SVS Securities - shut down?

eskbanker

RasputinB said:

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".

Seems an odd comment to make, when it's clearly subject to the FCA's DISP mandates!

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."

I think there's some imprecision in their choice of wording here - 'complaint handling' is too vague a term in this context, when some complaint handling is in scope but some isn't!  As I read it, the complainant was unhappy with the tone of a conversation (as opposed to its outcome) and FOS were simply saying that this was outside their jurisdiction.

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

Yes, although the point I was making was that FOS isn't solely driven by regulation and legislation, and sometimes cites other less formal best practice guidance, and woollier concepts of fairness.  However, I'm not sure that this extends as far as saying that if company A adopts a higher standard than company B then the latter automatically has to be considered deficient, if that's what you're suggesting.

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.

I think you're reading too much into the references to delay - it seems to me that in each of the above cases it's mentioned as a contributor (sometimes the only one) to the overall 'trouble and upset' rather than a separate heading in its own right.

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.

Again, I'm unconvinced that this is as significant as you assert - all parties agreed that delays caused trouble and upset so the compensation was upped from £100 to £250.

Comments above again, but in summary I still don't see any evidence of a pattern within FOS that requires institutions to pay out compensation for distress and inconvenience and an additional amount relating to the time taken to handle the complaint, rather than this simply being considered an aggravating factor.

IMHO your earlier example (despite my reservations about it) came closer to this than any of those you've cited above, in each of which a single total figure of £200 or £250 was awarded for trouble and upset, i.e. consistent with their guidelines.  Have you come across any FOS decisions where the ombudsman imposed two separately-quantified figures totalling significantly more than this?

RasputinB

eskbanker said:

RasputinB said:

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

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

Seems an odd comment to make, when it's clearly subject to the FCA's DISP mandates!

Would it be constructive to explore the common ground that we may have here? There does appear to be a mis-match between the FCA Handbook and the ombudsman Simon Pugh stating that "complaint handling isn’t a regulated activity".

You have said that complaint handling is clearly subject to the FCA's DISP mandates but go on to say that some complaint handling is in scope but some isn't.

When I thought that the FCA mandated that a company must act in the best interests of the client you said that you didn’t believe that that 'best interests of the client' argument can realistically be applied as literally as I expected.

Masonic has said “FOS can be a bit hit and miss” and that “precedent within the decisions database can be very helpful in supporting a particular course of action, if it can be found”.

Are we in agreement that if an FCA regulated company does not follow the DISP mandates and a customer has a valid complaint then if that complaint is in scope and escalated to the FOS the ombudsman should consider it?

DISP mandates = Rules, or Rules and Guidance?

If open to interpretation then can we agree (as Masonic suggested) that precedent within the decisions database can be used to support a claim?

So if the “rules” are unclear we can use the FOS’s interpretation of the rules (from within the published decisions or from elsewhere) to support a claim?

And If I find an Ombudsman’s Decision that shows that the award included an additional amount relating to the time taken to handle the complaint would you accept that the FOS should consider compensation for the delay in handling the complaint?

[I do think we might be splitting hairs here as if delay is an aggravating factor then surely it is likely to have caused some distress or inconvenience?]

johnburman

eskbanker said:

^ Last time you posted about that (albeit without the reams of copypasta), you were invited to explain how you thought it was relevant, but failed to oblige, are you going to make any attempt to do so this time?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/78710890/#Comment_78710890

I am trying to raise the line that damages for inconvenience have been awarded by the court.  Thus the FOS should do likewise, and they do, but at a lot - in my view too low - amount.  So is there any evidence that clients can ask the FOS to award higher rates of compensation? The figure of £300 seems to be more than a "typical" award; it appears to be the max that is awarded.

I fully accept that going on holiday is not the same as having a stockbrokers account (I would l argue that the latter is MORE important) but ITI is contracting to provide you with safe, secure and efficient facilities, and comply with your instruction  (not ignore them)  and also to comply with the FCA rules, including on complaint handling.  This they have not done.  So comp should be awarded for the "distress, the upset and frustration caused by" ITI.

