SVS Securities - shut down?

eskbanker

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.

Perhaps my use of 'how' was a bit ambiguous - I wasn't suggesting that they're looking at the internal processes of complaint handling but merely the outcomes of it from the customer's perspective, the primary point (omitted in your quote) being that FOS are considering the complaint itself rather than the underlying events leading up to it.  In other words FOS aren't taking a view about ITI's conduct in terms of delayed transfers, etc, but whether their responses to customers complaining about that are appropriate, and hence the above case including "It’s also not my role to be a consumer champion or to regulate or penalise a business because it’s made a mistake. That’s the role of the industry regulator the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).".

RasputinB said:

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.

For what it's worth I agree that the FCA have a case to answer regarding any failure by ITI to comply with regulations, but disagree about FOS, whose different remit is solely to arbitrate on individual consumer complaints.

The prevailing attitude of many on this thread appears to be that it's better to adopt a scattergun approach and indiscriminately lash out at multiple organisations and people, so it's perhaps unsurprising that those of us correcting misconceptions and suggesting more focused and considered methods aren't seen as being members of the herd - those who don't wish to read anything that isn't aligned with their own opinions can obviously choose to ignore them if they please, but when all is said and done this is a discussion board rather than an echo chamber....

masonic

RasputinB said:

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.

I (and I'm pretty sure also eskbanker and Thrugelmir) don't have a horse in this race, so cannot pursue a complaint about this matter. The best I can do is offer help to those pursuing their own complaints. People are of course free to heed or ignore any advice offered as they see fit.

I have an ongoing complaint against the FCA with a vintage of 2018 that has yet to be investigated by their Complaints Team regarding them allowing a firm to fraudulently alter their own entry on the Financial Services Register to appear to be FCA authorised when they were not. I relied upon that information to make an investment decision and suffered a loss as a direct result, which gives me grounds for complaint. So I do act when I can. The FCA reportedly ignored the warnings of an IFA for 2 years regarding a different firm that was effectively scamming customers before eventually forcing the firm into administration, so don't set your expectations too high as to what can be done regarding the FCA. Not that I want to discourage anyone from complaining about them if they believe the FCA has some liability for losses they have made. As I've mentioned earlier in the thread, the Treasury Select Committee is another useful avenue of complaint about misconduct by the FCA.

On the FOS, I don't agree they are "a part of the problem that enables companies to get away with screwing their clients". They are far from perfect, and make some questionable decisions sometimes, but in most cases they are a very useful (and free) second line of defence against firms that have treated customers unfairly, and generally more effective and easier to use than the courts. There is also no harm in trying to resolve a complaint through the FOS, as there is nothing to prevent you from rejecting their final decision and moving on to court action. If using the FOS, it makes sense to construct your complaint in a manner compatible with the way they evaluate things to make it as easy as possible for them to uphold the complaint and award an appropriate level of compensation.

shiznit76

IF my holdings do transfer on Wednesday, should they just start showing in my Iweb account from midnight or will they transfer over during the day on Wednesday? 

RasputinB

Should the FOS assist with complaints about the way a firm has handled a complaint?

As we have some experienced posters maybe they can discuss and give us the benefit of their views?

We've seen that an ombudsman has stated that complaint handling is not a regulated activity so not within the FOS' jurisdiction but consider this -

The FOS rules say that they can only consider a complaint about an act or omission by a firm when it is carrying on certain specified financial services. They also consider complaints about “ancillary activities” which are carried on in connection with these services. The rules (DISP 2.3.1R) set out the list of financial services in relation to which they can consider complaints.

Handling a complaint is not a financial service. However, DISP 2.3.1R also adds that the FOS has jurisdiction to consider a complaint if it ‘relates to an act or omission by a firm in carrying on’ one or more of the activities they cover. ‘Carrying on’ an activity involves a wide range of things, not just the activities that are specifically listed.

And DISP 2.1.4G explains that ‘carrying on an activity includes:

1. offering, providing or failing to provide a service in relation to an activity;

2. administering or failing to administer a service in relation to that activity; and

3. the manner in which a respondent has administered its business, provided that the business is an activity subject to the Financial Ombudsman Service’s jurisdiction.’

If one reads through ombudsman decisions you can see that ombudsmen often claim that part of the complaint is outside their jurisdiction and refer the complainant to the FCA or to the ICO. But the above (in italics) is another view.

