SVS Securities - shut down?

masonic

EXASPERATEDEXHAUSTED said:

Masonic said:
"LC's responsibilities are set out in law. They are required to prepare a distribution plan which deals with the return of client assets"
The return of client assets has not been dealt with.

The client assets are deemed returned when they have been transferred to the new broker. What you have now is a dispute with the new broker over the level of access you have to those assets. You can at any time reject your assets being transferred to ITI by contacting LC. If you should do this, they will be held in trust at ITI on behalf of LC, and at that point it again becomes LC's responsibility to return the assets to you by other means. I would not recommend that course of action though, as it could be even slower.

EXASPERATEDEXHAUSTED said:

"The Creditors' Committee represents all investors and creditors."
Statutory representation under duress, as is the case here, is a contempt of Article 20 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is therefore immoral and illegal.

I do not believe it is "illegal". That is a rather extraordinary claim, and if true paves the way to legal challenge. Have you taken any such steps?

The Creditors' Committee was constituted following a decision process. The vast majority of investors chose not to take part in this process, but just as those who do not vote in elections still get to be represented by their duly elected local MP, those who do not take part in the constitution of the Creditors' Committee still get to be represented by them. Any investor may contact the Creditors' Committee to discuss their concerns, and a suitable quorum of investors may call a meeting of creditors. Have you taken any such steps?

EXASPERATEDEXHAUSTED said:

"It is not reasonable to level blame at them for the failings of an FCA authorised firm that was approved by the FCA as suitable for accepting the transfer."
It is reasonable to do so.  LC are responsible for returning clients' assets.  They have not done so.  Instead it appears that they have attempted to extract value from client assets for the benefit of others by charging ITI for those assets. They should have chosen other reliable brokers without charge.

The distribution plan, including details of the nominated broker were shared and duly approved by the Creditors' Committee, the FCA and the High Court. The Creditors' Committee represents all investors and creditors. The distribution plan was executed correctly and on time by LC. It should be noted that the 3 week delay between publication and execution of the transfer is a legal requirement so that interested parties have an opportunity to lodge objections with LC or the court.

A list of appropriate brokers was probably provided to LC by the FCA, and we can take it that ITI's name was on that list. LC are a firm of insolvency practitioners. It is not reasonable to level blame at them for the failings of an FCA authorised firm that was approved by the FCA as suitable for accepting the transfer. Only the FCA has the power to go in and properly inspect/audit ITI.

EXASPERATEDEXHAUSTED said:

"Blaming LC for not knowing in advance ITI's handling of the IT was going to be a disaster is like blaming SVS investors for not knowing the company was unsound." 
No it isn't.  LC have statutory and moral responsibilities to return clients' assets,  Clients are responsible for no more than ensuring their broker is FCA regulated

They are required to prepare a distribution plan which deals with the return of client assets, and how expenses of the special administration may be allocated. It must be approved by the Creditors' committee, the FCA, and the court. The client assets are deemed returned when they have been transferred to the new broker.

EXASPERATEDEXHAUSTED said:

Whose side are you on  Masonic?

I'm not on anyone's side. I am a dispassionate and disinterested observer. I deal in facts, not hyperbole. I can see why that would aggravate an exasperated and exhausted individual such as yourself. The fact is LC have adequately discharged their responsibilities in law. I'm not disagreeing that what has followed isn't a disaster, and an avoidable one at that, but only two parties really could have known this was coming in advance, and neither of those parties is LC.

Of course, you are free to disagree with me, but I would suggest that you focus your energy on those who have a capacity to bring your suffering to an end.

masonic

gibson81 said:

Has anyone asked ITI if you need to open an Phoenix account to have your holdings transferred out? I have just logged in and my holdings are on their Qort platform. I do not have any intention of doing any buying or selling through ITI and really just want my shares transferred to another broker.