And £300 seems to be too small an amount. 

eskbanker

RasputinB said:

eskbanker said:

RasputinB said:

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

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

Seems an odd comment to make, when it's clearly subject to the FCA's DISP mandates!

Would it be constructive to explore the common ground that we may have here? There does appear to be a mis-match between the FCA Handbook and the ombudsman Simon Pugh stating that "complaint handling isn’t a regulated activity".

Yes, as above, I can't understand that comment as written!

You have said that complaint handling is clearly subject to the FCA's DISP mandates but go on to say that some complaint handling is in scope but some isn't.

Yes, to me it's clear that (despite the strange comment above) the FOS stance is that they'll consider the extent to which complaint handling is consistent with DISP, but they're not feeling obliged to take a position on the tone of a conversation rather than its actual content or outcome.

When I thought that the FCA mandated that a company must act in the best interests of the client you said that you didn’t believe that that 'best interests of the client' argument can realistically be applied as literally as I expected.

Yes, personally I don't think that statements made as overarching principles should be interpreted too literally - it could be argued that randomly throwing lots of money at clients is in their best interests, but obviously institutions aren't expected to do that!

Masonic has said “FOS can be a bit hit and miss” and that “precedent within the decisions database can be very helpful in supporting a particular course of action, if it can be found”.

When all is said and done, they're human beings and, despite plenty of rules and guidance, it's inevitable that there will be variances in decisions by individuals, in the same way as will be found in the judiciary.  Likewise, precedent can indeed be valuable, but obviously needs to be applied carefully to directly equivalent circumstances.

Are we in agreement that if an FCA regulated company does not follow the DISP mandates and a customer has a valid complaint then if that complaint is in scope and escalated to the FOS the ombudsman should consider it?

Sort of - the role of the FOS is obviously to review escalated complaints, but it's still not clear to me that the FOS take a segmented approach of reviewing the complaint as a separate entity from the events generating it, i.e. reviewing a complaint about a complaint.

DISP mandates = Rules, or Rules and Guidance?

FOS effectively say that they're driven not just by the letter of the law but the spirit.

If open to interpretation then can we agree (as Masonic suggested) that precedent within the decisions database can be used to support a claim?

Yes, provided the scenarios are comparable enough.

So if the “rules” are unclear we can use the FOS’s interpretation of the rules (from within the published decisions or from elsewhere) to support a claim?

Yes, provided the scenarios are comparable enough.

And If I find an Ombudsman’s Decision that shows that the award included an additional amount relating to the time taken to handle the complaint would you accept that the FOS should consider compensation for the delay in handling the complaint?

It's obviously not really an issue of whether I accept something but whether FOS do!  All I was doing was asking you to find support for your assertion that they should offer two separate pots of compensation, with an extra £100 on top of the typical £250-300 distress and inconvenience - if you do source a directly comparable case that's handled in that way then yes, it would seem logical to consider it a precedent.

[I do think we might be splitting hairs here as if delay is an aggravating factor then surely it is likely to have caused some distress or inconvenience?]

Yes, delay undoubtedly causes distress and inconvenience, but the question is whether it can genuinely be separated from the inevitable trouble and upset to the extent that it should be compensated incrementally.

Further comments above....

eskbanker

johnburman said:

eskbanker said:

^ Last time you posted about that (albeit without the reams of copypasta), you were invited to explain how you thought it was relevant, but failed to oblige, are you going to make any attempt to do so this time?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/78710890/#Comment_78710890

I am trying to raise the line that damages for inconvenience have been awarded by the court.  Thus the FOS should do likewise, and they do, but at a lot - in my view too low - amount.  So is there any evidence that clients can ask the FOS to award higher rates of compensation?

The FOS compensation guidance is fairly clear, so if a complainant makes a cogent case that the level of distress and inconvenience exceeds that associated with the lowest tier then appropriate compensation should be awarded.

The figure of £300 seems to be more than a "typical" award; it appears to be the max that is awarded.

It seems a typical figure based on what people have posted on here, but that doesn't in itself mean that higher awards aren't being made.

