SVS Securities - shut down?

eskbanker

johnburman said:

You should get more than £300 comp from the FOS.  Claim the full costs of the 'missing' shares as your loss.  This would be a good time to sue them though.  You have this day suffered an actual loss [value of the shares].  But a broker 'losing' shares from their platform is the nightmare that any investor fears.  The FCA must be interested in this, even if they are 'found' later.

Conscious that you're increasingly trigger-happy with other people's time and money but IMHO it would be a huge overreaction to leap to court at this stage for something which is in all likelihood yet another example of ITI's system/admin weaknesses!  Sure, if ITI are unable to locate the shares and unwilling to reimburse the account holder for both their value and any demonstrable opportunity cost, then that would undoubtedly warrant stronger action, but at this stage the complaint to ITI and updating of FOS seems an entirely appropriate and proportionate response....

My2penneth

I took a snapshot of the screen for proof that the shares have disappeared and emailed ITI (with a copy to the FOS).

However, I've just logged on and the value is now reinstated. Why do they disappear from time to time (it's not the first time that the shares have gone awol only to return).

Thrugelmir

My2penneth said:

However, I've just logged on and the value is now reinstated. Why do they disappear from time to time (it's not the first time that the shares have gone awol only to return).

Be an internal system issue. The shares haven't gone anywhere. Screen displays are just screen displays. 

johnburman

I'm sure it is an internal systems error, not that either of us know for sure, but you are the client and the account provided by your broker is wrong. it should not happen. 

I think the FCA should be told too. If this affects you how many other clients are also affected? And is it systemic or just a one off. I'm thinking of the subpostmasters legal case 

RasputinB

My2penneth said:

My residual shares in one company that were sitting in my QORT account have gone AWOL ...again.! 

The regulated activities of ITI Capital include safeguarding and administering of investments and in accordance with CASS rules they will need to regularly reconcile custody assets.

Maybe it would be a good idea to ask ITI Capital to confirm that they actually have your shares in custody?

My2penneth

My2penneth said:

My residual shares in one company that were sitting in my QORT account have gone AWOL ...again.! 

This time, I've emailedITI and copied it to the case officer at the FOS (quoting the FOS case number) and I also highlight that ITI have not responded to the FOS letters. 

Then the missing shares came back but now they are gone AGAIN!  

RasputinB

The Financial Ombudsman Service recently published a decision relating to ITI Capital.

An investigator considered the complaint and thought it should be upheld saying that “ITI failed to provide a reasonable service, particularly in relation to its communication with Mr M, therefore it should pay a total £250 compensation”.

ITI had offered £100 compensation.

The Ombudsman stated that “Normally, we’d expect transfers to be completed within 30 days, but on the face of the available evidence, it’s not entirely clear what happened in this instance…”

I note that the Financial Ombudsman Service had primarily identified the complaint as a failure to carry out instructions to transfer the ISA.

In my case there were many more problems including failures to properly report assets and dividends, security issues, delays in providing Contract Notes, errors in the Contract Notes, and shortfalls in dividend payments.

The Final Decision is available here - https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/322598/DRN-3070547.pdf

Sheris

Just shows how bad L&C and the FCA are in there decision to allow ITI Capital to take over the so called special administration.
£250 offered and L&C walked away with over 20 million at £500 per hour of tax payees monies.       

eskbanker

RasputinB said:

The Financial Ombudsman Service recently published a decision relating to ITI Capital.

An investigator considered the complaint and thought it should be upheld saying that “ITI failed to provide a reasonable service, particularly in relation to its communication with Mr M, therefore it should pay a total £250 compensation”.

ITI had offered £100 compensation.

The Ombudsman stated that “Normally, we’d expect transfers to be completed within 30 days, but on the face of the available evidence, it’s not entirely clear what happened in this instance…”

I note that the Financial Ombudsman Service had primarily identified the complaint as a failure to carry out instructions to transfer the ISA.

Thanks for finding and sharing that, interesting reading.  Wonder if Mr M has been seen on this thread....

It seems to me that there is indeed extensive focus on the ISA transfer, but also familiar tales of lack of access to assets via ITI's platform(s), poor communication, delays, etc - the ombudsman's conclusion states that the £250 is "for the distress and inconvenience suffered as result of the delays for which ITI is responsible and lack of access to his account".

It's probably counterproductive for complainants to over-emphasise such transfer issues in particular, because they inherently involve two parties, and it's the receiving one that retains overall responsibility for the ISA transfer process - there is no need for the investor to advise the ceding provider at all.  In this case it seems clear that the receiving broker had at least some responsibility for the transfer delay ("I can’t entirely blame ITI for the delays that he’s experienced. In other words, on the face of the evidence, and on balance, I’m unable to safely conclude that ITI is solely responsible for the delays experienced"), so the above comment about lack of clarity over what happened seems to me to reflect the fact that when escalating a complaint about ITI to FOS, they'll only be considering ITI's role and its response to the complaint, rather than taking a broader view.

RasputinB said:

In my case there were many more problems including failures to properly report assets and dividends, security issues, delays in providing Contract Notes, errors in the Contract Notes, and shortfalls in dividend payments.

Those all sound more clear-cut than ISA transfer issues, in that ITI should be held solely responsible, but the ombudsman did seem minded to cut ITI quite a bit of slack ("Based on what ITI says, it seems its capacity to deal with Mr M arose, in the main, from issues outside of its control" when citing high volumes of activity and technical issues) so it'll be interesting to see what the outcome of your complaint(s) is - presumably the one you found will be followed by others in the near future too.

Sheris said:

L&C walked away with over 20 million at £500 per hour of tax payees monies.       

Assuming you mean 'taxpayers', which costs did they bear and via what mechanism?  I thought that (industry-funded) FSCS picked up the tab for those costs that weren't recoverable from the residual assets of SVS?

johnburman

Forget the svs insolvency and the transfer to ITI shambles. It caused almost no svs clients loss.

The actions of ITI have caused their clients loss. The shame is that the FOS only award 250 to 300 GBP damages. ITI CLIENTS SHOULD NOT ACCEPT LESS and if iti won't pay more COMPLAIN TO THE FOS.