My opinion is that ITI Capital have made multiple failings in the provision of their regulated activities and also in the related administration, including their handling of complaints.

Do you think that the FOS should agree to assist with complaints on complaint handling?

eskbanker

My view is that, when escalating a complaint to FOS, it's legitimate to highlight any demonstrable failures by the institution to comply with the DISP provisions of the FCA handbook when addressing that complaint, so, for example, if the business hasn't responded within the eight weeks then it seems fair game to include reference to this.  I'm not sure that such failure would warrant raising an entirely separate complaint though, if that's what you're suggesting?

RasputinB

eskbanker said:

My view is that, when escalating a complaint to FOS, it's legitimate to highlight any demonstrable failures by the institution to comply with the DISP provisions of the FCA handbook when addressing that complaint, so, for example, if the business hasn't responded within the eight weeks then it seems fair game to include reference to this.  I'm not sure that such failure would warrant raising an entirely separate complaint though, if that's what you're suggesting?

"if the business hasn't responded within the eight weeks then it seems fair game to include reference to this"

But what if the FOS say "we won't consider the complaint relating to the delay (of over eight weeks) as complaint handling isn't within our jurisdiction"?

To be clear about my point - the FOS repeatedly refuse to deal with complaints about complaint handling - is that acceptable?

Sheris

eskbanker said:

My view is that, when escalating a complaint to FOS, it's legitimate to highlight any demonstrable failures by the institution to comply with the DISP provisions of the FCA handbook when addressing that complaint, so, for example, if the business hasn't responded within the eight weeks then it seems fair game to include reference to this.  I'm not sure that such failure would warrant raising an entirely separate complaint though, if that's what you're suggesting?

With holding monies is a criminal law, unless there is a reason of why. Thats one just for starters.
    

eskbanker

RasputinB said:

eskbanker said:

My view is that, when escalating a complaint to FOS, it's legitimate to highlight any demonstrable failures by the institution to comply with the DISP provisions of the FCA handbook when addressing that complaint, so, for example, if the business hasn't responded within the eight weeks then it seems fair game to include reference to this.  I'm not sure that such failure would warrant raising an entirely separate complaint though, if that's what you're suggesting?

"if the business hasn't responded within the eight weeks then it seems fair game to include reference to this"

But what if the FOS say "we won't consider the complaint relating to the delay (of over eight weeks) as complaint handling isn't within our jurisdiction"?

To be clear about my point - the FOS repeatedly refuse to deal with complaints about complaint handling - is that acceptable?

This is all getting a bit recursive but acceptability is ultimately up to the complainant, so if you find an FOS response unacceptable then you still have the option of going to court, as masonic stated earlier.  If you want to complain about FOS, seeking to make a case that they've breached their obligations under the regulations, then you could do so to the FCA.

eskbanker

Sheris said:

eskbanker said:

My view is that, when escalating a complaint to FOS, it's legitimate to highlight any demonstrable failures by the institution to comply with the DISP provisions of the FCA handbook when addressing that complaint, so, for example, if the business hasn't responded within the eight weeks then it seems fair game to include reference to this.  I'm not sure that such failure would warrant raising an entirely separate complaint though, if that's what you're suggesting?

With holding monies is a criminal law, unless there is a reason of why. Thats one just for starters.

Eh?  I think you've missed the point there, my post was about compliance with provisions relating to complaint handling (the DISP section of the FCA Handbook), not the original financial mismanagement matters leading to the complaint being raised in the first place....

Sheris

eskbanker said:

Sheris said:

eskbanker said:

My view is that, when escalating a complaint to FOS, it's legitimate to highlight any demonstrable failures by the institution to comply with the DISP provisions of the FCA handbook when addressing that complaint, so, for example, if the business hasn't responded within the eight weeks then it seems fair game to include reference to this.  I'm not sure that such failure would warrant raising an entirely separate complaint though, if that's what you're suggesting?

With holding monies is a criminal law, unless there is a reason of why. Thats one just for starters.

Eh?  I think you've missed the point there, my post was about compliance with provisions relating to complaint handling (the DISP section of the FCA Handbook), not the original financial mismanagement matters leading to the complaint being raised in the first place....

Missed no point, just refering to outside the box or boxes, the FCA Handbook has far more better use, BLUE reclying bin.
Further telephone conversation today with the FCA for a update, they do not want to know, says it all.