SVS Securities - shut down?

eskbanker

johnburman said:

Complain to the FCA - they are not complying with your instructions.  And the FSCS for compensation for likewise.   

Why do you persist in directing people to the wrong organisation despite being corrected again as recently as last week?

eskbanker said:

johnburman said:

eskbanker said:

johnburman said:

Anybody got any compensation from the FOS?

Nobody gets compensation from the FOS, but if they uphold complaints they may instruct ITI to pay compensation....

Quite right...my error.  But it's the same thing de facto.  If ITI does not pay, we then go to the FCS and FSCS.

Pretty sure we've been round this loop before on this thread but if ITI don't offer adequate compensation then FOS is the escalation route, or court if necessary beyond that.

The FCA may show interest in alleged regulatory breaches at a corporate level but won't intervene in an individual consumer's complaint (as that's what they delegate to FOS), and FSCS likewise doesn't have any remit to get involved in any discussions about compensation to individuals (their role is to ensure that there's no shortfall when reuniting consumers with their assets)....

RasputinB

Thrugelmir said:

Researcher16 said:

 no tax certificates nor any details regarding dividends have been received.

Only just first day of new tax year. 

The issue of details on dividends is very important as the Distribution Plan and Mr Justice Miles did not only refer to the return of our assets but also to the "fruits of those assets" which will include dividends and also distributions, rights issues etc. ITI's accountancy and administration systems are in such a mess that it is very difficult for us to work out if we have received a full return of our assets.

As I have previously mentioned, Leonard Curtis are attempting to have the High Court set a longstop date so that they can liquidate any remaining assets.

Anybody who has any doubts as to whether or not ALL their assets have been returned should make a submission to the High Court. It is easy enough to do and I suggest that anybody with concerns sends an email to Nichola.Pierce@justice.gov.uk who will advise you on how the points you make will be added to the court file.

RasputinB

eskbanker said:

FSCS likewise doesn't have any remit to get involved in any discussions about compensation to individuals

Can you provide authoritative information to support that statement please?

eskbanker

RasputinB said:

eskbanker said:

FSCS likewise doesn't have any remit to get involved in any discussions about compensation to individuals

Can you provide authoritative information to support that statement please?

The statement doesn't necessarily apply universally when removed from its context like that, but https://www.fscs.org.uk/how-we-work/customer-info/fscs-fos/ makes clear the primary distinction between FSCS and FOS:

FSCS protects customers of financial services firms that have gone out of business. If the firm you’ve been dealing with has failed and can’t pay back your money, come to FSCS to see if you’re eligible to claim compensation with us. It’s completely free to claim with us.

[...]

The Financial Ombudsman Service can help if you’ve got a complaint against a financial firm that hasn’t gone out of business. If you and the firm can’t resolve a complaint yourselves, the Financial Ombudsman Service will put things right if it decides you have lost out or been treated unfairly. The Financial Ombudsman Service is also free to use.

It's perhaps unhelpful that the word 'compensation' has multiple connotations - its inclusion in the name of FSCS signifies the reimbursement of tangible quantifiable investment losses when a company fails, but the sense in which johnburman is using the term is very much the award of additional sums in recognition of inconvenience, etc.  FSCS clearly had a role to play in ensuring that customers received the financial value of their shares and other investments when SVS failed, but has no role to play in intervening in the subsequent relationship between the still-extant ITI and its customers.

johnburman

eskbanker


1   you are right it is the FOS not FSCS.  My error.

RasputinB

eskbanker said:

FSCS clearly had a role to play in ensuring that customers received the financial value of their shares and other investments when SVS failed, but has no role to play in intervening in the subsequent relationship between the still-extant ITI and its customers.

