. But there are far worse offenders across the market. Aegon pays clients just 1.81% on a base rate of 3.75%, retaining roughly 1.94%. Wealthtime keeps 60% of interest earned.Nucleus earned 4.16% in Q1 2026 but shared only 2.03%, keeping 2.13%. Scottish Widows earns 3.35%–3.60% and pays clients 1.70%. Fidelity pays 2.45% on ISA cash, retaining around 1.30%. But what baffles me more than platform pricing is why advisers are holding significant amounts of client money in pure cash on platforms in the first place. Cash has a role, short term needs, an emergency buffer, or a temporary parking spot. Beyond that, sitting in cash is a guaranteed way to lose purchasing power.
Copy

Editor
Nouran MoustafaVerified
Practice Principal & IFA at Roxton Wealth
Clients may be better or worse off depending on the interest rate, but the important point is that removing a visible fee does not automatically mean the client is paying less. In simple terms, if the platform is taking a bigger slice of the interest than the previous charge, the client can absolutely end up worse off. Retaining some interest is not necessarily unfair if it is clearly disclosed, commercially justified and the client still receives fair value, but it becomes uncomfortable when the headline message sounds like a saving while the real net return has fallen. This is exactly where Consumer Duty matters. Clients do not live in basis points and charging structures; they live in outcomes. Platforms should show advisers and clients the before-and-after position in pounds and percentages, not just say the fee has been removed. It may also make advisers think harder about why cash is held on platform, for how long, and whether there are better homes for short-term liquidity.
Copy

Editor
Antonia MedlicottVerified
Founder & MD at Investing Insiders
This change by Aviva raises serious questions about whether clients are genuinely better off, or if the label on the box has simply changed while the contents remain broadly the same. The removal of the platform fee does little to help the majority of clients and appears to be a business decision that prioritises revenue over client outcomes.
It also raises a transparency question. In 2023, Aviva told shareholders that it passed on all cash interest on its adviser platform, yet the consumer platform is now moving to a model where Aviva retains a portion of that interest. Clients deserve to know the difference. This serves as a reminder that uninvested cash is never truly free to hold on a platform, it is always working for someone, and it is usually not the client.
Advisers will be more mindful about using platforms that retain a large portion of their clients' interest on uninvested cash. Clients should not be misled into thinking a reduced fee is automatically in their best interest.
Copy

Premium
Adam Pickett0
Independent Financial Adviser at McLaren Capital
Clients will clearly be worse off under the new arrangement, and it's a clear cash grab by Aviva. However, unfortunately, it's really just bringing them in line with other platform providers. A large number also skim interest from clients, but have been far more subtle about it, so you can at least credit Aviva for coming out and being honest in their new policy.

Our view is that this skimming should be considered a charge when comparing platform providers that you invest through, and I would encourage everyone to understand how their platform is charging. Transact are a clear outlier for their client-first approach, and all credit to them for returning client cash interest to the clients, when they could have easily kept it as a windfall.
Copy

Rohit Parmar-MistryVerified
Founder at Pattrn Data
Clients may hear that a fee has gone away and assume the product has become cheaper. That is exactly why this kind of pricing change needs more scrutiny. If a platform drops an explicit cash fee but keeps a meaningful slice of the interest instead, the real question is not what vanished from the tariff sheet. It is what happens to the client’s net return.

In practice, many clients could be worse off, especially while rates remain elevated. Retaining interest is still a charge, just in a form that is less visible and harder to compare quickly. That creates a risk that headline simplicity masks a more expensive outcome.

The fairness test is simple: could an ordinary client understand the real cost difference without an adviser translating it? If not, removing a fee is not the same as reducing cost.