SVS Securities - shut down?

RasputinB

eskbanker said:

I haven't seen any ITI complaints within these published datasets, which either means that the volumes aren't high enough to qualify or perhaps that ITI haven't been updating the FCA....

Thanks for that information.
I note that the FSCS gave an update today to say that they are still on the case of their continuing investigations into SVS. They say that they expect to give another update shortly. The previous update was in August 2020.

RasputinB

According to Rule DISP 1.3.1 of the FCA Handbook “Effective and transparent procedures for the reasonable and prompt handling of complaints must be established, implemented and maintained”.

In the Financial Ombudsman Decision DRN2145369 (relating to a different stockbroker) £300 compensation was awarded for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in the transfer of the account to a new broker and a further £100 for the delay in dealing with the complaint. Other Financial Ombudsman Decisions also show compensation for delays in dealing with complaints.

It looks to me like the FOS should be awarding a minimum of £100 to ITI clients just for delays in handling complaints.

RasputinB

According to my web browser the certificate for iticapital.com is not valid. It states that "Because this connection is not secure, information (such as passwords or credit cards) will not be securely sent to this site and may be intercepted or seen by others" and "We suggest you don't enter personal information into this site or avoid using this site".​
(I think this justifies a separate complaint!)

masonic

RasputinB said:

According to my web browser the certificate for iticapital.com is not valid. It states that "Because this connection is not secure, information (such as passwords or credit cards) will not be securely sent to this site and may be intercepted or seen by others" and "We suggest you don't enter personal information into this site or avoid using this site".​
(I think this justifies a separate complaint!)

It expired Wed, 04 May 2022 12:54:34 GMT. Not very impressive.

eskbanker

RasputinB said:

According to Rule DISP 1.3.1 of the FCA Handbook “Effective and transparent procedures for the reasonable and prompt handling of complaints must be established, implemented and maintained”.

In the Financial Ombudsman Decision DRN2145369 (relating to a different stockbroker) £300 compensation was awarded for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in the transfer of the account to a new broker and a further £100 for the delay in dealing with the complaint. Other Financial Ombudsman Decisions also show compensation for delays in dealing with complaints.

It looks to me like the FOS should be awarding a minimum of £100 to ITI clients just for delays in handling complaints.

But at what point would it be considered that the handling of a complaint had been delayed enough to warrant that?  Obviously there is the eight-week longstop date after which complaints can be escalated from the institution to FOS, so resolution within eight weeks is implicitly acceptable, but if the mere act of escalating after eight weeks was viewed as a delay justifying compensation then practically every FOS case would generate that payment, which seems an unlikely prospect.  Once a complaint has been referred to FOS, the institution can effectively down tools (to the extent that they'd ever got round to picking them up!) as the timescales are then driven by FOS, so the clock wouldn't seem to be ticking from that point....

The cited case above doesn't seem to explain the actual complaint handling timescales, just the transaction delays, but it reads like it was Barclays themselves who unilaterally chose to offer the £100 rather than this being imposed by FOS, who also proposed the £300 distress and inconvenience on the basis that there were two people who were inconvenienced, while agreeing that £200 would have been more appropriate for for just one:

I have considered what amount should be paid for distress and inconvenience. Barclays offered £200 for the impact of the delay. I think that is a reasonable amount if only Mr E was complaining. But I’m mindful that this is a joint complaint, and although Mr E has been responsible for corresponding with Barclays I’m not satisfied that distress and inconvenience wasn’t caused to both of them because of the delay. I think a total of £300 is a reasonable amount in the circumstances. Barclays also offered a further £100 for the delay in dealing with the complaint.

Anyway, just food for thought and/or discussion - do you have DRNs for the other cases you refer to?

eskbanker

masonic said:

RasputinB said:

According to my web browser the certificate for iticapital.com is not valid. It states that "Because this connection is not secure, information (such as passwords or credit cards) will not be securely sent to this site and may be intercepted or seen by others" and "We suggest you don't enter personal information into this site or avoid using this site".​
(I think this justifies a separate complaint!)

It expired Wed, 04 May 2022 12:54:34 GMT. Not very impressive.

New certificate now applied, apparently valid from 5 March 2022 to 6 April 2023, which begs the question of why it's seemingly been gathering dust for a couple of months!

masonic

eskbanker said:

masonic said:

RasputinB said:

According to my web browser the certificate for iticapital.com is not valid. It states that "Because this connection is not secure, information (such as passwords or credit cards) will not be securely sent to this site and may be intercepted or seen by others" and "We suggest you don't enter personal information into this site or avoid using this site".​
(I think this justifies a separate complaint!)

It expired Wed, 04 May 2022 12:54:34 GMT. Not very impressive.

New certificate now applied, apparently valid from 5 March 2022 to 6 April 2023, which begs the question of why it's seemingly been gathering dust for a couple of months!

Yes, it seems someone got it in good time, but failed to apply it to the server correctly. Oops!

RasputinB

According to my web browser ITI Capital's web site at http://www.ititrade.com/ does not have a security certificate.

ITI Trade LTD. is authorised and regulated by the Guernsey Financial Services Commission - it appears to be a different company....

RasputinB

eskbanker said:
New certificate now applied, apparently valid from 5 March 2022 to 6 April 2023, which begs the question of why it's seemingly been gathering dust for a couple of months!

Maybe the IT administrators are in a country that has been at war since 24 February 2022?

masonic

RasputinB said:

According to my web browser ITI Capital's web site at http://www.ititrade.com/ does not have a security certificate.

ITI Trade LTD. is authorised and regulated by the Guernsey Financial Services Commission - it appears to be a different company....

Yes, it is a different company, and the website hasn't been built yet. As you've entered http:// you've not requested a secure site, but the https:// page currently has the hosting provider's certificate in place.