SVS Securities - shut down?

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.

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.