SVS Securities - shut down?

RasputinB

Recently added to Ombudsman decisions -
DRN-3668248 D&I £250 ITI Offered £60. "Inability to trade" part of claim - not upheld.

DRN-3623186 D&I £150 ITI Offered Nil.

DRN-3612177 D&I £400 ITI Offered £150, increased to £300 after an incorrect offer.

johnburman

Well done RasputinB.

£400 is the award complainants should be looking for:  see DRN-3612177 of the FOS

 But I conclude that ITI Capital was at fault for delaying the transfer and ought to compensate Mr B for the inconvenience and distress this caused him. I think £400 is fair and reasonable compensation for this in all the circumstances here. 


The cash delay only got £150, but that was a special case...and the delays were not pronounced.  Delays in transfers out were the most stressful and it's a shame that the awards have been so small.  They are no disincentive for brokers to improve things 

eskbanker

As ever, it's generally worth looking at the detail to understand the derivation of figures, especially if seeing them as a meaningful 'target' resolution.

In DRN-3612177, it's clear that ITI had (belatedly) offered £300 on the basis of D&I caused up to December 2020, but that the saga had continued on to March 2021, including ITI falsely asserting to Mr B that he'd need to sell a stock that couldn't be transferred:

ITI Capital instead reviewed things again and increased its earlier offer from £150 to £300. It told us this was suitable redress on the basis that the transfer completed in December 2020 and took 11 weeks longer than the eight it said ought to have been taken. ITI Capital didn’t refer to the further period from December 2020 to March 2021 during which the transfer was still not complete or to the problems with the last stock that had caused this.

although it's obviously possible that other ITI clients could have experienced similar issues.

Perhaps also worth noting that Mr B tried to claim for his time at his commercial day rate, which was, as usual, rejected by FOS as a valid basis on which to claim:

Mr B told us his time and effort was worth £1000s and a figure between £1000 and £2500 was more appropriate than the £150 or so offered by ITI Capital. He said his own figures took account of stress, work caused, loss of investment opportunity and loss of pension tax relief – from trades and pensions contributions he maintained he was unable to make - and that true compensation would amount to something like £5000.

[...]

my award is for inconvenience suffered by Mr B but it isn’t an award for the value of his time in the way he assessed it – which was based on his commercial rate

It would be interesting to understand more about the offer that ITI erroneously made that was seemingly aligned with Mr B's expectations though!

During our investigation we passed to Mr B information about an offer made by ITI Capital. It was for an amount similar to what Mr B was seeking and he told us he was willing to accept it. But the offer hadn’t been intended for Mr B. ITI Capital hadn’t intended to offer or pay him that sort of sum.

RasputinB

Recently added to Ombudsman decisions -

DRN-3635423. Investigator thought £400 D&I payment, reduced to £350 by Ombudsman.

DRN-3633424. £300 D&I payment. ITI had offered £100.

eskbanker

RasputinB said:

DRN-3635423. Investigator thought £400 D&I payment, reduced to £350 by Ombudsman.

The complainant must be particularly aggrieved here - he accepted the investigator's proposed resolution of £400 but it appears that it was the lack of response from ITI that led to the case being escalated to an ombudsman:

Mr L accepted our investigator’s findings. ITI Capital didn’t reply to them – so the complaint couldn’t be resolved informally and has been passed to me to decide.

so to add insult to injury, lack of responsiveness by ITI during the FOS process ended up costing the complainant more money!

RasputinB

Recently added to the Ombudsman decisions -
DRN-3495095 £450 D&I payment. ITI had offered £250.

RasputinB

5 more recent additions to Ombudsman decisions -

DRN-3689515 £400 D&I.

DRN-3468613 £300 D&I; ITI initially offered £75.

DRN-3698033 £600 D&I; ITI had offered £125 and later played dead -

"ITI initially agreed with the recommendation made by the investigator. Mr R agreed on the condition that payment was made swiftly so he could draw a line under the situation. However, ITI then didn’t pay Mr R, and nor did they reply to any further correspondence from our service about this complaint."

DRN-3701441 £350 D&I; ITI initially offered £225 compensation.

DRN-3701126 £300 D&I; this was what ITI initially offered.

RasputinB

And the ITI problems run on and on -

https://www.askaboutmoney.com/threads/iti-capital-limited-has-made-the-decision-to-exit-the-retail-client-business-in-the-uk-read-and-ireland.228319/

"Due to the lack of support from ITI Capital, we have not been able to settle any transfer requests to date."

RasputinB

DRN-3660789 £300 D&I ITI offered £150

DRN-3606516 £250 D&I

DRN-3467718 £600 D&I ITI offered £300

DRN-3621560 £350 D&I ITI offered £150

Josl

Decision Reference DRN-3668248 made in Aug 2022 has not been paid out by ITI Capital. Ombudsman was unable to secure payment. Now in process of filling out N322A form to enforce a county court enforcement order. Advised to do this before ITI file for liquidation.