I haven't asked ITI, but information posted to this thread recently makes it pretty clear this is not necessary if you just want to transfer out.

masonic

gibson81 said:

johnburman said:

For those interested, I am now "on-boarded" to our joint account, in my name only.
Weird.  Needless to say I can't trade on any of our accounts, despite being a client from 23 July.
I feel ITI are a lost cause.  The platform is too complex and their customer service is hopeless anyway.  So for those who agree we need to move and do it quickly.  I have now got accounts with other brokers and started the transfer process to them 8 days ago.  Now how long will it take to move I wonder?  Anyone completed the process yet?  

I have also requested transfer through two separate brokers. I understand the process can take up to 8 weeks. Clearly the August holiday period and the virus will not help... But at least there is light at the end of the tunnel. I will then close my ITI accounts.

What's interesting is that the current information on the gov.uk website states S&S ISA transfers should be completed within 30 calendar days. Now I don't know if that's really what HMRC intended (stock transfers were previously excluded from the transfer deadlines), but worth bearing in mind should it become apparent progress is not being made with these transfers. Getting in an initial complaint at the 30 day mark means less waiting around to escalate should it become necessary.

EXASPERATEDEXHAUSTED

masonic said:

The client assets are deemed returned when they have been transferred to the new broker. What you have now is a dispute with the new broker over the level of access you have to those assets. You can at any time reject your assets being transferred to ITI by contacting LC. If you should do this, they will be held in trust at ITI on behalf of LC, and at that point it again becomes LC's responsibility to return the assets to you by other means. I would not recommend that course of action though, as it could be even slower.

I do not believe it is "illegal". That is a rather extraordinary claim, and if true paves the way to legal challenge. Have you taken any such steps?

The Creditors' Committee was constituted following a decision process. The vast majority of investors chose not to take part in this process, but just as those who do not vote in elections still get to be represented by their duly elected local MP, those who do not take part in the constitution of the Creditors' Committee still get to be represented by them. Any investor may contact the Creditors' Committee to discuss their concerns, and a suitable quorum of investors may call a meeting of creditors. Have you taken any such steps?

The distribution plan, including details of the nominated broker were shared and duly approved by the Creditors' Committee, the FCA and the High Court. The Creditors' Committee represents all investors and creditors. The distribution plan was executed correctly and on time by LC. It should be noted that the 3 week delay between publication and execution of the transfer is a legal requirement so that interested parties have an opportunity to lodge objections with LC or the court.

A list of appropriate brokers was probably provided to LC by the FCA, and we can take it that ITI's name was on that list. LC are a firm of insolvency practitioners. It is not reasonable to level blame at them for the failings of an FCA authorised firm that was approved by the FCA as suitable for accepting the transfer. Only the FCA has the power to go in and properly inspect/audit ITI.

They are required to prepare a distribution plan which deals with the return of client assets, and how expenses of the special administration may be allocated. It must be approved by the Creditors' committee, the FCA, and the court. The client assets are deemed returned when they have been transferred to the new broker.

I'm not on anyone's side. I am a dispassionate and disinterested observer. I deal in facts, not hyperbole. I can see why that would aggravate an exasperated and exhausted individual such as yourself. The fact is LC have adequately discharged their responsibilities in law. I'm not disagreeing that what has followed isn't a disaster, and an avoidable one at that, but only two parties really could have known this was coming in advance, and neither of those parties is LC.

Of course, you are free to disagree with me, but I would suggest that you focus your energy on those who have a capacity to bring your suffering to an end.

Your abuse of the word "deemed" is legalese sophistry.
What is essential in equity is that the assets have NOT been returned.  The word "deemed" is meaningless.
Human Rights are  deliberately conceived as objects immune to legal opinion, and are the origin of law.  You obviously don't understand this undeniable fact.
Human Rights are inalienable and are not subject to any action by anyone including their owner.
LC are responsible for their choice of Broker, clients are not, and your attempt to pass the buck onto clients is despicable.
These are the facts

masonic

EXASPERATEDEXHAUSTED said:

masonic said:

The client assets are deemed returned when they have been transferred to the new broker. What you have now is a dispute with the new broker over the level of access you have to those assets. You can at any time reject your assets being transferred to ITI by contacting LC. If you should do this, they will be held in trust at ITI on behalf of LC, and at that point it again becomes LC's responsibility to return the assets to you by other means. I would not recommend that course of action though, as it could be even slower.