Thanks for that. I think I agree with what you say but I see the difficulty that if Leonard Curtis bodge things then the cost of their bodging might fall on the FSCS. Similarly the costs of any compensation agreed through the FOS would fall on the FSCS. Therefore some of us might like to give the FSCS the opportunity to intervene and straighten out any mess before it creates additional costs.

eskbanker

RasputinB said:

eskbanker said:

FSCS clearly had a role to play in ensuring that customers received the financial value of their shares and other investments when SVS failed, but has no role to play in intervening in the subsequent relationship between the still-extant ITI and its customers.

Thanks for that. I think I agree with what you say but I see the difficulty that if Leonard Curtis bodge things then the cost of their bodging might fall on the FSCS. Similarly the costs of any compensation agreed through the FOS would fall on the FSCS. Therefore some of us might like to give the FSCS the opportunity to intervene and straighten out any mess before it creates additional costs.

I think that's a different scenario from the one being discussed though - johnburman's recommendation to involve FSCS was made in the context of assets held by ITI, which to me are clearly beyond the scope of FSCS by virtue of the fact those assets are now under the control of an ongoing entity rather than the collapsed one.

If you're referring to a different situation where assets haven't yet found their way to ITI then yes, I'd agree that any such loss potentially warrants FSCS involvement if LC haven't fulfilled their obligation to get them transferred to ITI.

RasputinB

eskbanker said:

Don't forget that some clients went for a Reverse Transfer and their assets remain held by ITI (as custodians). SVS (which is still subject to CASS regulations) is responsible for the safe-keeping and return of those assets. I'm at a bit of a loss to understand how SVS can be expected to keep up with its regulatory obligations when Leonard Curtis have made all the employees redundant.

RasputinB

This is on the FSCS website dated 24/7/20 -

FSCS would like to begin looking at other issues that have arisen following the failure of SVS. We have opened up our online claims service for those clients who wish to make further claims in respect of SVS (other than for the simple return of money and assets).

They also say that "This is likely to apply to clients who feel that having their client assets and client money returned is not going to address the losses they’ve suffered, and who consider that SVS is to blame for these additional losses. Note that the FSCS cannot compensate clients whose losses arise from an inability to sell assets or settle transactions during the Special Administration. We also cannot compensate clients for poor investment performance alone. It’s completely free to make a claim for compensation with FSCS if you claim with us directly."

It looks like we should make a claim through the FSCS for the cost of sorting out the administration problems, for example, as well as claims to the FOS for distress and inconvenience?

eskbanker

RasputinB said:

This is on the FSCS website dated 24/7/20 -

FSCS would like to begin looking at other issues that have arisen following the failure of SVS. We have opened up our online claims service for those clients who wish to make further claims in respect of SVS (other than for the simple return of money and assets).

They also say that "This is likely to apply to clients who feel that having their client assets and client money returned is not going to address the losses they’ve suffered, and who consider that SVS is to blame for these additional losses. Note that the FSCS cannot compensate clients whose losses arise from an inability to sell assets or settle transactions during the Special Administration. We also cannot compensate clients for poor investment performance alone. It’s completely free to make a claim for compensation with FSCS if you claim with us directly."

It looks like we should make a claim through the FSCS for the cost of sorting out the administration problems, for example, as well as claims to the FOS for distress and inconvenience?

Personally I still see the handover of responsibility for assets to ITI (that day) as significant, i.e. that FSCS statement effectively recognises that there may be legitimate claims relating to the administration period between August 2019 and July 2020, but it doesn't seem to me to open up the potential to claim for subsequent ITI-related problems, and indeed further up that page, a couple of weeks later, it's reiterated that FSCS can only look at covering losses that aren't someone else's responsibility (and hence the bolded reference in your quote to SVS liability specifically):

To consider a claim against a failed firm, such as SVS, FSCS must be satisfied that:

1) customers can't claim against any connected firms. This would include FCA authorised advisors.

[...]

However, it sounds like you may have been caught up in problems genuinely attributable to the administration itself, whereas most on here seem to have passed that point and are just cheesed off with the time and effort involved in extricating themselves or their assets/cash from ITI, so you'd seem to be more likely to qualify for FSCS assistance than others if you've suffered losses outside the excluded headings above.