SVS Securities - shut down?

gibson81

Sheris said:

gibson81 said:

SteveJohnson56 said:

Well there's a coincidence, just had a scam call from 02080576022 with my email address and my name. The only people this could have come from  are SVS/ITI Capital as the number they have of mine has only ever been giving out to them.

I've also received several calls from this number. I haven't answered. When will LC intervene and sort this shambles out?

Just had the same call from that number 19.25 also companies wanting me to sign forms on line as they are taking legal compensation for ex SVS clients, be careful and I'm ex directory, data broken.     

How many temp staff have ITI taken on to deal with the backlog and how can we be confident our data and contact details are being treated confidentially? Scam calls would suggest they aren't!

Jamesram

IanManc said: 3 days is far too short a period for inclusion in a Letter Before Action. The "Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols" sets out what should be done before civil proceedings are begun, and states:

"Steps before issuing a claim at court
(...........) The steps will usually include—

(a) the claimant writing to the defendant with concise details of the claim. The letter should include the basis on which the claim is made, a summary of the facts, what the claimant wants from the defendant, and if money, how the amount is calculated;

(b) the defendant responding within a reasonable time - 14 days in a straight forward case and no more than 3 months in a very complex one. The reply should include confirmation as to whether the claim is accepted and, if it is not accepted, the reasons why, together with an explanation as to which facts and parts of the claim are disputed and whether the defendant is making a counterclaim as well as providing details of any counterclaim; and

(c) the parties disclosing key documents relevant to the issues in dispute."

  Reply: Thank you Mr Manc. Very perceptive. You deserve a Merit pass in the Civil Procedure Bar Examination. Just a few points:-

Point 1. Under PRACTICE DIRECTION – PRE-ACTION CONDUCT AND PROTOCOLS in civil cases, there is no Protocol for use in simple debt cases- check Para 18

Point 2. Under Para 6 "Steps before issuing a claim at court"

            6....... Where there is no relevant pre-action protocol, the parties should exchange correspondence and information to comply with the objectives in paragraph 3, bearing in mind that compliance should be proportionate. The steps will usually include—

(a) the claimant writing to the defendant with concise details of the claim.

(b) the defendant responding within a reasonable time - 14 days in a straight forward case........

Point 3   Para 3, which is pivotal, sets out the Objectives of pre-action conduct and protocols

3. "  Before commencing proceedings, the court will expect the parties to have exchanged sufficient information to—
(a) understand each other’s position;

(b) make decisions about how to proceed;

(c) try to settle the issues without proceedings;................................................

Point 4     Para 4. A pre-action protocol or this Practice Direction must not be used by a party as a tactical device to secure an unfair advantage over another party. In other words, ITI should not be able to insist on a unnecessarily long period to, for instance ,"understand each other's position "in situations where he respective positions are as plain as a pikestaff.

Have you read the background to the problems people like M Bourse are experiencing with these shysters ITI, who are completely out of their depth and breaking fundamental obligations of a broker registered with the FCA and the LSE?

Are you seriously suggesting that the Court would find that ITI required more than 3 days (a)  to understand its and M Bourse's position and (b) decide whether to pay M Bourse his own money back? and (c) settle the matter by paying him? [As per Para 3 above]

Do you really believe the Court would strike out a judgment entered in default of a Defence, for instance, purely on the basis that ITI  had not had long enough to see whether they owed M Bourse his money when he had previously demanded it and their own records show that is owing to him?

Plus the fact that of course most people who are deperately trying to get their money out of ITI have been asking them to pay it out to them for at least 14 days already.

Bearing all the above in mind, do you really believe that the Court would criticise any Claimant in M Bourse' and other SVS clients in similar positions for not giving ITI another 14 days to eff about? You are having a larrf my friend.

And of course  anyway there is absolutely nothing in the Court Rules of procedure to preclude M Bourse bringing a Claim on 3 days notice- no court clerk or computer programme will prevent him from doing so. ITI would then  have to satisfy the Court that he had been beastly and unfair to them, and that therefore they should have any  judgment set aside. I would wish them luck with that!

pjm1976

Hello!
I have been following this board for a while and it’s been a great help!
just thought I’d let you know that I’ve had a successful transfer from ITI to my iWeb account!
trading account and an isa account all shares correct.
forms sent into iWeb around 4th August same time as m2p just used the sc account numbers.
shares just appeared in my accounts on Monday.
thought I’d let you all know.
hopefully everyone gets sorted soon!
thanks phil

Jamesram

Phil you are a very fortunate Phil. Congratulations- do you have friends in the Kremlin by any chance?

Michael_Reynolds

Jamesram
Sorry to hear you are back with us all again in the sh.....! and tt turned out to be a reverse escape. Your invaluable advice in this forum would have been greatly missed. We simply can't afford to lose you

Nine weeks tomorrow and quite honestly I can't see that  we really have made any substantial progress? I think we are being led around by the nose by ITI and NO ONE seems to give a damn. I've complained to LITERALLY EVERYONE LC, FSCS, FCA, FINANCIAL TIMES (in response to their article), LSE & FOS. Letters of sympathy flood in from all concerned including our mutual friend Oleg but no one actually does anything to help us. ITI know this and have made no attempt whatsoever to set a deadline. They have an open ended invitation to screw us around indefinately. 

Unless we can come up with a way of consolidating the people on this forum to make our weight felt there is little chance of anything changing..I'm not prepared to sit around and watch a bunch of Russian crooks play with our money indefinitely! 

I intend to inform Oleg tomorrow that unless this chaotic mess is resolved by Fri Oct 2nd I will invoke my rights under the distribution plan and demand a reverse transfer to SVS/LC. Frankly I'd feel a whole lot more comfortable with LC holding custody than ITI. I urge all on this forum to do the same oleg.jelezko@dvcap.com 

It is only consoldiated action that will put the wnd up ITI. 