I do not believe it is "illegal". That is a rather extraordinary claim, and if true paves the way to legal challenge. Have you taken any such steps?

The Creditors' Committee was constituted following a decision process. The vast majority of investors chose not to take part in this process, but just as those who do not vote in elections still get to be represented by their duly elected local MP, those who do not take part in the constitution of the Creditors' Committee still get to be represented by them. Any investor may contact the Creditors' Committee to discuss their concerns, and a suitable quorum of investors may call a meeting of creditors. Have you taken any such steps?

The distribution plan, including details of the nominated broker were shared and duly approved by the Creditors' Committee, the FCA and the High Court. The Creditors' Committee represents all investors and creditors. The distribution plan was executed correctly and on time by LC. It should be noted that the 3 week delay between publication and execution of the transfer is a legal requirement so that interested parties have an opportunity to lodge objections with LC or the court.

A list of appropriate brokers was probably provided to LC by the FCA, and we can take it that ITI's name was on that list. LC are a firm of insolvency practitioners. It is not reasonable to level blame at them for the failings of an FCA authorised firm that was approved by the FCA as suitable for accepting the transfer. Only the FCA has the power to go in and properly inspect/audit ITI.

They are required to prepare a distribution plan which deals with the return of client assets, and how expenses of the special administration may be allocated. It must be approved by the Creditors' committee, the FCA, and the court. The client assets are deemed returned when they have been transferred to the new broker.

I'm not on anyone's side. I am a dispassionate and disinterested observer. I deal in facts, not hyperbole. I can see why that would aggravate an exasperated and exhausted individual such as yourself. The fact is LC have adequately discharged their responsibilities in law. I'm not disagreeing that what has followed isn't a disaster, and an avoidable one at that, but only two parties really could have known this was coming in advance, and neither of those parties is LC.

Of course, you are free to disagree with me, but I would suggest that you focus your energy on those who have a capacity to bring your suffering to an end.

Your abuse of the word "deemed" is legalese sophistry.

My use of the word "deemed" is according to its widely accepted definition:

If it pleases you, you may replace with any of the following: 'considered', 'judged', 'treated as', 'taken to be', 'regarded as'

EXASPERATEDEXHAUSTED said:

What is essential in equity is that the assets have NOT been returned.  The word "deemed" is meaningless.

The assets are now held in trust for you by an active nominee company, as they were before SVS entered administration. It was never on the cards for you to take physical possession of the assets as part of the distribution plan, although withdrawal in certificate form can be an option in a distrubution plan. The word 'deemed' is not meaningless, it means if you petition the High Court to complain that LC has not returned the assets, you will be informed that you are mistaken.

EXASPERATEDEXHAUSTED said:

Human Rights are inalienable and are not subject to any action by anyone including their owner.

Do you not think it is a tiny bit histrionic to be banging on about human rights in relation to this problem? If you do decide to raise your grievances with the appropriate parties, I would suggest doing so in a more measured manner.

You cannot expect any body in the UK not to behave in accordance with UK law. If you believe the law is not compatible with your human rights, then it is those responsible for making laws that are responsible for that.

EXASPERATEDEXHAUSTED said:

LC are responsible for their choice of Broker

The distribution plan, including details of the nominated broker were shared and duly approved by the Creditors' Committee, the FCA and the High Court. The Creditors' Committee represents all investors and creditors. The distribution plan was executed correctly and on time by LC. It should be noted that the 3 week delay between publication and execution of the transfer is a legal requirement so that interested parties have an opportunity to lodge objections with LC or the court.

A list of appropriate brokers was probably provided to LC by the FCA, and we can take it that ITI's name was on that list. LC are a firm of insolvency practitioners. It is not reasonable to level blame at them for the failings of an FCA authorised firm that was approved by the FCA as suitable for accepting the transfer. Only the FCA has the power to go in and properly inspect/audit ITI.

EXASPERATEDEXHAUSTED said:

clients are not, and your attempt to pass the buck onto clients is despicable.
These are the facts

I have made no such assertion, so you should withdraw that remark. I have stated several times, very clearly, that I believe the blame should be shared between ITI and the FCA.

