SVS Securities - shut down?

johnburman

Problem is the comp awarded is a mere fraction of proper damages on a time spent basis. But if you don't suffer any pecuniary losses then you really get a token. Thus there is no real incentive for FS companies to improve their service. 

But keep up complaining. 

My2penneth

Update.
I received a similar email to that of my wife's. Compensation level suggested was the same  £300.

So, a total of £600...about 1.25 hours of LC's billable rate. 

I wonder how many people contacted the FOS and how much this will hurt ITI Crapital? 

So, what happens if ITI ignore the recommendations.?

johnburman

As I have commented before,  miserly compensation. 

ITI will comply with the FOS.  If they do not send them a Notice to wind them up and after 21 days issue a winding up petition.  And tell the FCA that ITI have ignored a FOS finding. 

eskbanker

My2penneth said:

I wonder how many people contacted the FOS and how much this will hurt ITI Crapital? 

Despite the tone of many comments on here, the number who have actually followed through with FOS escalation appears small.

In October 2020, it was reported that:

FTAdviser understands the ombudsman has received about 10 complaints about ITI Capital, but these are not necessarily in relation to SVS clients.

although that was fairly early on in the process for complaints to have progressed through the eight-week cycle prior to escalation.

However, the half-yearly complaints stats published by FOS don't report any for ITI, which suggests that they're below the threshold of thirty needed to trigger inclusion:

Our half-yearly figures show the number of complaints received about individual financial businesses where we received at least 30 new cases and resolved at least 30 cases in each six-month period.

Those that make it to FOS cases cost ITI £750 each in fees, plus the £300 typical compensation (based on the above posts), plus internal admin/overheads, so complaints could contribute tens of thousands to their losses of £2.4m on a turnover of £5.8m....

johnburman

We need to hammer home the fact that complainants of ITI MUST complain to the FOS.  £300 for each account (more if there is a joint account as that is 2 complaints) is not a huge amount but it is something.  and shos ITI and indeed the FCA and LS that there are some complainant ex-clients that will not "take it lying down".

A more interesting question si why has not ITI (with the FCA making them) automatically compensate clients?  Let us hoe a few complaints to establish the £300 comp figure and then lets push for automatic compensation     

eskbanker

johnburman said:

We need to hammer home the fact that complainants of ITI MUST complain to the FOS.  

Interesting definition of 'fact'!

johnburman said:

A more interesting question si why has not ITI (with the FCA making them) automatically compensate clients?  Let us hoe a few complaints to establish the £300 comp figure and then lets push for automatic compensation     

Although ITI were briefly on the FCA's radar, their weak admin, while undoubtedly inconvenient for those directly involved, is a minor insignificance in the context of the issues seen across the industry, which has seen over five million complaints over the past year, so the notion that the FCA should be actively getting involved in compensation here is somewhat optimistic!

https://www.fca.org.uk/data/complaints-data/aggregate-complaints-data-2021-h1

Note that the average non-PPI redress figures in the most recent periods are £180 and £221, so the view that £300 is miserly isn't borne out by the facts....

johnburman

No it's if ITI delays payment or ignores the FOS findings, that the FCA should be involved.  My view is that get a formal FOS finding and then see if ITI pay it.  If not issue a Notice that you will serve a winding-up petition.  ITI will then either pay up OR face a petition.  The FCA will then sit up.

And £300 is higher than the (very low) average but still miserly.  The FOS make far too small comp payments where it is only for delay or distress and there is no actual pecuniary damage caused.  But hey, £300 per complaint pays for quite a few Xmas mince pies and bottles of mulled wine! 

Sheris

johnburman said:

As I have commented before,  miserly compensation. 

ITI will comply with the FOS.  If they do not send them a Notice to wind them up and after 21 days issue a winding up petition.  And tell the FCA that ITI have ignored a FOS finding. 

There is strong evidence that ITI are trying to ignore the FOS with information they have requested for the ex SVS clients.
     

shiznit76

Yes, my investigator at FOS says that ITI have not replied to any of her messages nor responded with any information by the deadline she set of November 25. She is now going make her findings based on info i have provided

johnburman

Yes this is common with ITI, and was the same for me.

My take on it is it is cheaper for them to ignore the FOS questions and pay the miserly £300 compensation than answer their queries!

So what I would do is to ask the FOS to increase the comp payable to, say, £400 [or even £500], as they are showing contempt for the FOS investigation process as they showed to clients.  They are not, therefore, treating clients fairly and that justifies a higher payout.