IanManc

Jamesram said:
(...........)

 Reply: Thank you Mr Manc. Very perceptive. You deserve a Merit pass in the Civil Procedure Bar Examination. Just a few points:-

(........)

Have you read the background to the problems people like M Bourse are experiencing with these shysters ITI, who are completely out of their depth and breaking fundamental obligations of a broker registered with the FCA and the LSE?

Are you seriously suggesting that the Court would find that ITI required more than 3 days (a)  to understand its and M Bourse's position and (b) decide whether to pay M Bourse his own money back? and (c) settle the matter by paying him? [As per Para 3 above]

Do you really believe the Court would strike out a judgment entered in default of a Defence, for instance, purely on the basis that ITI  had not had long enough to see whether they owed M Bourse his money when he had previously demanded it and their own records show that is owing to him?

Plus the fact that of course most people who are deperately trying to get their money out of ITI have been asking them to pay it out to them for at least 14 days already.

Bearing all the above in mind, do you really believe that the Court would criticise any Claimant in M Bourse' and other SVS clients in similar positions for not giving ITI another 14 days to eff about? You are having a larrf my friend.

And of course  anyway there is absolutely nothing in the Court Rules of procedure to preclude M Bourse bringing a Claim on 3 days notice- no court clerk or computer programme will prevent him from doing so. ITI would then  have to satisfy the Court that he had been beastly and unfair to them, and that therefore they should have any  judgment set aside. I would wish them luck with that!

Your comment about the Bar Exam is pathetic.

Yes I have read the background problems.

A Letter Before Action, or the lack of one, has no connection with a respondent failing to provide a defence once proceedings have been commenced or proceedings being struck out.

If the claimant didn't comply with the Practice Direction and didn't send a Letter Before Action and the respondent settled the action as soon as the claim was served then the complainant would be prejudiced in costs (i.e. could well not be awarded their own costs against the respondent), and could even end up paying the respondent's costs if the court decided that the complainant had commenced litigation unnecessarily.

The purpose of a Letter Before Action is to give the respondent a final chance to settle before litigation is commenced. It threatens the respondent and by giving a reasonable time for response gives the respondent enough rope to hang themselves, which the respondent in this case would very likely do on current form. It would mean that the sympathy of the court was with the complainant as they'd done everything they could to get settlement before litigating, would give the respondent no chance of successfully using delaying tactics once the case had commenced, and would ensure that the complainant got their costs when they won. Of course there's nothing in the court rules that prevents starting litigation with no notice, but if you follow Practice Directions then the court won't be looking at your conduct but will turn both barrels on the other side, which is what you want.

Finally, I'm not "having a larff" and I'm not your friend, but I do know what I'm talking about and you very obviously don't.

Josl

IanManc said:

Jamesram said:
(...........)

Your comment about the Bar Exam is pathetic.
Yes I have read the background problems.

A Letter Before Action, or the lack of one, has no connection with a respondent failing to provide a defence once proceedings have been commenced or proceedings being struck out.

If the claimant didn't comply with the Practice Direction and didn't send a Letter Before Action and the respondent settled the action as soon as the claim was served then the complainant would be prejudiced in costs (i.e. could well not be awarded their own costs against the respondent), and could even end up paying the respondent's costs if the court decided that the complainant had commenced litigation unnecessarily.

The purpose of a Letter Before Action is to give the respondent a final chance to settle before litigation is commenced. It threatens the respondent and by giving a reasonable time for response gives the respondent enough rope to hang themselves, which the respondent in this case would very likely do on current form. It would mean that the sympathy of the court was with the complainant as they'd done everything they could to get settlement before litigating, would give the respondent no chance of successfully using delaying tactics once the case had commenced, and would ensure that the complainant got their costs when they won. Of course there's nothing in the court rules that prevents starting litigation with no notice, but if you follow Practice Directions then the court won't be looking at your conduct but will turn both barrels on the other side, which is what you want.

Finally, I'm not "having a larff" and I'm not your friend, but I do know what I'm talking about and you very obviously don't.

I agree with IanManc, I have used Small Claims Court in the past, as a rule of thumb, court will ask that claimant give defendant at least 4 weeks notice prior to filing a case. If the date on letter of intent is less than 28 days, then the court will pause hearing until such time has elapsed.

Josl

In reality, the court will take longer than 9 weeks to decide this case as each defendant/claimant reply has min two weeks time frame.
FOS on the other hand, are a veritable arm of the FCA. A dispute system designed to exhaust the complaint process. 2 months grace period before you can file a case. 6-12 weeks to assign a case to investigator and then monthly replies. On avg a case takes 6-10 months and 92% of the cases are decided in favor of the business. You will feel you are dealing with the lawyer of ITI Capital.
ITI Capital (as all other firms)  know this already and that's why FOS threat is not taken seriously. A complaint in the British financial system is very much like the movie 'The Big Lebowski'. We are the dude trying to find guilty party to pay for our damaged rug (through no fault of our own)

Josl

C4 Dispatches Investigation into Financial Ombudsman Services
https://www.channel4.com/press/news/investigation-fos-finds-staff-severe-lack-training

pbcinlondon

Two month anniversary. Groan. This is a very fishy business. Some consolation to see I'm not the only one at the receiving end of some really appalling service and behaviour. Assuming all 18'000 SVS clients are running for the hills (other brokers) clamouring for their assets, then surely some must be getting results within these two months!? My cash balance has come through but now trying to transfer shares to another broker leads to ITI's total silence and inaction. Is it really that hard? Compensation and sanctions must be lined up. By whom though? Overseen and enforced by which bodies? Good luck all!