EXASPERATEDEXHAUSTED

masonic said:

My use of the word "deemed" is according to its widely accepted definition:

If it pleases you, you may replace with any of the following: 'considered', 'judged', 'treated as', 'taken to be', 'regarded as'

The assets are now held in trust for you by an active nominee company, as they were before SVS entered administration. It was never on the cards for you to take physical possession of the assets as part of the distribution plan, although withdrawal in certificate form can be an option in a distrubution plan. The word 'deemed' is not meaningless, it means if you petition the High Court to complain that LC has not returned the assets, you will be informed that you are mistaken.

Do you not think it is a tiny bit histrionic to be banging on about human rights in relation to this problem? If you do decide to raise your grievances with the appropriate parties, I would suggest doing so in a more measured manner.

You cannot expect any body in the UK not to behave in accordance with UK law. If you believe the law is not compatible with your human rights, then it is those responsible for making laws that are responsible for that.

The distribution plan, including details of the nominated broker were shared and duly approved by the Creditors' Committee, the FCA and the High Court. The Creditors' Committee represents all investors and creditors. The distribution plan was executed correctly and on time by LC. It should be noted that the 3 week delay between publication and execution of the transfer is a legal requirement so that interested parties have an opportunity to lodge objections with LC or the court.

A list of appropriate brokers was probably provided to LC by the FCA, and we can take it that ITI's name was on that list. LC are a firm of insolvency practitioners. It is not reasonable to level blame at them for the failings of an FCA authorised firm that was approved by the FCA as suitable for accepting the transfer. Only the FCA has the power to go in and properly inspect/audit ITI.

I have made no such assertion, so you should withdraw that remark. I have stated several times, very clearly, that I believe the blame should be shared between ITI and the FCA.

The word "deem" is meaningless as I said before.  Equity is essential.  You presume to speak for the High Court.  The High Court is legally obliged to prioritise equity. LC's choice of Broker is their responsibility not the clients' as I said before; they are required to deliver a Broker who provides actual possession. Clients have not been provided with details of potential Brokers or the conditions imposed on them by LC or others. 
Masonic said "Blaming LC for not knowing in advance ITI's handling of the IT was going to be a disaster is like blaming SVS investors for not knowing the company was unsound." 
This is passing the buck.
ITI are not analogous to SVS; even SVS provided actual possession.
Human Rights appear "histrionic" only to those who are in contempt of them.  Contempt for Human Rights by, in particular, Public Authorities, is the reason why society doesn't work; that isn't histrionics.

ronkswood

MASONIC said:    Lots
EXASPERATEDEXHAUSTED  said;    lots

masonic

EXASPERATEDEXHAUSTED said:

masonic said:

My use of the word "deemed" is according to its widely accepted definition:

If it pleases you, you may replace with any of the following: 'considered', 'judged', 'treated as', 'taken to be', 'regarded as'

The assets are now held in trust for you by an active nominee company, as they were before SVS entered administration. It was never on the cards for you to take physical possession of the assets as part of the distribution plan, although withdrawal in certificate form can be an option in a distrubution plan. The word 'deemed' is not meaningless, it means if you petition the High Court to complain that LC has not returned the assets, you will be informed that you are mistaken.

Do you not think it is a tiny bit histrionic to be banging on about human rights in relation to this problem? If you do decide to raise your grievances with the appropriate parties, I would suggest doing so in a more measured manner.

You cannot expect any body in the UK not to behave in accordance with UK law. If you believe the law is not compatible with your human rights, then it is those responsible for making laws that are responsible for that.

The distribution plan, including details of the nominated broker were shared and duly approved by the Creditors' Committee, the FCA and the High Court. The Creditors' Committee represents all investors and creditors. The distribution plan was executed correctly and on time by LC. It should be noted that the 3 week delay between publication and execution of the transfer is a legal requirement so that interested parties have an opportunity to lodge objections with LC or the court.

A list of appropriate brokers was probably provided to LC by the FCA, and we can take it that ITI's name was on that list. LC are a firm of insolvency practitioners. It is not reasonable to level blame at them for the failings of an FCA authorised firm that was approved by the FCA as suitable for accepting the transfer. Only the FCA has the power to go in and properly inspect/audit ITI.

