SVS Securities - shut down?

Josl

SamAus said:

Sorry given the current Chairman of the BOEs previous leading of the FCA, rather

Sadly, complaining about negligence/criminal behaviour gets you nowhere in the UK. Media are as useless as the rest of the setup. Several users here contacted financial media outlets. Andrew Bailey is as incompetent as any other individual. He got the job at BOE by being anti-EU. It’s a political appointment not based on merit.

FOS may offer you £250 which seems be the threshold for inconvenience. Don’t expect ITI to pay you that award. Several investors are awaiting for months for that payout

Josl

RasputinB said:

More wheels falling off at the FOS -
"We're aware that the decisions database is not showing full results right now, and that some decisions files aren't available. We're working to resolve this as soon as possible."
So much for transparency!

I had the same response from ICO. A normal working Country would have issued a heavy fine for such appalling failure to service clients. Broken Britain is officially a failed state.

johnburman

an award against ITI that is not paid can be enforced by the courts 

RasputinB

johnburman said:

an award against ITI that is not paid can be enforced by the courts 

Make a court claim for money: What a court claim is - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

RasputinB

SamAus said:

1. Can I ask if anyone here complained to Leonard Curtis themselves?
2. Did anyone escalate to the Insolvency Practitioner Complaint process?
3. Did anyone try and get investigative journalism involved?
4. I am starting to lose all hope of ever receiving my assets back. 

1. Yes. 2 No. 3 Yes. 4. FOS and court action.
For further details please see if you can search through the forum.

johnburman

1     a waste of time
2      no, but thought about it.  But what will they do? What can they do?
3      yes.   financial advisor ran a story, but low key
4      Noooooo.  You have a claim on the FSCS.  and in any dispute the FOS surely

BUT  If there is an award form the FOs and it is not paid, the FCS should be informed: it is a clear regulatory breach 

SamAus

Hi All, The Insolvency Practitioner Board regulate business recovery specialists like Leonard Curtis. If in the first instance you don't receive a satisfactory response from Leonard Curtis, and I would be shocked if anyone did, then you can get the Insolvency Practitioner Board involved. Yes ITI were regulated by the FCA, but that doesn't mean they were capable of handling ten thousand clients in the retail business. It was LC's job to properly vet the candidates that put their names forward, and LC clearly didn't do a satisfactory job. LC will use the FCA regulated status as their 'get out of jail free' card, but to be honest it doesn't hold a lot of weight. There is a case to be answered regards to the 30+ million GBP that was wasted through this sorry mess. Where did it go? If anyone would like to join me in writing to the Insolvency Practitioner Board, then I would be happy to collaborate with you, particularly if you've already received a response from Leonard Curtis, and have covered the requisite step so that you can escalate. 

johnburman

"It was LC's job to properly vet the candidates that put their names forward,..."   Who says?  It was LC's job to dispose of the business to a new business for the best price.  LC did that.  Yes they sold it to a company who could not cope but as we all know:

a   ITT were regulated by the FCA
b   Did the FCA object?  (seemingly not)
c   how could LC judge what would happen after the transfer had been completed.   Remember even ITI seem to have been unable to forecast what would transpire.  If they could not how could LC

My view is that 

ITI did not treat clients fairly/breached their duty with clients
FCA were too slow to act
ITI were too slow to remedy
FCA allowed ITI to be too slow

Thye mystery to me is why any clients - retail or commercial - would stay with ITI now ( assuming they could do so)

Josl

SamAus said:

Hi All, The Insolvency Practitioner Board regulate business recovery specialists like Leonard Curtis. If in the first instance you don't receive a satisfactory response from Leonard Curtis, and I would be shocked if anyone did, then you can get the Insolvency Practitioner Board involved. Yes ITI were regulated by the FCA, but that doesn't mean they were capable of handling ten thousand clients in the retail business. It was LC's job to properly vet the candidates that put their names forward, and LC clearly didn't do a satisfactory job. LC will use the FCA regulated status as their 'get out of jail free' card, but to be honest it doesn't hold a lot of weight. There is a case to be answered regards to the 30+ million GBP that was wasted through this sorry mess. Where did it go? If anyone would like to join me in writing to the Insolvency Practitioner Board, then I would be happy to collaborate with you, particularly if you've already received a response from Leonard Curtis, and have covered the requisite step so that you can escalate. 

