SVS Securities - shut down?

Sheris

johnburman said:

Got our compensation now.  After much (too much) to-ing and fro-ing with the FOS.  Totals for *4* accounts for delay only (no pecuniary loss) of £850.

Matter now closed

My worst experience with an FS company in my life.  And makes me very concerned of both the FCA and FOS.

Shocking news on your payment of £850, as Leonard Curtis hourly fee was nearly the same per hour and walked away with millions.
The FCA should be totally removed and a new organization should reinstated with people that have been on the other end of fraudulent persons.
Thanks for your posts John        

eskbanker

Sheris said:

johnburman said:

Got our compensation now.  After much (too much) to-ing and fro-ing with the FOS.  Totals for *4* accounts for delay only (no pecuniary loss) of £850.

Matter now closed

My worst experience with an FS company in my life.  And makes me very concerned of both the FCA and FOS.

Shocking news on your payment of £850, as Leonard Curtis hourly fee was nearly the same per hour and walked away with millions.

LC's hourly rates will of course rightly play no part in FOS's assessment of appropriate compensation - they'll instead be following their standard published approach:

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/consumers/expect/compensation-for-distress-or-inconvenience

johnburman

eskbanker is quite correct of course.  But it is sad that the total comp we got was about equivalent to just over an hour of LS partners time. 

Our few hundred quit for literally scores of hours on the phone; emails etc. etc. essentially pays FS companies to provide a bad service.  Why should ITI remedy things, why should it "treat clients fairly," when it is only going to be 'fined' a few hundred quid in 18 months time for the few clients who actually bother to complain?

But look, it is better than nothing; what is important is that other clients CLAIM on the FOS and then fight for proper compensation. 

And if anyone wants to try the small claims court, do let us know the amount of comp awarded.  My view - as expressed before - is that it will be more than that ordered by the FOS.

PS still no apology received from ITI

eskbanker

johnburman said:

And if anyone wants to try the small claims court, do let us know the amount of comp awarded.  My view - as expressed before - is that it will be more than that ordered by the FOS.

What informs that view though, i.e. what precedent(s) are you citing?

You probably won't be surprised to hear that I'm sceptical about the chances of success in court unless the claimant has suffered tangible losses that haven't been recoverable from the institution (via FOS if necessary).  Courts have been known to compensate for distress and inconvenience as part of a wider claim, but not for the time spent by the claimant, and amounts involved seem small, even where the distress and inconvenience is genuine, so it would be interesting to learn of any precedents for a situation similar to this.

There is also the matter of whether the broad concept of 'treating customers fairly' is precise enough to be actionable in circumstances like this - my understanding is that it's primarily about equality and discrimination rather than a catch-all for quality of service issues, but again, happy to be corrected if there's realistic precedent.

Obviously the FOS has had something of a kicking on this thread, not surprisingly in the circumstances, but in general it's still regarded as being more sympathetic to consumers than the courts, especially in its inclusion of soft factors such as fairness rather than simply legislation, so an expectation that courts would be more generous than FOS seems counterintuitive, but once more, examples of the opposite may exist - is there something specific that you have in mind?

johnburman

sorry I can not agree

read  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jarvis_v_Swans_Tours_Ltd

johnburman

Esjbanker. You are right. But it an example of how the courts will award damages for non pecuniary losses. As the dictum of Denning makes clear. 

Which is why the FOS makes such awards. But they are mean... ie the awards are small. Still worth claiming through the FOS though. If enough claim iti may get the message. As may the FCA who I believe are the real regulators asleep at the wheel. 

eskbanker

johnburman said:

Esjbanker. You are right. But it an example of how the courts will award damages for non pecuniary losses. As the dictum of Denning makes clear. 

Which is why the FOS makes such awards. But they are mean... ie the awards are small. Still worth claiming through the FOS though. If enough claim iti may get the message. As may the FCA who I believe are the real regulators asleep at the wheel. 

Yes, you'll see that I wasn't claiming that non-pecuniary losses were completely off limits, so there will indeed be examples of such awards, but I still haven't seen a relevant one that's close to this situation, so remain unconvinced that you'd be able to succeed in court.

The issue of quantum is also pertinent here, in that you appeared to be asserting that courts would be more generous than FOS, but again I don't see any evidence of this.  Your opinion that FOS awards are small appears to be based on an assumption that because you spent a lot of time chasing them, this should be rewarded, but neither they not the courts work that way, so the outcome in your case appears consistent with the published FOS compensation guidance.  If you felt that you could make a rational and objective case that compensation should be higher then the question remains as to why you chose not to push on for an ombudsman decision?

Don't get me wrong though, I entirely agree that it was appropriate to escalate these complaints to FOS if ITI weren't responding adequately, that's what it's there for.  ITI will indeed incur greater costs as a result of such escalations, but they were already firmly on the FCA's radar and so I doubt that the FCA will hear anything via FOS volumes that they didn't already know.

johnburman

FOS follow a path in cases where loss is only for delay and their is no actual pecuniary loss BUT the point is to ensure everyone affected claims from the FOS

Yes you will only get a few hundred quid..but perhaps more if you had several accounts... but my impression is that VERY FEW ex clients have claimed. THAT IS BAD. So claim send copies of your emails to them etc. And wait. But claim 

eskbanker

johnburman said:

FOS follow a path in cases where loss is only for delay and their is no actual pecuniary loss BUT the point is to ensure everyone affected claims from the FOS

Yes you will only get a few hundred quid..but perhaps more if you had several accounts... but my impression is that VERY FEW ex clients have claimed. THAT IS BAD. So claim send copies of your emails to them etc. And wait. But claim 

Seems like a safe assumption to me that, by now, everyone who was sufficiently unhappy with ITI's handling of the transfers/admin would have complained to them, and the subset of those who were sufficiently unhappy with ITI's complaint response would in turn have complained to the FOS.  I suppose there's always the possibility that one or two might belatedly respond to your proselytising, despite your assertion that they're BAD for not having done so thus far, but I suspect that you're flogging a dead horse here!

johnburman

You may have a point here but there are going to be people who don't know the FOS is free and applies to cases such as iti. Claiming is easy... All online and my advice is to send them copies of all emails. Yes they take an age to deal but all affected should COMPLAIN TO THE FOS