SVS Securities - shut down?

englishmas

It is the LC we should be complaining about to FCA or others as they have failed to do proper dodiligence  work and not fit for thid kind of admin work.

Nbs222

First thing ITI should do is to tell what is their plan using   flow diagrams. They should also give option to those not intending to trade  , transfer out without having to create Phoenix Accounts.

LC has recent experience of mass transfer from SVS to ITI , they could guide ITI to  do mass transfer to  few   selected  brokers .  This will be cheaper in the long run for ITI and quicker for us.

 

I know it's not going to happen but just a thought.

johnburman

Of course they should. But that assumes iti want all of the clients to stay. Problem is I bet more are going to leave than they expected and so that will increase the chaos. 

My2penneth

johnburman said:

Of course they should. But that assumes iti want all of the clients to stay. Problem is I bet more are going to leave than they expected and so that will increase the chaos. 

IF you were thinking of staying with ITI I guess that the events of the last 3 weeks are certainly going to weigh heavy. 

ITI have essentially given themselves a LOT of work to transfer accounts in  - line by line - for each of it's clients and then I wonder if it has to do the same when they leave ?  

In addition, the bad press that ITI Capital are getting (or will soon get) will just make people more determined to get out and for any new clients, they will see the bad press. Personally, if I was in charge at ITI, heads would roll for this mess.

englishmas

My cocern is that ITI does not have the ability to resolve the problem as there is very little for them. LC should help them out otherwise if FCA get involved again then we may have to wait another six months before we see our assets 
So all should pressure on LC to sorts  this mess out.

johnburman

They don't have the staff for heads to roll. They need every one to sort out the mess. Where is the FCA in all this? 

Danie6

I am now getting scared. How safe are our assets? Are we still protected by the FSCS and what if ITI now pack up or run away? They will most certainly not make money out of this SVS mess and their financials don't look sound to me. Can they get their claws into our assets, or not? Nobody replies to my emails and my account says " No data". 

Sheris

masonic said:

Sheris said:

Can anyone if possible let me know who gave the authorisation for L&C to act as the administrator ?
(A) FSCA or (B) the Courts  

Under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, the FCA must approve the choice of administrator. The directors of SVS will then make an application to the High Court to have the administrator appointed.

Thanks Masonic for that, L&C in a verbal conversation told me it was the courts gave them authorization, not a word about the FSCA, at the time I thought that is very strange the courts just go and pick a administrator.
The Pets at Home has even more flaws   
  

masonic

johnburman said:

Not so quick masonic.  Yes there is an 8 week period in which a complainant firm must send a "final response" letter but look at the FCA Rules about this:

DISP 1.6 Complaints time limit rules

Keeping the complainant informed

DISP 1.6.1R01/11/2007RP

On receipt of a complaint, a respondent must:

1. (1) 

   send the complainant a prompt written acknowledgement providing early reassurance that it has received the complaint and is dealing with it; and

2. (2) 

   ensure the complainant is kept informed thereafter of the progress of the measures being taken for the complaint's resolution.

Now who thinks ITI are able to, or will, keep to this?  When they fail to do so, is that not grounds for another compliant.

It is all here by the way https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/DISP/1/6.html
Suggestion
When you do complain to ITI about their poor performance/failure to deal with requests/slow (if any) transfer, mark your letter/post with the words 'COMPLAINT'.

Making multiple complaints over what amounts to the same issue is not regarded very positively by the FOS. It is certainly reasonable to follow up on your complaint if the complaints procedure is not being handled correctly, and the additional inconvenience of not knowing what is going on would form part of your complaint when it is addressed. You also have the opportunity to update your complaint with any subsequent issues when referring to the FOS after deadlock or 8 weeks.

Firms are expected to recognise complaints without special wording or use of the word 'complaint' anywhere within the text of the complaint. Opening with "I wish to complain about..." is more than sufficient to be sure it is correctly made.

ITI has provided an email address on its complaints leaflets, so it is reasonable to send in your complaint by email if you wish to make your life as easy as possible.

I do not believe for one minute that ITI will keep to their obligations in terms of keeping customers updated about complaints, or resolving them / issuing deadlock letters. So the objective here would be to reach the FOS within a reasonable time, should your transfer not be completed in a reasonable time, which is almost certain to be the case,

I've previously had two complaints against different firms taken up and upheld by the FOS following the firm failing to respond adequately within 8 weeks. I did very little chasing in either case, just one reminder sent after a few weeks.

masonic

Sheris said:

masonic said:

Sheris said:

Can anyone if possible let me know who gave the authorisation for L&C to act as the administrator ?
(A) FSCA or (B) the Courts  

Under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, the FCA must approve the choice of administrator. The directors of SVS will then make an application to the High Court to have the administrator appointed.

Thanks Masonic for that, L&C in a verbal conversation told me it was the courts gave them authorization, not a word about the FSCA, at the time I thought that is very strange the courts just go and pick a administrator.
The Pets at Home has even more flaws   
  

LC are correct that they are appointed by the court and agents of the court, but they are not selected by the court. Courts rule on what is brought before them. SVS and the FCA will decide on who to put forward in advance of the court date, SVS will propose it, the FCA will endorse it, and the court will rubber stamp it providing there are no substantive objections from those attending court.

A minor point to note is that the FSCA is the financial regulator in South Africa, in the UK it's the FCA.