SVS Securities - shut down?

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.

masonic

Danie6 said:

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". 

Should ITI go belly up (and there is no reason to think this would happen in the next 6 months), then you'd be in the same position you were when SVS went belly up, with a fresh £85k compensation limit available.

Sheris

ReaderGuy said:

It's hard to believe at this point that ITI Capital have any intention of returning people's money and investments to them.

What's concerning about the process is that the FSCS seems to have washed it's hand of this matter and is of the opinion "job done, nothing to see here".  I've been trying to transfer an ISA out to another broker - so I can't just perform a cash withdrawal. I also can't get an update from ITI as the tickets have sat for weeks unanswered.  There's no visible progress whatsoever, and it's not clear that ITI have preserved the ISA wrapper for the assets that they've moved across as they aren't explicitly marked as ISA in the portal.

It's an utter disaster, that it's looking increasingly likely will need a lawsuit to resolve.  My faith in the FSCS has been completely destroyed by this, as there's no evidence to suggest they've done anything to stand over this process.

You are totally correct with your statement, had a bad experience with them 30 years ago, never again I told myself this will happen and it will not.   

Sheris

masonic said:

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.

Not correct L&C should have stated to me, that as you put it the FCA selected them with authorization as administrator.
start at the top and work down or start at the bottom and work up.
It states FSCS, on there web page regards to 18,000 SVS Securities Clients to have access to their money and assets on there press release, maybe you should tell them to correct there web page that its the FCA. not the minor point of FSCS   

masonic

Sheris said:

masonic said:

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.

Not correct L&C should have stated to me, that as you put it the FCA selected them with authorization as administrator.
start at the top and work down or start at the bottom and work up.

I can't comment on that as I do not know exactly what was asked or answered, or whether either party misinterpreted what the other said. What you wrote and attributed to LC was a factually correct statement. However, it did not address the issue of who is responsible for the choice of administrator.

Sheris said:

It states FSCS, on there web page regards to 18,000 SVS Securities Clients to have access to their money and assets on there press release, maybe you should tell them to correct there web page that its the FCA. not the minor point of FSCS   

The webpage you are referring to is probably this one: https://www.fscs.org.uk//failed-firms/svs

The above webpage is from the FSCS website. The FSCS is a completely separate entity and had no involvement in picking the administrator. It has merely covered the costs of the administration in full for most of you investors.

The FCA was responsible for approving the choice of administrator, and it's webpage about SVS can be found here: https://www.fca.org.uk/news/news-stories/svs-securities-plc-enters-administration

In short, the FCA is the regulator and the FSCS runs the compensation scheme. Neither have any connection with the FSCA.

englishmas

FCA,FSCS or FSCA, looks like too many running to show , we all are in a mess. The issue how to get out of it
I still blame LC as they failled to do the proper background work on ITI ability to deal , so they are resposible professionally  and they got millions in fees.  Now they canot simply walk away.
Now the question is(for those who knows more than me) , can we do something collectively  to move forward.
Any suggestions please

masonic

englishmas said:

FCA,FSCS or FSCA, looks like too many running to show , we all are in a mess. The issue how to get out of it
I still blame LC as they failled to do the proper background work on ITI ability to deal , so they are resposible professionally  and they got millions in fees.  Now they canot simply walk away.
Now the question is(for those who knows more than me) , can we do something collectively  to move forward.
Any suggestions please

Unfortunately you have no rights in law to compel LC to do what you wish them to do, and LC was entitled to rely on the advice and information provided by the FCA which put ITI on the list of suitable brokers. Like it or not, ITI is responsible for your customer experience now.

If you think that the law should be changed to require Special Administrators to carry out some stress testing on the new provider's capacity to deal with such an influx of new accounts and customers in the future, then you could raise this with the FCA, the Treasury Select Committee, or your local MP. There are also financial journalists who might be very interested in running a story on the problems new ITI customers are facing.

Since I remember that you are the one with unpaid compensation awarded by the FOS (yes yet another organisation 'running the show'), you'll be pleased to know the FSCS is now accepting claims. Go here and submit yours if you have not done so already: https://claims.fscs.org.uk/PreScreening/EnterDetails

You'll be limited to claiming £85k less the fees charged to you by LC, which I know is less than you were awarded, but it's better than nothing.

To get your assets out of ITI as soon as possible, initiate a transfer or transfers through your new broker without delay.

If you have to perform some trades while your assets are held at ITI, or wish to just sell up and withdraw the cash, then I'm afraid you will just have to persevere with setting up your Phoenix account(s), but this is not necessary if you just wish to transfer elsewhere.

englishmas

Hi mason8c
Thanks for your comments , I respect your knowdge regarding these matter.
All I want to say that we are in mess , we canot exess our assets and  it seems ITI is totaly incompetent  to deal with it. It surprised to me that no one made any ckeck the ability of ITI before  selecting them.
If this would have happened in my sourding many head would have rolling. 
Anyway we are here now, any suggestion how to get out of it.
Also please advise how to get my cash out the account as so for I am not succesful.
Thanks again 

masonic

englishmas said:
Anyway we are here now, any suggestion how to get out of it.
Also please advise how to get my cash out the account as so for I am not succesful.

I'm not knowledgeable about the inner workings of ITI, but others have managed to withdraw cash, perhaps if you explain how far you have got through the process of setting things up someone can help you with the next steps.