SVS Securities - shut down?

eskbanker

RasputinB said:

eskbanker said:

RasputinB said:

ombudsman regularly states that "I must take into account [ ] best industry practice, but I’m not bound by this."

The way I've always understood that stance is that FOS don't only expect institutions to act in accordance with the law but also best practice, fairness, etc, i.e. not disregarding law and regulation but adding to it....

Thank you for your response. So you think the ombudsman means he is not limited to best industry practice but can decide that the company should do even better?

No, I don't think that's what's meant but it does seem odd to include best practice alongside law and regulation in that wording - my understanding remains that the message is essentially that FOS retains the right, but not the obligation, to hold institutions to a higher standard than their legal obligations, and best practice would more logically be bracketed with fairness in such additional expectations that may or may not be layered on top of legal and regulatory requirements.

An example that I've come across is a BSI code of practice on fraud prevention drawn up by some banks, but which hasn't been formally adopted by the entire industry - in cases such as https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/291173/DRN-1951649.pdf, the ombudsman clearly expects institutions to abide by its provisions, even though they're not legally obliged to, while at least some institutions, unsurprisingly, argue the opposite (unsuccessfully here):

Metro Bank argues that the BSI Code of practice isn’t legislation or a regulation and only a few firms were involved in its development. So Metro Bank considers that it was unfair for the investigator to consider the BSI Code of practice is relevant when determining Mr M’s complaint. 

The British Standards Institute’s ‘Protecting customers from financial harm as a result of fraud or financial abuse – Code of practice’ (the BSI Code) gives recommendations to organisations for protecting customers from financial harm that might occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse. It also gives guidance on how to recognise customers who might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimise financial harm. 

I recognise that Metro Bank was not itself a signatory to the BSI Code. But I consider the BSI Code was in any event a reasonable articulation of what I consider to have already been good industry practice at the time Mr M made the payment and that it sets out the kinds of practical steps businesses might fairly and reasonably take. I don’t think the BSI Code suggested wholly new practices.

In this case, the debate about relevance of best practice is decided very clearly in the customer's favour, and this is what I understand the FOS to mean by not being bound only by legal obligations.  Have you come across any cases that support your alternative interpretation that "an ombudsman can choose to disregard law and regulation when reaching his decisions" in a negative way for the customer?

RasputinB

RasputinB said:

eskbanker said: Have you come across any cases that support your alternative interpretation that "an ombudsman can choose to disregard law and regulation when reaching his decisions" in a negative way for the customer?

No. But in the case that I am looking at I do not yet know what regulations the ombudsman has taken into account. The FCA has told me that they won't advise me if ITI is in breach of their regulations. They say that it is for a court to ascertain. Clearly the FOS ombudsmen have some latitude in their interpretations (I have discovered contrary opinions from different ombudsmen as to what is within their jurisdiction.) This is a whole new area for me and whilst I realise that the FOS has an informal complaint settling process I am amazed at how slapdash their approach appears to be when dealing with "minor" cases. I am sure they will regard most of our claims as having little significance compared to the expensive misdoings of banks etc.

eskbanker

RasputinB said:

RasputinB said:

eskbanker said: Have you come across any cases that support your alternative interpretation that "an ombudsman can choose to disregard law and regulation when reaching his decisions" in a negative way for the customer?

No. But in the case that I am looking at I do not yet know what regulations the ombudsman has taken into account. The FCA has told me that they won't advise me if ITI is in breach of their regulations. They say that it is for a court to ascertain.

I suspect that where the FCA are coming from is that, as an individual consumer unhappy with the actions (or lack of them) of a regulated firm and wanting to escalate beyond the firm's own complaints process, there are effectively three different approaches:

1. FOS is the nominated avenue for consumer complaints, which, as above, will consider how the firm has acted, not just in terms of legal requirements but broader expectations, and what the impact has been on the consumer, with the end result (assuming the complaint is upheld) being any relevant corrective action, reimbursement of tangible losses and sometimes compensation for less tangible ones too.
2. Taking the company to court is an option instead of, or after, using FOS, but, given the narrower remit of a court (i.e. no allowance for best practice, fairness, etc), and the costs involved, this will generally be less tempting for most.
3. There's no harm in reporting the firm to the FCA, but they won't address the individual complaint in terms of intervening on behalf of the consumer, although they may add it to their pile of evidence supporting the need for action at a corporate level.

On your point about not knowing what regulations the ombudsman has taken into account, I'd have thought that the onus is on the complainant to identify any alleged regulatory breaches specifically - if the initial FOS adjudication fails to take account of something felt pertinent, then there is the escalation process to an actual ombudsman, who will typically explain in significant detail the rationale for their decision, as can be seen from those published online.

GeorgieC

Michael_Reynolds said:

I moved the two securities that were left behind at ITI to Exante who provide an excellent personal service.

Haven't seen too many comments like that on here...."excellent personal service"

Standard_Goose

Michael_Reynolds said:

...Three months on and IB have been a total nighmare to deal with. There is Zero customer service. Everything is electronic. Their support service seems to be based in India and the local country customer support phone line nevers answers. You have to raise online tickets and these take for ever to resolve.
I hesitate to say this but not only do ITI & IB share the same IT system they also share something else in common and that is the their absymal customer support.
...IB are extremely arrogant. They believe they can run a worldwide brokerage entirely electronically and without the need for anything more than an online questions and answers help facility. They are not prepared to provide any type of cognisant human client support.
Once my account is finally closed at IB I never want to have anything to do with them again. My nightmare experiences at IB and ITI have been extremely similar. They share a great deal in common.

I am still trying to get my account moved to IB and have realised that they were a terrible choice. No real people to deal with, so any issues like we are having with ITI and you're stuffed. Would change destination broker but when you're 8 months into a transfer you don't really want to start again. I will soon be in the position of having an FOS complaint against the broker i'm leaving and the broker i'm going to.

toad333

I've not had any problems with IB so far (fingers crossed). I find the live chat works well. 

Ravima

Finally got shares transferred. Cash took longer, for some reason there was a problem in 'the back office'. All that remains now is to find a missing dividend. ITI don't have it, so LC are checking if they have it. A new day dawns!

Standard_Goose

Looks like i'm the only one left then

Gone awfully quiet in here. My nightmare continues.

toad333

I’m still waiting to transfer out.

jenwrendorset

Standard_Goose said:

Looks like i'm the only one left then

Gone awfully quiet in here. My nightmare continues.

By now I think most of us have lost the will to live.  We're fully transferred out now (bar the two delisted Aim holdings which are stuck where they are for the foreseeable) however despite receiving settlement letters from iWeb confirming transfers which took place in September and December, our shares are still showing on the Phoenix dashboards which I've repeatedly requested closure of.  At least there is no cash sitting there so no way we can be charged......or is there????? We sold our one holding in the account we couldn't transfer and nothing is showing on the dashboard and I requested closure of that but I'm still being asked for photo ID/proof of address/bank account details etc etc in order to do this and that is not sitting right with me - it was difficult enough to supply all that the first time round.  Anyway, hang in there, I'm sure you'll get there in the end.