SVS Securities - shut down?

eskbanker

shiznit76 said:

eskbanker said:

shiznit76 said:

eskbanker said:

Sheris said:

eskbanker said:

shiznit76 said:

can you accept the offer of redress from ITI and complain to FOS also?

No, FOS is specifically for escalating complaints that haven't been resolved adequately by the institution, so you can't have your cake and eat it too!

ITI have had the cake and the cherry

Nevertheless, two wrongs don't make a right, so it still comes down to the fact that if ITI issue a full and final response to a complaint, the complainant has two choices: accept it or escalate to FOS, regardless of strength of feelings....

This is wrong. My wife works complaints for one of country's largest banks and she has confirmed that you can accept redress and go to FOS also. The redress is an apology for their mistakes, you are entitled compensation also

Compensation for what specifically?  I'm not understanding the arbitrary distinction you're drawing there between 'redress' and 'compensation', but your complaint to ITI should make it clear what an acceptable resolution looks like, in terms of corrective actions and/or compensation for financial losses and/or trouble and upset.  If they come up with that acceptable resolution, you accept it, or if they don't (and clarify finality), you have the option of escalating to FOS, but (to use your terminology) if you're after redress and compensation as separate headings then you need to seek both from ITI - if they only offer one, but in full and final settlement, then why would you accept it if doing so would compromise your ability to escalate your complaint to FOS?

Anyway, why would you ask a question on here if you believe that your wife knows the answer?

I was asking what other people opinions were. To offer £75 for three months plus worth of stress they have caused me is laughable. TSB gave me more, unasked for, when they took 2 days longer than stated to change over my current account!

So if you feel that £75 isn't adequate, and ITI have said that it's their final response, then you have the option to escalate your complaint to FOS, but that would be instead of accepting the £75, not as well as doing so!

Depending on FOS's opinion once they've heard both sides of the story, they may instruct ITI to increase that amount, or leave it as is, or even (theoretically!) decrease it....

Sheris

eskbanker, Do you think ITI will have a story to tell ?

shiznit76

be interesting to here their excuses. If you count the emails i have sent and CC's others in to it must amount to well over hundred individual emails and 4 "online tickers" in their web page. Replies? 1 email and no tickers

eskbanker

Sheris said:

eskbanker, Do you think ITI will have a story to tell ?

Can't see them having much of a defence to what's clearly been pretty shambolic, but the question FOS are addressing is more about whether ITI have handled the complaint appropriately rather than reviewing (from first principles) all the circumstances that led to the complaint, and the point was really that the FOS process entails contacting both parties to hear what they have to say.

eskbanker

shiznit76 said:

be interesting to here their excuses. If you count the emails i have sent and CC's others in to it must amount to well over hundred individual emails and 4 "online tickers" in their web page. Replies? 1 email and no tickers

I'm really not defending them here, but sending them over a hundred emails is bound to muddy the waters - as above, if you escalate a formal complaint to FOS, they'll review how ITI handled the complaint (not if/how they managed all communications), so they're not going to wade through a blizzard of emails unless they're all part of that formal complaint.

Thrugelmir

shiznit76 said:

be interesting to here their excuses. If you count the emails i have sent and CC's others in to it must amount to well over hundred individual emails and 4 "online tickers" in their web page. Replies? 1 email and no tickers

Seems as if they've at least one justifiable one already.  

shiznit76

Thrugelmir said:

shiznit76 said:

be interesting to here their excuses. If you count the emails i have sent and CC's others in to it must amount to well over hundred individual emails and 4 "online tickers" in their web page. Replies? 1 email and no tickers

Seems as if they've at least one justifiable one already.  

which is? All i wanted was for 1 person to say when my holdings would get transferred out this circus

RasputinB

eskbanker said:

 if you escalate a formal complaint to FOS, they'll review how ITI handled the complaint

Really? According to their ombudsmen they do not review how a company has handled a complaint. This is what one said in a Final Decision - "I wasn’t able to look into the complaint handling aspect of the complaint by Mrs T because it’s not a regulated activity so not within our jurisdiction".

Do you have facts (rather than opinion) to back up your claim? I ask because my understanding is that the FCA  Handbook covers how firms should handle complaints so it would appear to be a bit rich that the FOS maintain that it is not within their jurisdiction.

masonic

RasputinB said:

eskbanker said:

 if you escalate a formal complaint to FOS, they'll review how ITI handled the complaint

Really? According to their ombudsmen they do not review how a company has handled a complaint. This is what one said in a Final Decision - "I wasn’t able to look into the complaint handling aspect of the complaint by Mrs T because it’s not a regulated activity so not within our jurisdiction".

Do you have facts (rather than opinion) to back up your claim? I ask because my understanding is that the FCA  Handbook covers how firms should handle complaints so it would appear to be a bit rich that the FOS maintain that it is not within their jurisdiction.

Presumably you are referring to this decision: https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/55815/DRN1825180.pdf

Without knowing exactly what the "complaint handling aspect" of the complaint was, it's hard to understand why the Ombudsman came to that conclusion, but it is clearly the case that poor complaint handling can increase the impact an issue has on a complainant. You should be able to find plenty of examples in where things were made worse by a firm's failure to deal with a complaint promptly or properly, and decisions taking that impact into account. I had an upheld FOS complaint against TSB after the IT meltdown that took this into account, but it was not contested by TSB so did not go to a final decision and get published.

What the FOS will not do is penalise firms for technical breaches of their obligations - that is outside of their jurisdiction. You will need to be able to demonstrate such a breach had a material impact on your outcome, either financially or non-financially. This should not be a particularly high bar in this situation.

RasputinB

masonic said:

RasputinB said:

eskbanker said:

 if you escalate a formal complaint to FOS, they'll review how ITI handled the complaint

Really? According to their ombudsmen they do not review how a company has handled a complaint. This is what one said in a Final Decision - "I wasn’t able to look into the complaint handling aspect of the complaint by Mrs T because it’s not a regulated activity so not within our jurisdiction".

Do you have facts (rather than opinion) to back up your claim? I ask because my understanding is that the FCA  Handbook covers how firms should handle complaints so it would appear to be a bit rich that the FOS maintain that it is not within their jurisdiction.

Presumably you are referring to this decision: https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/55815/DRN1825180.pdf

Without knowing exactly what the "complaint handling aspect" of the complaint was, it's hard to understand why the Ombudsman came to that conclusion, but it is clearly the case that poor complaint handling can increase the impact an issue has on a complainant. You should be able to find plenty of examples in where things were made worse by a firm's failure to deal with a complaint promptly or properly, and decisions taking that impact into account. I had an upheld FOS complaint against TSB after the IT meltdown that took this into account, but it was not contested by TSB so did not go to a final decision and get published.

What the FOS will not do is penalise firms for technical breaches of their obligations - that is outside of their jurisdiction. You will need to be able to demonstrate such a breach had a material impact on your outcome, either financially or non-financially. This should not be a particularly high bar in this situation.

Judging by the number of posts made by yourself, eskbanker and Thrugelmir I am wondering if you three could make some time to take matters up with the FOS and also the FCA.

I think it would be far more constructive than trying to straighten out our thinking.

To most of us it is very clear that the FCA and the FOS are very much a part of the problem that enables companies to get away with screwing their clients.