SVS Securities - shut down?

RasputinB

eskbanker said:

johnburman said:

What you say RasputinB is right. But that doesn't obviate the need to tell the FCA about ITI Trade. They need to know if only to see what iti are doing about it

Seems to me that @RasputinB was very much saying that ITI Trade's Guernsey regulation does obviate the need to involve the FCA!

Issues with the wider group's UK-regulated entities are a different story though....

On looking at this again I think that johnburman has raised a good point.

ITI Markets is a trading name of ITI Capital Limited. ITI Capital Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (Register number 171487).

The ITI Markets website (https://www.itimarkets.com/) has a direct link to http://www.ititrade.com/ which is on a website flagged up as not secure.

masonic

RasputinB said:

eskbanker said:

johnburman said:

What you say RasputinB is right. But that doesn't obviate the need to tell the FCA about ITI Trade. They need to know if only to see what iti are doing about it

Seems to me that @RasputinB was very much saying that ITI Trade's Guernsey regulation does obviate the need to involve the FCA!

Issues with the wider group's UK-regulated entities are a different story though....

On looking at this again I think that johnburman has raised a good point.

ITI Markets is a trading name of ITI Capital Limited. ITI Capital Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (Register number 171487).

The ITI Markets website (https://www.itimarkets.com/) has a direct link to http://www.ititrade.com/ which is on a website flagged up as not secure.

ITI Trade is not authorised to operate in the UK, so if you have evidence the Guernsey company is engaged in regulated activities with UK consumers then the FCA should be made aware. The http://www.ititrade.com/ website does not collect any personal information as far as I can see, it is just a repository of information and pdf documents.

eskbanker

RasputinB said:

eskbanker said:

1. But at what point would it be considered that the handling of a complaint had been delayed enough to warrant that?
2. It was Barclays themselves who unilaterally chose to offer the £100 rather than this being imposed by FOS,
3. do you have DRNs for the other cases you refer to?

1. The ITI platform had a messaging system where one could raise a complaint and a "ticket" was issued each time. In my case that was all that happened so I think I'd be justified in expecting compensation for the delay in dealing with my complaints especially as some are still unanswered.
But obviously the expectation is that when they reach eight weeks, if the complainant is still aggrieved, they should be referred to FOS (unless happy to wait) - what have they said so far about each of these?
2. Good point but the Ombudsman then ruled that the £100 should be paid so Barclays no longer had a choice in that matter. If I remember rightly the FOS should take into consideration what is best practice. If Barclays, and others, have chosen to offer compensation for delays in handling complaints it would hardly be fair for the FOS to not consider a request for compensation in other cases. I'd suggest that a delay of a month or more would be plenty to warrant consideration.
But a month from when to when, and how do you see that aligning with the eight week FOS escalation period?  As you say, there is definitely an aspect of best practice in FOS determinations, but complaint handling timescales are well defined in the handbook.
Incidentally, the reference number given to one of my complaints, which was answered, had a three digit number. Even allowing for some convoluted way of numbering this would suggest that ITI were handling sufficient complaints to meet the  reporting threshold.
3. It will take a while for me to get around to digging out other DRNs but I hope to do so. A couple that I had previously found are -

DRN9980171 where the delay of a transfer from April 2015 to October 2015 is described as "the very long delay" and despite mitigating circumstances that part of the complaint was upheld. The Ombudsman awarded £600 for the "trouble and upset" caused despite no actual financial loss.
It reads to me like the £600 covers multiple failings that could potentially have been raised as separate complaints - note that the institution accepted the adjudicator's £600 proposal as fair and reasonable in the circumstances but the complainant didn't, and the ombudsman agreed with the adjudicator.
DRN2924547 refers to a request for transfer to an alternative provider in December 2012 but the process was not completed until some months later in July 2013. The Ombudsman appears to have accepted that responsibility for the delays sat partly with the provider to which the ISA was being transferred but awarded £350 for the trouble and upset caused by the delays in transfer.

These suggest to me that the FOS decided to reduce their guidance figure down to the £250 that I think has been quoted on this forum.
Not sure that a couple of cases suggest that as such, but there is always a balance between the FOS's semi-standardised compensation tariff for distress and inconvenience (some on this thread have reported £300 rather than £250) and treating each case on its own merits. 

However, in the post I was responding to, you were trying to make a case that there should be two separate compensation amounts, one for the delay in enacting instructions, etc, and a separate one for the delay in handling the complaint, and neither of these cases supports that approach being adopted by the FOS?

Comments inline above....

johnburman

I love all the analysis in the thread about comp.  It is useful and well-considered.

But are we not missing the point.  Appalling service has been rendered to clients, in breach of regulatory findings, and comp is payable.

What matters is that EVERYONE claims: many have not

And as to quantum:

The Ombudsman awarded £600 for the "trouble and upset" caused despite no actual financial loss.
It reads to me like the £600 covers multiple failings that could potentially have been raised as separate complaints - note that the institution accepted the adjudicator's £600 proposal as fair and reasonable in the circumstances but the complainant didn't, and the ombudsman agreed with the adjudicator. 

So it looks like the £250 - £300 per client is not NECESSARILY the max amount. 

AND in addition, all complainants must inform the FCA, to include the fact that the complaints to the FOS do not seem to be defended, indeed they are ignored by ITI.  The mystery to me is how ITI are still in business when they can not take on new clients. 

eskbanker

johnburman said:

But are we not missing the point.  Appalling service has been rendered to clients, in breach of regulatory findings, and comp is payable.

