SVS Securities - shut down?

johnburman

Well done the Ombudsman

Can you post a link to the full decision so others can refer to it. The FOS award for inconvenience is and always been too low. it is almost an encouragement to poorly performing firms NOT to improve 

and press them for the £15.

johnburman

FROM FINANCE MAGNATES (WEBSITE) TO-DAY

"

ITI Capital Exits Retail Business Amid Revenue Collapse

Thursday, 15/12/2022 | 08:08 GMT by Arnab Shome

• The broker was facing technical difficulties in migrating SVS clients.

Brokers

broker// ToDo refactor when changes on back-end are ready

Bloomberg

0

ITI Capital, an FCA-regulated multi-asset brokerage firm, published its financials for fiscal 2021, ending on 31 December. It reported about £3.32 million in turnover, a year-over-year decline of 43 percent. This figure came only from the company's primary operations and excluded other income, which is an additional £2.1 million compared to the previous year's £503,117.

ITI Capital Records 41% Operating Loss

Close

Skip Ad

The operating loss of the broker increased by 41 percent to £3.4 million despite the administrative expenses remaining the same at around £8.8 million. After considering other income and expenses, ITI ended the year with a loss of almost £3.5 million, which is 65 percent higher than in 2020.

Among other metrics, the client cash held by the platform dropped by 31 percent to £51.9 million, whereas the equity shareholders' funds strengthened by 5 percent to £10.3 million. The loss over net assets jumped to 34 percent from 32 percent in the previous year.

"The current strategic view of the Company's directors remains cautiously optimistic," the Companies House filing stated. "The Company demonstrated considerable resilience during the global COVID pandemic; however, the ongoing business operations and its ensuring financial performance have been very challenging throughout 2021 as it has also been operating under certain regulatory restrictions."

SteveJohnson56

johnburman said:

Well done the Ombudsman

Can you post a link to the full decision so others can refer to it. The FOS award for inconvenience is and always been too low. it is almost an encouragement to poorly performing firms NOT to improve 

and press them for the £15.

It has not been published yet but this is a copy & paste:-
...................................


Date of decision: 9 December 2022

The complaint

Mr T complains to ITI Capital Limited about delays and service when transferring his ISA to

another platform.

What happened

Mr T first became a customer of ITI’s in the summer of 2020 when his previous provider

went into administration. ITI took on some of the previous provider’s clients, and this

included two accounts Mr T was connected to – one was a joint account with his wife and

another was his individual savings account (ISA). The focus of this complaint is on Mr T’s

stocks and shares ISA.

Mr T had some problems with ITI’s handling of his account, and made the decision to

transfer his ISA away to a new provider. From what I can see, Mr T first mentioned his

intention to leave on 11 September 2020. I cannot see ITI replied to this email, and Mr T

repeated his request on 16 September.

ITI replied the next day on 17 September to acknowledge Mr T’s intention to leave. They

confirmed they’d changed the status of his account and so he’d be able to submit a form with

his instructions. They mentioned he ought to give them certain details about his new

provider. Mr T replied the same day to query the form as it asked for his bank details. Mr T

didn’t want to take the money outside of his ISA, just to move it within its wrapper. He

emailed ITI again the next day reiterating similar points.

ITI responded on 25 September, but they didn’t deal with Mr T’s specific points and instead

referenced that the form remained outstanding. Despite this, I can see that on

28 September, ITI’s systems show that Mr T’s transfer out request had been recognised.

Mr T wrote to ITI on 7 October to let them know that his new provider hadn’t heard from

them yet. He asked them to confirm whether they’d received anything from the new provider,

whether the forms were correct given the various reference number changes they’d gone

through, whether he’d be charged the October custody fee and whether the account would

close after the transfer had completed as this was what he wanted.

Mr T’s new provider wrote to him on 29 October to explain they were experiencing ongoing

difficulties in progressing transfers with ITI given they were not responding within a timely

fashion. They suggested he chase ITI too in the hope of expediting things.

Final decision

Page 2 of 5

Mr T wrote to ITI on 1 November to complain about the delay given his new provider had told

him they hadn’t heard from them. He wrote again two days later on 3 November and again

on 5 November.

Mr T wrote again on 14 December to point out ITI hadn’t replied to him within the timeframes

they’d set out in their literature. He also explained that the stress, anxiety and worry was

having a bad impact on his mental health.

On 19 January 2021, ITI sent stock from Mr T’s portfolio to his new provider. And on

26 January, his account showed that his cash balance of around £33,000 had been

transferred too.

