SVS Securities - shut down?

My2penneth

On page 597 I reported that the FOS asked ITICapital asked for a reply to their proposals for compensation by 13th December. ITI Capital did not respond. This applied for both complaints (mine and my wife's).

Of course we contacted NS of the FOS to let her know that nothing has been received. 

I logged on to my account this morning and I noticed that the one remaining share on the Qort account has now vanished. I never asked ITI to sell. 

johnburman

My2penneth said:

On page 597 I reported that the FOS asked ITICapital asked for a reply to their proposals for compensation by 13th December. ITI Capital did not respond. This applied for both complaints (mine and my wife's).

Of course we contacted NS of the FOS to let her know that nothing has been received. 

I logged on to my account this morning and I noticed that the one remaining share on the Qort account has now vanished. I never asked ITI to sell. 

A further complaint both to the FOS and to the FCA.  And this is a breach of contract.  Why not sue them in the County Court for 'conversion' and 'negligence' and breach of contract?

PS the fact that they do not reply to the FOS is itself disgraceful.  but why when they give such small compensation awards, should they.  It will cost more to respond than to ignore and pay compensation. 

My2penneth

Can ITI decide to ignore the FOS or would the FCA step in (with a big stick)?

edit: the FOS are now out of the office until January (no return date provided)

eskbanker

My2penneth said:

Can ITI decide to ignore the FOS or would the FCA step in (with a big stick)?

Obviously financial institutions should adhere to FOS deadlines and instructions, but in the real world it often doesn't happen - a lengthy thread about an example of this dragging on for many months is at:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5899463/when-banks-dont-act-on-fos-findings/p1

Final decisions made by actual ombudsmen (as opposed to the less formal findings at adjudicator level) are binding and enforceable by law, but I suspect that only the most extreme and egregious cases would attract any attention from the FCA....

Sheris

eskbanker said:

My2penneth said:

Can ITI decide to ignore the FOS or would the FCA step in (with a big stick)?

Obviously financial institutions should adhere to FOS deadlines and instructions, but in the real world it often doesn't happen - a lengthy thread about an example of this dragging on for many months is at:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5899463/when-banks-dont-act-on-fos-findings/p1

Final decisions made by actual ombudsmen (as opposed to the less formal findings at adjudicator level) are binding and enforceable by law, but I suspect that only the most extreme and egregious cases would attract any attention from the FCA....

Final decisions can be made with oneself.  

eskbanker

Sheris said:

eskbanker said:

My2penneth said:

Can ITI decide to ignore the FOS or would the FCA step in (with a big stick)?

Obviously financial institutions should adhere to FOS deadlines and instructions, but in the real world it often doesn't happen - a lengthy thread about an example of this dragging on for many months is at:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5899463/when-banks-dont-act-on-fos-findings/p1

Final decisions made by actual ombudsmen (as opposed to the less formal findings at adjudicator level) are binding and enforceable by law, but I suspect that only the most extreme and egregious cases would attract any attention from the FCA....

Final decisions can be made with oneself.  

Not sure I understand the point you're making - if you're obliquely observing that you can take a financial institution to court at any stage then yes, that's undoubtedly true, but FOS, while not necessarily quicker, will usually be a more sensible route, given the lack of cost and the greater prospects of success.  Meanwhile, my point referred to the process explained at https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/who-we-are/make-decisions

Final binding decisions

If you or the business don't accept the case handler's assessment, you can ask for your case to be referred to an ombudsman. 

The ombudsman will then look at all details of your complaint afresh, and make a final decision. As part of this process the ombudsman may decide to issue a provisional decision which will set out the decision he/she is minded to make on your case. The ombudsman will then give both parties a reasonable time in which to make any final representations on your case. After this time the ombudsman will consider any further submissions he/she receives before issuing a final decision on your case. 

The ombudsman will issue their final decision to both parties in writing. You will then be asked to confirm by a specified date whether you accept or reject it. If you accept the ombudsman's final decision in the specified timeframe, the business has to do what the ombudsman has told them to do – it will be binding on the business.

johnburman

We are all wrong in relying on the FOS  including myself

We should have issued a claim in the small claims court and gone to a hearing. This would give some form of benchmark of damages that would be awarded. My guess that is the case would be dealt with quicker than the FOS and the award of damages would be higher 

eskbanker

johnburman said:

We are all wrong in relying on the FOS  including myself

We should have issued a claim in the small claims court and gone to a hearing. This would give some form of benchmark of damages that would be awarded. My guess that is the case would be dealt with quicker than the FOS and the award of damages would be higher 

This thread is often in Groundhog Day territory, so, rather than pointing out all the flaws in that line of thinking yet again, it's probably simpler just to read one of the earlier versions at https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6032496/svs-securities-shut-down/p591, where you failed to come up with any relevant support for that opinion.

Assuming we accept that both courts and FOS will result in all tangible financial losses being reimbursed, your theory would seem to be that a court would be more generous than FOS on the non-legalistic aspects of distress and inconvenience, which seems something of a long shot to say the least, but perhaps this time you can find and cite some pertinent precedents?  Hoping to build a compelling legal case from the nebulous FCA concepts of treating customers fairly is ambitious IMHO, especially via a small claims process geared towards recouping identifiable and verifiable sums, but can't say I've ever felt tempted to try.

On the subject of speed, there's no doubt that FOS are glacial, but it's been well documented that small claims procedures are also bogged down in sizable backlogs, so have been taking a year too....

johnburman

As to timings you are right but small claims is going to be concluded in under 12 months whilst the FOS SEEMS to be a bit longer. But small claims costs a few quid BUT as it will cost iti more they may offer to settle. Especially if it's done with an nda to ensure there is no publicity 

eskbanker

johnburman said:

As to timings you are right but small claims is going to be concluded in under 12 months whilst the FOS SEEMS to be a bit longer. But small claims costs a few quid BUT as it will cost iti more they may offer to settle. Especially if it's done with an nda to ensure there is no publicity 

Your view that it will cost ITI more is still predicated on being able to construct a credible argument that'll stand up in a court of law, which is a significantly higher hurdle than complaining to FOS that they caused distress and inconvenience when their administrative incompetence delayed the availability of investments (but without tangible financial loss), so IMHO ITI are unlikely to offer to settle if they're confident that they haven't actually broken the law....