SVS Securities - shut down?

johnburman

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

eskbanker

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....

My2penneth

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.

johnburman

Yes £300 an account seems to be the going rate, up from £250 early last year.

Hardly worth the aggro making the claim, but all ex-clients must do so so they know that the clients will not take it lying down. And of course, tell the FCA. 

RasputinB

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.
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.
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.
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.

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