SVS Securities - shut down?

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.

eskbanker

Sheris said:

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.

Despite challenging some of the more outlandish assertions on here, I'm not trying to defend any of the organisations concerned if they're failing in their duties, but just because the FCA isn't helping doesn't mean that the FOS are suddenly liable.  However, if you believe that there's literally been a breach of criminal law, you should be going to the police about it anyway....

masonic

RasputinB said:

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?

It's quite simple in my view, if the regulatory failures have had an impact on you or contributed to the situation you are in, then that impact or contribution should be taken into account when the FOS decides what should be done to resolve the complaint.

Such failings should be mentioned in your complaint for a couple of reasons. First, they may support the case that the firm should have done more to resolve the situation (as such they define minimally acceptable standards), and second the FOS has the ability to raise issues with the FCA if they see a lot of cases about a firm involving breaches of regulations.

You should not expect the FOS to make any decisions on the basis that there was regulatory breach, only based on the effect it had on you and whether that was fair. An example would be that you were unable to withdraw cash from your account because your bank details needed to be updated. Despite providing these a number of times, and complaining about the lack of action, you received no response to your complaint for 3 months and the money was needed to complete on a house purchase, causing the purchase to fall through. When the complaint was eventually answered, the change was actioned within 24 hours. Had the complaint been answered within regulatory timeframes you would have received the money in time.