SVS Securities - shut down?

RasputinB

On the subject of compensation - I'd have thought that ITI have already been in communication with the FSO or obtained advice from their Technical Desk. Businesses are able to discuss compensation amounts on a general basis before complaints get to the FSO.

See https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/businesses/business-support-engagement/technical-desk

On the basis of information as written up in the recent FT article I would not be surprised if the FSO would say that £100 / £150 would be their guideline on compensation for Distress and Inconvenience.

Those of us who expect more may need to show concrete proof of losses and / or all the steps that we have taken to try to get matters resolved.

Jamesram

RasputinB said  "Thank you very much for finding the Rule in Chapter 7.12.2.2.... It would mean that the clause that I found in the ITI's Terms and Conditions would be unreasonable and thus void?"

Well, as I said, I am not at all sure that Annex 1 para 8.3 applies to our Client Money from dividends. But If it did, then the Annex also says it prevails over para 14.6  T&Cs ( Terms of Business-Retail) as has been pointed out.

One would then have to argue that Annex1 taking precedence over 14.6, and/or 8.3 itself, were void for unreasonableness under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, or even, possibly, void for uncertainty.

I am not sure that Chapter 7.12.2.2 would help much in the argument though- if ITI could show that it was never intended to collect dividends for us then would "poor administration, inadequate record-keeping or negligence" even be relevant?  ITI would just be saying "we ain't going to do it" , not "we reserve the right to do it badly"!

Anyway, now my head hurts and I'm off- statutory interpretation and contract terms always had this effect, I seem to recall.

Michael_Reynolds

Jamesram said:
I wonder whether the apparent discrepancy between 14.6  covering  all our Custody Assets, and :-

Annex 1 :  8.3 "We may, but shall not be obliged to, claim and receive dividends, interest payments and other income payments accruing to your investments held by a nominee...." is explicable:-

The word "nominee" does not have an initial Capital letter and is not referred to in the Definitions and Interpretation section of the T&Cs, and my limited knowledge prevents me from having a guess at what sort of nominee it refers to- nominee of Client or ITI.  But I would guess that it cannot refer to the Custody Assets held by ITI Capital as a nominee for us Clients (ie our shares)- it is aimed at a specific situation outwith the general provision of 14.6 which does oblige ITI to claim and receive Dividends paid in respect of Custody Assets.

Please note that I have used the word "guess" twice within this opinion comment. Perhaps someone who knows more could shed light on, in practice, what sort of "nominee" situation is envisaged under 8.3?

I must say this is the way I am choosing to interpret it! FINGERS CROSSED

supersaverg

I'm pleased to report that I have finally had confirmation from Hargreaves...they've had the transfer of all my shared & cash, from ITI Capital. 
Please don't take this a a brag, but at hopefully, at least, a positive sign to all those still fighting.
Yes there are many costly failings, but ITI are perhaps acting in good faith, in what has undoubtedly been a technically challenging process when frustrations are high following the SVS collapse. 
Good luck to you all.

rnf11

supersaverg said:

I'm pleased to report that I have finally had confirmation from Hargreaves...they've had the transfer of all my shared & cash, from ITI Capital.

Good for you. A straw for the rest of us to clutch at....

For clarification -  does that mean that you have no dividends still "in the pipeline" via ITIC?

snipkin

I have at last had my one share holding from my ITI non-ISA account transferred to Jarvis XO today - BUT, AGAIN, THE CASH ELEMENT REMAINS WITH ITI, as it also does with my ISA account transfer of some weeks ago to Hargreaves Lansdown.

The transfer of (1) cash holdings and (2) dividends accrued since ITI took over is an area where nothing seems to be happening (except possibly for one person on this thread?). Indeed, I do not even have any visible record of dividends paid since mid July 2020 and my Phoenix accounts remain dead as a dodo - perhaps 'Dodo' would have been a moret appropriate bird to name them.

Emillion1

It is quite obvious client transfers from SVS systems to ITIs' are being done manually, this should never have happened.  From what I can see on this forum regarding successful outcomes, there have been very few.  Truly shocking! LC were made aware that transfer of clients was problematic.  They really should put their hands up and accept responsibility for this mess.

gibson81

snipkin said:

I have at last had my one share holding from my ITI non-ISA account transferred to Jarvis XO today - BUT, AGAIN, THE CASH ELEMENT REMAINS WITH ITI, as it also does with my ISA account transfer of some weeks ago to Hargreaves Lansdown.

The transfer of (1) cash holdings and (2) dividends accrued since ITI took over is an area where nothing seems to be happening (except possibly for one person on this thread?). Indeed, I do not even have any visible record of dividends paid since mid July 2020 and my Phoenix accounts remain dead as a dodo - perhaps 'Dodo' would have been a moret appropriate bird to name them.

I received two days ago some dividend cash held by ITIC into my HL account. I have now messaged HL to push for the remaining sum. From an earlier post, I understand these monies are not visible in our ITIC accounts because it is being held in some sort of holding account because technically our accounts have been closed since we made our transfer requests. 

Monsieur_Bourse

eskbanker said:

My2penneth said:
I would want at least £650 compensation - this is the minimum ITI would face.

The FOS guidance on compensation is at https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/businesses/resolving-complaint/understanding-compensation - if it was as simple as saying to a financial institution 'give me £650 as that's what you'd have to pay FOS', that would be a very dangerous precedent for the industry, so don't expect them to see that as a benchmark starting point for discussions!

I take your point eskbanker but in the case of ITI Capital, who I would have thought are the exception to the rule when it comes to complaining about a FCA regulated company, with the volume of complaints being lodged against them. If they exceed 25 complaints lodged against them then the £650 fine kicks in, this will be on top of any compensation that they may have to pay out to the complainant. So I think that My2penneth makes a good point when stating that £650 could be a good figure to aim for. But after reading the link you kindly supplied I see that compensation is broken down into 4 categories when claiming for  Distress and Inconvenience: Moderate, Substantial, Severe and Extreme. I think that we can only aim for the Moderate category realistically, so if the figures quoted on the website are the maximum then the compensation would be capped at £500. Presumably ITIC would know this.

In my own case the figure offered is below £500, so I will consider whether I wish to proceed with a complaint to the FOS. I telephoned the FOS this afternoon to enquire if I could make a complaint without a UK based address, a very nice lady assured me that there is no problem in making a complaint, as long as the company you are complaining about is UK based. After re-reading the online form I see that it actually asks for country of residence.

olderbutnowiser

Regarding dividends, can anyone help me regarding the recent Vodafone dividend that went ex-dividend on 11 June and was payable on 7 August. I had originally assumed that this would have been payable to ITIC but reading the discussion over the past few days, could it be that this should have been paid to LC? On the record date the cash in this account with the previous dividends had not been transferred to ITIC, this was done on 19 June.

Any clarification on this point would be much appreciated.