SVS Securities - shut down?

RasputinB

A couple of further ITI Capital restrictions dated 12/9/2022 have appeared on the FCA website. ITI Capital Limited (fca.org.uk)

One states that ITI Capital “must not close, encash, liquidate, or transfer any client positions without specific client instructions to do so” and that they must “ensure clients are made aware of relevant risks such as when crystallising a loss or where they are breaking a tax wrapper”.

RasputinB

Added to Ombudsman decisions today DRN-3600094 - £350 D&I payment. ITI offered £150
and DRN-3577044 £700 D&I payment.
"We didn’t receive anything from ITI Capital in response to the investigator’s findings" - becoming standard now?
Note that further D&I payments should be payable due to the data protection issues that can now be raised.
A further decision DRN-3354239 appeared a week or so ago but is of less interest.

johnburman

Well done Rasputin B

The quote i saw in the Decision from the FOS is:

The transfer was requested in early August 2020 and didn’t complete until in December. As transfers like this should take no longer than 30 days, this one took too long. 

A killer quote.  But what Data Protection issues?  Unless you suffer a real (cash) loss caused by a DP breach, under Google v Lloyd case, no compensation.

But £350 for D&I is good: it's gone up from £300

masonic

johnburman said:

Well done Rasputin B

The quote i saw in the Decision from the FOS is:

The transfer was requested in early August 2020 and didn’t complete until in December. As transfers like this should take no longer than 30 days, this one took too long. 

A killer quote.  But what Data Protection issues?  Unless you suffer a real (cash) loss caused by a DP breach, under Google v Lloyd case, no compensation.

But £350 for D&I is good: it's gone up from £300

The Financial Ombudsman Service operates on the basis of what is fair and reasonable for the consumer. That goes beyond legal rights. So being barraged with scam phone calls shortly after a confirmed data breach might be enough.

Nice to see a slighly above inflation pay rise! The increased case fee levied on ITI might also be gratifying to some.

RasputinB

Recently added to Ombudsman decisions DRN-3602864. £500 D&I payment. ITI offered £175
Good to see that the FOS may now be more realistic in their approach to compensation.
Note "It took ITI a significant period of time – 21 working days – before it completed Mr D’s request to transfer his SIPP. To my mind, this seems unnecessarily long to complete such a transaction. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that there was any justification or barrier as to why Mr D’s request couldn’t have completed and transferred to his new provider within 10 working days of the request being made".

masonic

RasputinB said:

Recently added to Ombudsman decisions DRN-3602864. £500 D&I payment. ITI offered £175
Good to see that the FOS may now be more realistic in their approach to compensation.
Note "It took ITI a significant period of time – 21 working days – before it completed Mr D’s request to transfer his SIPP. To my mind, this seems unnecessarily long to complete such a transaction. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that there was any justification or barrier as to why Mr D’s request couldn’t have completed and transferred to his new provider within 10 working days of the request being made".

For comparison, I've just completed a cash transfer from an old workplace scheme into my SIPP and it was complete within 2 working days. Things have certainly improved from the last time i completed such an exercise and it's good to see the FOS holding firms to account over slow transfers.

The most ridiculous aspect described in the complaint from my perspective was the issue around the fractional shares and suggestion that they must be gifted to ITI for the transfer to be completed.

eskbanker

RasputinB said:

Added to Ombudsman decisions today DRN-3600094 - £350 D&I payment. ITI offered £150
and DRN-3577044 £700 D&I payment.

More grim reading in those DRNs, which naturally won't be a surprise to ITI clients, but in terms of compensation figures, and the degree of significance attributed to them on here, it's perhaps worth noting that the £700 is clearly explained as £350 per person:

In light of this and ITI Capital’s other failings, ITI Capital should pay Mr and Mrs B £350 each (£700 in total) for the inconvenience and distress its failings caused

RasputinB

Good point. Does this mean that the "usual" £350 isn't per account and if there are two or more account holders the D&I should be per person? (I think it likely that this was a joint account for Mr and Mrs B and that ITI's offer of £275 was increased to £700).

eskbanker

RasputinB said:

Good point. Does this mean that the "usual" £350 isn't per account and if there are two or more account holders the D&I should be per person? (I think it likely that this was a joint account for Mr and Mrs B and that ITI's offer of £275 was increased to £700).

I think it might actually be per account - I seem to recall another frequent flyer poster on this thread reporting multiple payments, and the Mr and Mrs B DRN refers to multiple accounts rather than one joint one.

RasputinB

It looks like another recipient of SVS clients is "is under investigation".

According to a FT article here https://www.ftadviser.com/regulation/2022/09/09/better-retirement-group-under-investigation-by-fscs/ "Better Retirement Group acted as the defined benefit transfer specialist for SVS Securities".

The FSCS has been settling complaints which, I assume, were complaints against SVS but Better Retirement Group has been paying compensation.

Whichever way it worked it looks like another mess and raises more questions about the quality of regulation.