I have made no such assertion, so you should withdraw that remark. I have stated several times, very clearly, that I believe the blame should be shared between ITI and the FCA.

The word "deem" is meaningless as I said before.

No it is not. See the following post for details of its meaning: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/77473890/#Comment_77473890

EXASPERATEDEXHAUSTED said:

Equity is essential.  You presume to speak for the High Court.  The High Court is legally obliged to prioritise equity.

I don't presume to speak for the High Court. However, I'm pretty sure I am correct about what they will tell you. If you don't believe me, complain to them that LC has not returned the assets. Let us know what they say.

EXASPERATEDEXHAUSTED said:

they are required to deliver a Broker who provides actual possession.

No they are not. That did not happen in the case of Beaufort Securities, for example, and was not part of the distribution plan approved by the High Court in the case of SVS. Unless the High Court was wrong to approve the distribution plan, being in your opinion unlawful?

EXASPERATEDEXHAUSTED said:

Clients have not been provided with details of potential Brokers or the conditions imposed on them by LC or others.

You are correct, although some information was disclosed, and certain individuals were told further information in relation to this. I actually felt it was improper of LC to keep the details of the nominated broker confidential for so long. So I did something about it and leaked the identity of the nominated broker to this thread, along with evidence backing up my claim. Readers of this thread knew of ITI several weeks before it was announced.

EXASPERATEDEXHAUSTED said:

Masonic said "Blaming LC for not knowing in advance ITI's handling of the IT was going to be a disaster is like blaming SVS investors for not knowing the company was unsound." 
This is passing the buck.

No it is not, it is known as 'making an analogy'. An analogy is a comparison between things that have similar features, often used to help explain a principle or idea. It does not mean I hold either of the views being compared (I don't), only that they have some equivalence. So, to be clear, I believe that if you are the sort to blame LC for not knowing in advance ITI's handling of the IT was going to be a disaster, it would be inconsistent of you not to blame SVS investors for not knowing the company was unsound. I think it would be wrong to blame SVS investors who could not reasonably have known the company was unsound, just as I believe it is wrong to blame LC who could not reasonably have known the state of ITI's IT systems and support (and had the nominated broker approved by the FCA and the court).

EXASPERATEDEXHAUSTED said:

ITI are not analogous to SVS; even SVS provided actual possession.

SVS did not provide actual possession. They provided an online account where you could view and trade your investments, which were held in trust in a separate nominee company. You could, for a fee, take actual possession of your shares in certificate form. ITI also provide an online account where you can view and trade your investments, you may also be able to withdraw your shares in certificate form if you want them in your possession. The problem is that ITI has made a right pigs ear of providing customers with said online access. That does not mean the assets are not there, in trust, held by the nominee, just as they were at SVS.

EXASPERATEDEXHAUSTED said:

Human Rights appear "histrionic" only to those who are in contempt of them.  Contempt for Human Rights by, in particular, Public Authorities, is the reason why society doesn't work; that isn't histrionics.

I do not consider human rights to be histrionic. I consider their use in such a matter to be overly melodramatic. Not to detract from the justified frustrations people are feeling over this highly inconvenient situation, it hardly compares to being forcibly evicted from your home, being tortured, or even being denied an education. The period of time you have gone without the ability to trade or transfer your assets has been extended due to what essentially amounts to IT problems and poor customer service at the hands of ITI.

If you try to take LC to court for human rights abuses over their transfer of assets to ITI, you'll get laughed out of court, not just because the accusation is preposterous, but also LC has immunity from such court action in their capacity as Special Administrator. Which brings me back to suggesting you direct your energy towards those parties capable of resolving the issues you are now facing.

masonic

ronkswood said:

MASONIC said:    Lots
EXASPERATEDEXHAUSTED  said;    lots

I can be succinct, too

9406824

masonic said:

ronkswood said:

MASONIC said:    Lots
EXASPERATEDEXHAUSTED  said;    lots

I can be succinct, too

🤣