SVS Securities - shut down?

eskbanker

johnburman said:

firstly well done for spotting the decision DRN-3372724

To me we can argue about the decision on the facts, and much comment on it is relevant but the point is that the award is £500, not the previously given miserly £300-or so

The position the claimant was in was bad - he had to borrow money, but still the award is £200 higher than the previous norm.  

Below is what was said.  all claimants should be looking to someware like this figure (but probably below it) solely for distress and inconvenience

That’s why in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused I still think ITI should pay Mr M £500 compensation. Despite what Mr M says, on balance, I think it’s broadly fair and reasonable. Whilst I appreciate it isn’t reasonable to expect a business that provides an online service to guarantee that the service will always be available, as it can be affected by matters outside of its control, in this instance I still don’t think ITI treated Mr M reasonably given its communication and length of delay.

I knew that you'd home in on the total number and ignore its composition (i.e. the 'normal' £300 and then an additional £200, potentially for separate issues, albeit poorly presented) and context when perceiving it as a precedent for 'all claimants' as a target figure! 🙄

johnburman

No. It's the principle that matters. The FOS accept that in certain cases comp of five hundred pounds can be awarded. That's the point. People need to be aware of thisand claim it. CLAIM IT. 

masonic

johnburman said:

No. It's the principle that matters. The FOS accept that in certain cases comp of five hundred pounds can be awarded. That's the point. People need to be aware of thisand claim it. CLAIM IT. 

This has been discussed over and over again. It depends on the circumstances.

In one of the most serious cases FOS has adjudicated, compensation of £8000 has been awarded, see https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decisions-case-studies/case-studies/couple-complains-after-their-insurer-took-too-long-to-repair-damages-caused-by-a-leak-in-their-kitchen

That doesn't mean every FOS complaint made thereafter should demand the same sum to be paid out. The more severe the impact, the more will be awarded. The DRN above involved an inter-family loan that caused considerable distress after the lender passed away and the borrower had to deal with his widow. That isn't a situation that is going to be comparable to the vast majority of other claimants. So they should not CLAIM IT, they should outline the impact their own issues have had on themselves and ask for an award based upon that. The scale, and associated severity bands are published here. You aren't going to get beyond the 'up to £300' band without some similarly harsh consequences faced by this complainant.

johnburman

But don't accept £75 or £100 as comp for distress and inconvenience. Look for a minimum of £300. Of course if there are exceptional reasons that could justify a higher amount make a claim for that. But you won't get much for unquantifiable non pecuniary losses.

This argument has been going on for ages and I wonder if its run its course? Is there anyone lurking whose not claimed on the FOS and who are in time to claim? 

masonic

johnburman said:

But don't accept £75 or £100 as comp for distress and inconvenience. Look for a minimum of £300. Of course if there are exceptional reasons that could justify a higher amount make a claim for that. But you won't get much for unquantifiable non pecuniary losses.

This argument has been going on for ages and I wonder if its run its course? Is there anyone lurking whose not claimed on the FOS and who are in time to claim? 

Completely agree the base level of claim should be about £300, and a lower amount should be challenged, but that exceptional circumstances could get you more. I expect anyone who has been following this thread will have acted by now if they will at all, but there may be one or two who find this thread later, so a periodic reminder does no harm. It's best to be clear on what is a reasonable expectation, so that people don't set their sights on something that they aren't going to be able to achieve.

johnburman

Masonic u are right... Yet again. The FOS time limit for claiming may or may not have expired depending on your circumstances. The county court small claims has a six years claim period.

So if you haven't claimed do so. 

And as a separate thread perhaps any views on the zero commission brokers. INVESTENGINE is good for ETFs and TRADING212 sounds good but they only let you invest ninety-five percent of your funds deposited. Weird. Sure we're in a bear market but maybe nows the time to invest 

RasputinB

eskbanker said:

How did you present and structure your claim?

Badly. I don't remember the exact wording from the FOS but they turned down my request for consideration of compensation for the time I had spent on my claim on the basis that the time and costs in putting together a claim was all part of the necessary process for making a claim. Looking at the decision database I see that in DRN9286779 the ombudsman said "We don’t normally make awards for the normal costs involved in pursuing a complaint, including time and telephone." That does seem to be at odds with "Hidden in its compensation guidelines, it states it will award compensation for the time you've spent resolving your complaint". My guess is that you and masonic are right; so how did Money Saving Expert get it wrong? (I'll leave you check dates if relevant!) Shouldn't the FOS give clarity and be consistent so that even the duller ones of us know where we stand?

RasputinB

masonic said:

RasputinB said:

5. The ombudsman said that “I’m satisfied that this [compensation] adequately reflects the time and effort put in by Mr M to try and resolve the issues, as well as the distress and inconvenience caused”. In my complaint the ombudsman refused to consider compensation for my time and effort despite my referring to the statement “You can charge for your time. Hidden in its compensation guidelines, it states it will award compensation for the time you've spent resolving your complaint.” which can be found here https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/fight-back-fos/ 

Within that MSE guide, it expands on the point about claiming for time spent with: "However it won't usually award this as an hourly or daily rate. Instead it will take into account the overall impact the time spent has had on you."

This is all wrapped up in the compensation scales for non-financial losses, which have been cited here several times. You should communicate in your complaint the amount of time and effort you have needed to spend trying to sort out the issues, but you cannot attach an hourly rate, nor argue that, for example, two one hour phonecalls warrant double the compensation of a single one hour phonecall. Awarding an amount for non-financial loss, incorporating time/effort/distress/inconvenience as a whole, is normal. You would not be the first person to get a knee-jerk response refusing to consider an itemised list of charges for time over a complaint, and it can be quite difficult to walk it back once met with this objection. This has been seen elsewhere in relation to different companies.

So what do you make of an ombudsman stating "we don’t usually make awards for the normal costs involved in pursuing a complaint, including postage, telephone calls and time" in DRN9030524 ?

RasputinB

masonic said:  I expect anyone who has been following this thread will have acted by now if they will at all.

You are likely correct but in my view it is still too early to put in a final claim. One reason is because of the continuing issues at ITI.

RasputinB

johnburman said:

The FOS time limit for claiming may or may not have expired depending on your circumstances. The county court small claims has a six years claim period.

I think that the time limit for making a claim (to the institution) is 6 years after you are aware of the issue. I remember reading an ombudsman decision were the event occurred much more than six years previously. Once the complaint / claim has been made the time limits regarding escalation to the FOS kick in. Worth remembering that any new claims should (normally) be directed to the institution first.