What matters is that EVERYONE claims: many have not

[...]

AND in addition, all complainants must inform the FCA, to include the fact that the complaints to the FOS do not seem to be defended, indeed they are ignored by ITI.

Perhaps some might be influenced by relentless proselytising (any evidence of this so far?) but I suspect that what matters for most is getting their own issues resolved, and then for those minded to pursue compensation, doing so.  An even smaller subset will maybe be motivated to see ITI punished further, but obviously that's their prerogative - what have the FCA said to you so far?

johnburman said:

And as to quantum:

The Ombudsman awarded £600 for the "trouble and upset" caused despite no actual financial loss.
It reads to me like the £600 covers multiple failings that could potentially have been raised as separate complaints - note that the institution accepted the adjudicator's £600 proposal as fair and reasonable in the circumstances but the complainant didn't, and the ombudsman agreed with the adjudicator. 

So it looks like the £250 - £300 per client is not NECESSARILY the max amount.

I don't recall anyone saying, or implying, that £250-300 was a maximum, more that it was a realistic expectation for those who experienced typical levels of distress and inconvenience.  As highlighted previously, the FOS compensation guidelines set £300 as a figure for the lowest tier, but further ones are available for those able to articulate a convincing case that they qualify:

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/consumers/expect/compensation-for-distress-or-inconvenience

Clairabella

My2penneth said:

At long last I have recieved £300 compensation into my bank account.

The FOS reckon that my wife's claim will also go through for the same amount.

It was than £300 worth of grief, should never have happened.

How long ago did you submit a complaint?  I sent mine in January 2021  I received a case number and  have heard nothing since!

johnburman

contact the FOS!  The FOS took around 9 months for mine start to cash in the bank

RasputinB

eskbanker said: 

you were trying to make a case that there should be two separate compensation amounts, one for the delay in enacting instructions, etc, and a separate one for the delay in handling the complaint

As promised I have looked at more Ombudsman decisions.

In DRN5603751 Ombudsman Simon Pugh stated that "complaint handling isn’t a regulated activity".

Some more detail in DRN5096014 where Ombudsman Chantelle Hurn-Ryan said "The total compensation of £200 offered by Phoenix was directly related to its handing of his complaint – the trouble and upset he was caused by this, as well as the delay in dealing with his concerns. As I’ve said, I don’t have jurisdiction to consider Mr T’s concerns about Phoenix’s handling of his complaint. I therefore can’t consider this aspect of his complaint."

But we appear to agree that there should be an aspect of best practice in FOS determinations.

In DRN8552465 Ombudsman Louise Povey said "I consider that the bank’s offer of £200 in relation to the incorrect change of address and the delay in dealing with the complaint is fair" and in DRN0328829 Ashley L B More said "BOS did acknowledge its delay in dealing with the complaint, so it paid Mrs C £200".

I’d argue that the former decision above shows that the ombudsman thought it fair that the compensation from the bank included an amount for delay in dealing with the complaint. The latter, and many others, show that financial institutions often pay compensation for delays in handling a complaint so I’d say that if the FOS considers best practise then it should consider delays in handling complaints.

For “best practice” within the FOS decisions I can refer to DRN1809300.

Here Ms K complained to Santander in October 2014. She didn’t hear anything until December 2014 when Santander wrote to say it couldn’t find her account. She didn’t get a final response to her complaint until February 2015. Santander agreed this was unsatisfactory. It offered Ms K £100 for the trouble and upset the delay had caused.

The adjudicator thought the complaint should be upheld in part. She thought Santander could have done more to resolve the complaint more quickly. She asked it to increase the compensation to £200.

Ombudsman Melanie McDonald "I agree with the adjudicator that the compensation for Santander’s delay in dealing with the complaint should be limited to an award for trouble and upset. In this instance there would have been some delay because Ms K gave the wrong reference number when she first wrote in. Initially Santander replied that it couldn’t find her account. Santander now accepts that it could have traced the account relatively easily. Its delay in doing so undoubtedly added to Ms K’s frustration about what had happened. Looking at the awards this service has made in similar circumstances, I’m think an award of £250 is appropriate and properly marks Santander’s delay in dealing with Ms K’s complaint."

Here we have an adjudicator stating that she thought Santander could have done more to resolve the complaint more quickly and it looks like that was the reason why she asked it to increase the amount of compensation.

And we have the Ombudsman appearing to think that the award “properly marks Santander’s delay in dealing with Ms K’s complaint” and saying that she has looked at awards the FOS has made in similar circumstances i.e. she has taken into account the precedent of previous awards.

johnburman

Well done RasputinB.  You can claim for the inconvenience/delay caused by ITI for the initial issue (the failure/delay to transfer); the failure to investigate your complaint with ITI; and their failure to deal with the FOS compliant properly, or at all.

Sounds to me that £300 the FOS awards is too little for these three heads of damage. 

RasputinB

Clairabella said: I sent mine in January 2021  I received a case number and  have heard nothing since!

If ITI followed Rule DISP 1.3.1 of the FCA Handbook they would have effective procedures for the prompt handling of complaints and these "must be" implemented.
The FOS do try to cop out of getting involved with "complaint handling" but don't let that stop you from expecting to be dealt with fairly. Unfortunately you will probably have to work at it and I would suggest getting the FCA involved. You can simply ask them to confirm that DISP 1.3.1 applies and if it does then how should you proceed?