SVS Securities - shut down?

Thrugelmir

RasputinB said:

Hi eskbanker,

But I do think that you are underestimating the cost of reputational damage. I believe that the ITI scheme was to gain a presence as a player in the London stockbroking arena. Some 18,000 clients would enhance their status (even if revenues were low they can be bolstered from other ITI entities – see their accounts) and their marketing appears to be geared to their international presence.

Outside this board. There'll be a shrug of the shoulders. A name people will never ever be aware of. Just like SVS.  Suggesting that other financial centres never have issues is nonsense. Time to put this thread to bed. 

RasputinB

Thrugelmir said:
Time to put this thread to bed. 

MoneySavingExpert.com worried about legal threats, again?

eskbanker

RasputinB said:

As you may have guessed, most of the words in my previous post came from the FOS. (See DRN2331800)

Don't think that was the right reference, as https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-2331080.pdf doesn't seem to have those words?

johnburman

The case referred to said:

 Mr I’s account was blocked from 7 October 2019 to 16 October 2019, being a total of nine days. In the circumstances of this complaint, and based on the evidence both parties have provided me, my view is that nine days was a reasonable period for Revolut to keep Mr I’s account blocked. 

9 days.  so acting under a regulatory mandate 9 days delay was fine.

But ITI were way more than 9 days block, and caused by their own failings. 

RasputinB

eskbanker said:

RasputinB said:

As you may have guessed, most of the words in my previous post came from the FOS. (See DRN2331800)

Don't think that was the right reference, as https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-2331080.pdf doesn't seem to have those words?

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN2331800.pdf (without hyphen) is opening the correct decision on my computer.  But you may need to do a new search - Barclays Bank UK PLC; Terry Connor ombudsman; 25 Apr 2019.

"The hope is that the costs, administrative expenses, potential awards by this service and attendant poor publicity from upheld decisions by this service, which are published, would cause Barclays to quickly put right the failings complained of."

Thrugelmir

RasputinB said:

Thrugelmir said:
Time to put this thread to bed. 

MoneySavingExpert.com worried about legal threats, again?

More a question of a record being stuck in the same groove over and over again. 

johnburman

But still need to keep the FCA up to speed 

They are the only thing iti care about. Not that I think the FCA are properly focused or any good at protecting the consumer. But they are the best we have. 

Sheris

johnburman said:

But still need to keep the FCA up to speed 

They are the only thing iti care about. Not that I think the FCA are properly focused or any good at protecting the consumer. But they are the best we have. 

The FCA are totally incompetence of the meaning of the word, the FOS have a very good workforce and having to deal with the likes of ITI Capital for them, its impossible, so how and why did the FCA allow this to continue in a free fall of many problems.        

johnburman

Keep up the pressure on the FCA. But remember that compensation will come from the FOS. So keep on with the claims for compensation 

eskbanker

RasputinB said:

eskbanker said:

RasputinB said:

As you may have guessed, most of the words in my previous post came from the FOS. (See DRN2331800)

Don't think that was the right reference, as https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-2331080.pdf doesn't seem to have those words?

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN2331800.pdf (without hyphen) is opening the correct decision on my computer.  But you may need to do a new search - Barclays Bank UK PLC; Terry Connor ombudsman; 25 Apr 2019.

"The hope is that the costs, administrative expenses, potential awards by this service and attendant poor publicity from upheld decisions by this service, which are published, would cause Barclays to quickly put right the failings complained of."

My apologies, I inadvertently transposed two digits of the reference number so it was my fault that I landed at the wrong case!

Having said that, nothing in the one you're referring to really contradicts my point that the complaint processes mandated by the FCA, followed by the institutions and FOS, are geared specifically to resolving an individual customer complaint rather than addressing structural or systemic problems within the organisation.

In your quote, the ombudsman starts with "the hope is [that things get better]", but elsewhere he accepts that "notwithstanding the wider portfolio of complaints Mr B has made, I have no power to direct Barclays to improve its service or administrative processes", i.e. regardless of his wishful thinking, the FOS remit is solely to review how the institution has dealt with the customer's complaint, not to advise on the firm's processes, systems, people, etc.

So, when you say that although you "don’t think much of the FOS as an organization there will be decent individuals working there who can see the rights and wrongs of the existing systems", that's actually irrelevant because the FOS has no authority to intervene on the wider issues beyond reviewing how a complaint was handled.

On the other hand, the FCA does have that authority and has exercised it to some degree, with its restrictions on ITI's operations, although the extent to which this is a result of representations from unhappy ex-SVS customers is unclear.

Returning to the point about the significance (or lack thereof) of adverse publicity, it's perhaps noteworthy that the ombudsman's comment was in the context of Barclays, a high profile household name with a widespread high street presence, and therefore a real reputation to protect, but I don't recall there being substantive coverage of the apparent inadequacies of their investment platform over a prolonged period of at least six months!