SVS Securities - shut down?

eskbanker

johnburman said:

My core argument has been that we should expect compensation for delays in complaint handling. 

This must be right, as it is a failure of ITI and a failure to "treat clients fairly". The problem is what is the quantum?  It is non-pecuniary; it causes stress and inconvenience (which can be claimed), but only a modest sum will be awarded.

So it is worth claiming ...but not worthing going to the 'small claims court' for!

In the @RasputinB scenario, it doesn't seem to me that delays in complaint handling are likely to be regarded as a valid separate head of damages and instead seems that FOS would simply lump everything together into one figure for distress and inconvenience, but I remain happy to be corrected if anyone can point to a meaningful precedent that contradicts this, whether in the courts or FOS decisions.

Likewise, the high level principle of 'treat clients fairly' seems way too abstract and woolly to form the basis of legal action, but again happy to be corrected if anyone has verifiably made that stick in any meaningful way!

masonic

johnburman said:

My core argument has been that we should expect compensation for delays in complaint handling. 

This must be right, as it is a failure of ITI and a failure to "treat clients fairly". The problem is what is the quantum?  It is non-pecuniary; it causes stress and inconvenience (which can be claimed), but only a modest sum will be awarded.

So it is worth claiming ...but not worthing going to the 'small claims court' for!

TCF is a regulatory obligation, so it is relevant in complaints pursued through regulatory channels. It is therefore for the regulatory bodies to define how these rights should be interpreted, and when they should come into play. The equivalent situation in a legal claim, for example using the small claims track, is breach of contract or relevant legislation governing consumer contracts (e.g. Consumer Rights Act). In the absence of any equivalent claim being made in court, it's impossible to say whether it would be worth it. A third option would be to draft and file a particulars of claim with ITI and see how they respond, but neither should be done if wishing to fall back on the tried and tested FOS claim route, as such a complaint is likely to be closed upon initiation of legal proceedings.

eskbanker

As Boris Johnson now knows, three-word phrases make for catchy soundbites, but rarely help in clarifying subjects that involve nuance and interpretation!

To me, the word 'fairly' has connotations of even-handedness (so active discrimination against some customers can be unfair) and honesty (so deliberately misleading wording would generally be seen as unfair), but wouldn't typically apply to (in)competence, i.e. treating customers badly isn't necessarily treating them unfairly.

However, that's not to say that a case can't be constructed that builds a bridge from poor ITI service right up to a demonstrable and actionable breach of a regulatory obligation, but it would be illuminating to see evidence of any relevant precedent....

johnburman

Masonic is right...claims for poor complaint handling and failure of TCF should be brought to the FOS not the court

Still, if an FS company is bound to do something by Regulation and does not do it, it should be easy to plead breach of contract and negligence, should it not?

eskbanker

johnburman said:

Masonic is right...claims for poor complaint handling and failure of TCF should be brought to the FOS not the court

But, as covered in previous posts, FOS won't entertain (most) complaints about complaints, on the basis of this not being a regulated activity.

johnburman said:

Still, if an FS company is bound to do something by Regulation and does not do it, it should be easy to plead breach of contract and negligence, should it not?

That's obviously your view - mine remains that it's a gross oversimplification, but it seems to me that the only ways to resolve those conflicting opinions would be for someone to try it and/or to locate a meaningful and relevant precedent....

johnburman

Agree. But it's not worth the time and effort and cost 

Simply include it in your FOS complaint 

eskbanker

* remembers reason for choosing this avatar *

masonic

The FOS will merely wish to marry up your experience to its own distress and inconvenience scale, so the fact that a specific regulatory standard was not met or an aspect of the complaints process was responsible for some quantum of delay and worry is not particularly helpful, and could (as indicated above) result in the stance that an aspect of the complaint is not within FOS's scope. It's best to stick to what happened, the extent of the work you were required to undertake to sort it out, the impact it had on you, and the final outcome (if reached yet).

IanManc

johnburman said:

Still, if an FS company is bound to do something by Regulation and does not do it, it should be easy to plead breach of contract and negligence, should it not?

No, you can't "plead breach of contract".

You can sue someone for breach of contract only if they breach the contract.

You can't sue them for breach of contract if they breach a regulation, unless you can find a term in the contract that incorporates the regulations into the contract. For breaching a regulation you have to use the remedy specified in the regulations for dealing with the breach, or if none is specified then you complain to the appropriate regulatory body which is responsible for enforcing the regulations.

This is very basic contract law.

You've now also introduced negligence into the discussion, on the basis that it too is "easy to plead".

To succeed in an "easy" claim in negligence you need to select which of the four types of negligence - gross negligence, contributory negligence, comparative negligence or vicarious negligence - you are alleging; then you need to prove you case as set out in the explanatory notes to the Compensation Act 2006: "for a claim in negligence ....... involving a standard of care to succeed there must be a duty of care owed by the defendant to the claimant; a breach of that duty by the defendant; and loss or injury suffered by the claimant."

Easy, eh?

RasputinB

Recently added to Ombudsman decisions (financial-ombudsman.org.uk)
DRN-3372724 - £500 D&I payment. ITI offered £75.