SVS Securities - shut down?

johnburman

It's the contract they have with you and its breach that the claim will be for as well as in negligence.

And yes we would win 

Sheris

eskbanker said:

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....

Are you for real, with a statement like that, even the Judge for the transfer to ITI has been duped     

johnburman

Ignoring rubbish posted about the great reset... The fact is that ITI did not complete my lawful instruction to them and delayed the transfer out. They were not not treating me as a client fairly were in breach of contract and were negligent. The FOS find them in breach of the FOS criteria but they are also in breach of contract. A case could be brought in the small claims court. . Yes it's a fag and yes one might get smaller damages than the FOS But I DOUBT IT. you will have small court costs to pay but these will be added to the judgment..

My point is how are ITI going to defend the case? What positive defence will they try and advance? Is there one? We have their admissions and I wonder if in disclosure their correspondence with the FCA could be disclosed? 

RasputinB

eskbanker said:

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....

Do you think that we are just complaining about administrative incompetence which delayed the availability of investments (but without tangible financial loss)?

johnburman

Look they are your agents. They have a contractual duty to comply with lawful instructions from you..they also have a fiduciary duty to you. They must also comply with all FCA regs and the Conduct Rules. They are in breach of contract. Whether caused by admin !!!!!! up or lack of properly trained staff is immaterial. They were in breach of contract. Causing stress anguish and worry, but in my case no pecuniary loss. Damages will be small but there still will be damages...in my case lots of phone calls and abortive calls

eskbanker

Happy Christmas one and all!  Now that the annual game of football in no-man's land is over, it's time to revisit this thread again, I see....

Sheris said:

eskbanker said:

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....

Are you for real, with a statement like that, even the Judge for the transfer to ITI has been duped     

I don't know what you mean, what judge, and how is that relevant to the point I was making about whether ITI subsequently breached contracts with their customers?

johnburman said:

Ignoring rubbish posted about the great reset... The fact is that ITI did not complete my lawful instruction to them and delayed the transfer out. They were not not treating me as a client fairly were in breach of contract and were negligent. The FOS find them in breach of the FOS criteria but they are also in breach of contract. A case could be brought in the small claims court. . Yes it's a fag and yes one might get smaller damages than the FOS But I DOUBT IT. you will have small court costs to pay but these will be added to the judgment..

My point is how are ITI going to defend the case? What positive defence will they try and advance? Is there one? We have their admissions and I wonder if in disclosure their correspondence with the FCA could be disclosed? 

My question is the other way round, i.e. what specific contractual terms would you be seeking to rely on when alleging breach?  A 'time is of the essence' clause would be unusual in a contract such as this, but are there any binding service level commitments perhaps?

Likewise for FCA regulations - if there's something clear and concise that they've failed to comply with then this could be regarded as a breach, but in the absence of tangible financial losses (in your case), it seems highly unlikely that a court would award damages, especially if the FCA weren't (visibly) particularly interested in pursuing ITI on behalf of customers for such alleged breaches.

RasputinB said:

eskbanker said:

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....

Do you think that we are just complaining about administrative incompetence which delayed the availability of investments (but without tangible financial loss)?

I don't suppose everyone on here is complaining with a common voice, as each case will differ, but I was replying to a poster who was unhappy with various delays but concedes that there was no tangible financial loss in his case.  It seems clear to me that ITI fell short in a number of ways, but I haven't seen anything posted that would genuinely give rise to an expectation of better results from a court than the FOS (which was the claim being made) - I'm happy to be corrected if anyone has actually put their money where their mouth is and secured damages from a court though.

johnburman said:

Look they are your agents. They have a contractual duty to comply with lawful instructions from you..they also have a fiduciary duty to you. They must also comply with all FCA regs and the Conduct Rules. They are in breach of contract. Whether caused by admin !!!!!! up or lack of properly trained staff is immaterial. They were in breach of contract. Causing stress anguish and worry, but in my case no pecuniary loss. Damages will be small but there still will be damages...in my case lots of phone calls and abortive calls

What did the FOS say about the cost of those calls?

RasputinB

eskbanker said:

I haven't seen anything posted that would genuinely give rise to an expectation of better results from a court than the FOS (which was the claim being made) - I'm happy to be corrected if anyone has actually put their money where their mouth is and secured damages from a court though.

ITI have settled out of court with cash and gagging orders. Hardly surprising that anybody looking from the outside won't see many ITI clients posting about their settlement. Also hardly surprising if the FOS aren't getting the true complaint statistics from ITI (and other companies).
It beggars belief that anyone can think that the FCA have prevented ITI from taking on new clients for months on the basis of just the complaints as aired here.

johnburman

What gagging orders? What settlements? Ok we would not kniw. But the FOS settlements are around 300 GBP for each account. Small. We have very limited examples or precedents for the small claims court but I feel it would be more than 300 GBP. 

eskbanker

RasputinB said:

ITI have settled out of court with cash and gagging orders. Hardly surprising that anybody looking from the outside won't see many ITI clients posting about their settlement.

Perhaps you're right, but asserting secrecy is obviously unverifiable either way round.

RasputinB said:
Also hardly surprising if the FOS aren't getting the true complaint statistics from ITI (and other companies).

ITI are obliged to report all complaints to the FCA in the same way as any other institution, but I don't know exactly how that process is policed and audited, do you?

RasputinB said:

It beggars belief that anyone can think that the FCA have prevented ITI from taking on new clients for months on the basis of just the complaints as aired here.

That's not what I'm suggesting - there are many ways in which ITI can be in breach of FCA regulations without necessarily incurring any contractual liability to customers.  If, to use the above (admittedly trivial) example, they weren't compliant with complaint reporting obligations, that would breach FCA regulations but wouldn't create any basis for customer litigation.

However, to reiterate, I'm not saying that no ITI customer has a valid contract breach claim that would result in court-awarded damages better than what would be awarded from the FOS, just that the example being discussed above doesn't sound like one, in the absence of any detail about its construction....

IanManc

RasputinB said:

ITI have settled out of court with cash and gagging orders. 

How could you possibly know that?