I fully accept that going on holiday is not the same as having a stockbrokers account (I would l argue that the latter is MORE important) but ITI is contracting to provide you with safe, secure and efficient facilities, and comply with your instruction  (not ignore them)  and also to comply with the FCA rules, including on complaint handling.  This they have not done.  So comp should be awarded for the "distress, the upset and frustration caused by" ITI.

That's what FOS are doing, but you're trying to assert that a court would do likewise - if you find a relevant court judgment that supports that view (and 'loss of enjoyment' damages for a spoiled holiday clearly doesn't!) then go ahead and share.

And £300 seems to be too small an amount.

By what benchmark?  You're obviously entitled to your subjective opinion that higher figures would be appropriate, but haven't yet identified anything to support that view?

Comments above.

johnburman

What about the worry that my financial affairs and transactions are not being carried out properly, promptly, securely and I've been unable to access funds. 


Sounds a proper claim to me. 

Look we all agree non pecuniary loss is difficult to get, but why accept £300.

And yes, there may be people who get awarded more but there is no evidence of that in these posts or elsewhere 

coyrls

As I understand it you have already accepted £300, there isn't an option to go back and ask for more once you've accepted.

masonic

johnburman said:

eskbanker said:

^ Last time you posted about that (albeit without the reams of copypasta), you were invited to explain how you thought it was relevant, but failed to oblige, are you going to make any attempt to do so this time?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/78710890/#Comment_78710890

I am trying to raise the line that damages for inconvenience have been awarded by the court.  Thus the FOS should do likewise, and they do, but at a lot - in my view too low - amount.  So is there any evidence that clients can ask the FOS to award higher rates of compensation? The figure of £300 seems to be more than a "typical" award; it appears to be the max that is awarded.

I think it's fair to surmise that the courts will entertain larger claims for damages than the FOS, but also have a higher burden of proof. One of the advantages of going down the small claims track of the county court is that if you have evidence that your inconvenience/distress has essentially ruined a period of your life, then you could potentially try for an award as high as £10k, where you might be limited to the £1.5k or even £750 band at the FOS. Whether you'd be successful (and whether you'd get all or part of the amount claimed if so) is of course another matter entirely, and you do have to weigh up the court fee of up to £455 which you may be able to claim back if successful. It may well be a preferred option for someone who has suffered severe distress flowing from the failures at ITI.

eskbanker

johnburman said:

What about the worry that my financial affairs and transactions are not being carried out properly, promptly, securely and I've been unable to access funds. 

Sounds a proper claim to me.

That worry is exactly the sort of distress and inconvenience that the FOS addresses, but that doesn't signify that it would form the basis of (or even part of) a court claim for breach of contract, where the burden of proof is somewhat higher and scope of claims narrower.

johnburman said:

Look we all agree non pecuniary loss is difficult to get, but why accept £300.

Because that's the amount determined by the independent body dealing with hundreds of thousands of consumer complaints against financial institutions - if you don't want to accept it and believe that you'd fare better in court then the obvious answer is to put your money where your mouth is and try it!

johnburman said:

And yes, there may be people who get awarded more but there is no evidence of that in these posts or elsewhere 

I thought I'd read a poster suggesting that they'd obtained more for their specific circumstances, but it was a while ago - however, I'm not necessarily claiming that people have been awarded more, but simply that if they make a compelling case for more then they should.  In the context of the published FOS compensation tiers, did you escalate your claim to an ombudsman if you felt that you deserved to be on a higher one?  If not, why not, but if so, has it reached a decision yet?

johnburman

The FOS paid me out many months ago so we are crying over spilt milk.  But loss and inconvenience must properly be a head of damage in a court claim and it is, see previous for Jarvis and also para 274 here https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2007/3023.html

(a) General damages will be allowed to each of the claimants for inconvenience, distress and discomfort caused by breaches of contract.(b) The amount allowable for this will be modest.

But is not £300 too 'modest'?

BUT advice for others lurking in this forum is to CLAIM on the FOS, but do not necessarily accept £300 for all your losses.  I believe that you should tell the FCA about the service you have had with ITI.