SamAus, here's the outcome of the complaint filed with ICAEW. they also have no authority to compensate.

============================================

Dear Mr A,

Thank you for your email.

The Administrators could not simply select any broker, they had the choice of two brokers who were willing to take over the portfolio and chose ITI as the preferred option.  The Administrators are able to use their judgement in decision making. There is no evidence to support that the Administrators have breached the applicable legislation and accordingly it is not a matter for disciplinary action.

 It is up to the broker themselves to manage their own work stream and resources.  Again, that is not a matter for disciplinary action against the Administrators.   Issues you have with the conduct of the broker should be taken up with the appropriate regulatory body.

Suitable broker Mr Harrison’s email to you dated 15 June 2020 details that by December 2019, only two interested parties remained who wished to acquire the Company’s client base. The Administrators selected ITI as the preferred party. It is not unusual in an insolvency scenario for a large number of interested parties at the commencement of the process to reduce to a small number as more information becomes available. The Administrators cannot provide the same warranties and guaranties that would be provided in a solvent sale or transfer and, in addition, any interested party must agree to receive all clients/assets, which understandably affects interest. The Administrators liaised with both the FCA and FSCS regarding the transfer and also consulted the creditors’ committee who approved the transaction. As you will be aware from the Administrators’ updates to creditors, the transaction was also approved by the High Court. ITI is authorised and regulated by the FCA in the UK. I consider it reasonable that the Administrators relied on ITI’s regulatory approval in making their decision. As Mr Harrison noted at the time, any concerns regarding ITI’s operating license should be directed to the FCA. It is not appropriate for the Administrators to opine on the appropriateness of ITI’s regulatory status. In addition, if you were not happy with ITI then the terms of the transfer allowed to you move to an alternative broker without incurring fees from ITI. Again, I consider this to be reasonable and protects your right of choice as an individual consumer. In cases of this nature, i.e. where there is a large number of individual clients, it is usual practice for the entire portfolio to be transferred to a single alternative operator, and then the individual clients are free to determine how they wish to proceed. I consider that Mr Poxon’s decision to transfer the Custody Assets and Client Money to ITI as the nominated broker was reasonable and in the best interests of creditors in consideration of the options available to the Administrators at the time. I have seen no evidence to support a potential liability to disciplinary action against Mr Poxon in this regard. If you disagree with my assessment of your complaint please provide any additional evidence you wish me to consider and I can review whether any disciplinary interest on the part of ICAEW is appropriate. I look forward to receiving your reply by 12 March 2021. If I hear nothing further from you by the above date the file will be closed without further action. 

 Kind regards,

Vicky

 

Victoria Bailey  Insolvency Case Manager,  Professional Standards T  +44 (0)1908 546 298 E  Victoria.Bailey@icaew.com ICAEW Metropolitan House   321 Avebury Boulevard Milton Keynes MK9 2FZ United Kingdom icaew.com Join us on Linkedin Follow us on Twitter Like us on Facebook

SteveJohnson56

Thought I would like to let you guys know that I have received my payout award.

I was initially awarded £hundreds by the FOS investigator, ITI Capital didn't pay up, the case was passed to an ombudsman, whom although agreeing with the investigator findings said the award was insufficient for the inconvenience, stress etc and more than doubled the initial award.

Didn't expect to be paid but low & behold they have coughed up.
I hasten to add ITI are still taking the pi55, there was no explanation on my account as to where the money came from , half an hour wasted on the phone to the bank, money came via Euroclear, Brussels with a £15 transaction charge which has been deducted from my award. I have asked the FOS to chase them for the £15 outstanding!

All in across two accounts what with initial onboarding compo included I have had £1,200 out of them, was it worth the time, stress, I would say NO, but the compensation draws a line under it, I hope.