SVS Securities - shut down?

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. 

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!

Emillion1

ITI and the Administrator have obviously underestimated the complexity of a client back office migration.  You have to remember that ITI have paid for these clients, it is therefore in their interest to retain as many SVS clients as possible. The correct choice would have been to retain the existing SVS software providers and let clients carry on as normal whilst working on a data transfer program behind the scenes. All clients would then have been able to carry on as normal.  This f*** up is so amateurish it is beyond belief.  

Jamesram

 IanManc said: "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......I do know what I'm talking about and you very obviously don't."

I was called to the Bar in 1983, practised in and around  the London courts until 1993, then re-qualified and practised as a litigation solicitor in the North until 2005. I also volunteered for some years as a CAB adviser dealing with debt cases on both sides. So I do have a little experience. If you were a barrister or solicitor you would be "my friend"- I had assumed that with all your knowledge you must be.

Anyway, ENOUGH - I stand by what I say, and willl  consider the discussion closed afer this post. Life is too short.

l will  just add that you are in fact distorting what I said.- a common but unattractive trait in pursuing a line of argument:

I am not proposing to start litigation " without notice" - I am proposing shorter notice than is usually the case, in the particular and unusual(?!) circumstances of a rogue finance house and broker- the Rules allow for this scenario as I have pointed out. You also seem to think that this is going to be major, defended, litigation; it isn't. No one is disputing what is owed. Both sides can see the cash in ITI's accounts. ITI is simply not paying out someone else's cash on that person's demand- it is undefendable . To give them 14 days notice is playing into their hands.

That is my opinion- I have made the suggestion of a threat of litigation to assist ex SVS clients, not mislead them. Is ITI more likely to respond to a threat of litigation after 3 days or after 14 days?

johnburman

You do not threaten and then carry out that threat.  The problem is that we can not quantify losses.  So any claim is likely to be for a small amount.  I wanted to start a class action but i was told by solicitors who handle that sort of case to spk to them after 3 months non-access to accounts, 6 weeks was too short.  Anyway do issue proceedings and post your Particulars of Claim here.  I do think that a breach of contract/negligence claim (and conversion) BUT do check the T & Cs that we all signed.  What do they say restricting a claim?

collin618

I offer the following comment 
the root cause of this situation is the behaviour of SVS security who as I understand had been instructed to divest in retail bond instruments which had reach 30% in 2017.
The FCA instructed SVS to divest these assets. by August 2019 this had grown to 70%
The FCA failed in its role to protect consumers sand keep the industry stable. The link below is an on link to raise a complaint against the FCA I would encourage all to complain. 
https://www.fca.org.uk/about/complain-about-regulators/form

collin618

Apologies for the gamma really pi**ed off