Mr T wrote to ITI on 9 February – three weeks had passed since the cash balance appeared

to have been transferred, yet his new provider had told him they were yet to receive it,

despite chasing. Mr T was quite concerned given that the cash in his joint account had been

received within a week.

Given the problems were continuing, Mr T asked for our help. He referred to the ISA

guidelines which mentioned 30 days for transfers, yet his had taken around 100 days so far

with no end in sight. He mentioned the time he’d spent in chasing things up and the toll the

stress, worry and sleepless nights were taking on his wellbeing, especially given his age.

Mr T continued to chase ITI about the missing cash while he waited for our help. I can also

see Mr T’s new provider emailed ITI on 2 March telling them Mr T had told them to expect

the cash.

The £33,000 eventually arrived with Mr T’s new provider on 11 March – this meant the

transfer had taken five and a half months.

Despite the transfer having completed, Mr T continued to reach out to ITI to confirm whether

his account had been closed. On 16 March, he asked for a final closing statement and

confirmation the account was closed. ITI replied the next day to say they’d marked his

account as ‘inactive’ rather than close it given, in their experience with other clients who’d

transferred from the former provider that had gone into administration, sometimes there was

additional cash to add to accounts.

Mr T wasn’t happy with this – he explained that he didn’t expect to receive anything further

from the former provider, so he repeated his ask for the account to be closed and

confirmation to be shared with him. On 17 March, ITI said they’d asked their third-party

provider to close the account.

On 12 April, Mr T received an email to let him know about changes to account numbers. He

replied to query this, given his account ought to have been closed – so no change in number

was warranted. ITI replied the next day to explain they had to keep records for seven years

before deleting personal data. Mr T replied soon after to clarify that he hadn’t been asking

about data protection – instead he wants his account closed yet he could still log in and do

things like download a statement.

It doesn’t appear ITI replied. So on 18 May, Mr T emailed again as he could still log in to his

account. The next day, ITI emailed Mr T with a screenshot from their third-party provider to

show the account was closed. But Mr T replied the same day to confirm he could still log in,

view reports, view his personal details and download statements. He also said nothing

mentioned the account was closed. Mr T remained concerned about what he’d seen – firstly

because an open, yet dormant, account could attract inactivity fees and secondly because of

the risk of identity theft.

Page 3 of 5

ITI replied the same day to ask whether Mr T was able to trade on his account – Mr T replied

to confirm there didn’t appear the facility to trade. But that this was besides the point, as

perhaps the account could be reactivated. So he still considered the account not fully closed.

One of our investigators had a look into what had happened and issued her findings in

February 2022. She agreed ITI’s service had fallen short of what she’d have expected. She

acknowledged the delays in the round along with a clerical error with the cash balance. She

thought ITI should compensate Mr T for the distress and inconvenience and suggested £300

to put things right.

ITI accepted our investigator’s findings in April. There was however some confusion

thereafter as Mr T was involved in a second complaint regarding the joint account with his

wife. ITI had paid some compensation in that case, and in thinking they were complying with

the settlement for this case, they paid Mr T £50.

Our investigator clarified this with ITI in May, but as things remained unresolved some

months on the matter was passed to me. I reviewed Mr T’s complaint and thought a higher

compensation award was due. I said:

It appears that the investigator’s findings are not in dispute – ITI agreed to her

suggested compensation and Mr T appeared to accept too, given he has been

chasing for the payment to be made. The case has come to me because ITI have yet

to settle with Mr T, around seven months after they agreed to do so.

Given both parties seem to be in agreement with our investigator’s view, I don’t

intend on addressing all the issues in detail and instead confirm that I broadly agree

with them. Despite this, in making my decision I have considered the file afresh and

while I agree the case should be upheld, I instead think compensation of £700 should

be paid so I am issuing provisional findings allowing both parties to make a final

comment.

Mr T instructed his ISA transfer on 28 September 2020. HMRC guidelines are that a

stocks and shares ISA transfer should complete within 30 days. That did not happen

here, given Mr T’s cash finally arrived on 11 March 2021. In the meantime, I can see

Mr T put a considerable amount of effort into chasing things up with ITI. He contacted

them several times throughout October, November and December 2020 – and he

referenced the stress, anxiety and worry he was experiencing, and how this affected

him personally. Much of his contact went unanswered.

In addition to the delays and communication generally, I note Mr T was especially

concerned to see his £33,000 left ITI on 26 January 2021 yet didn’t arrive with his

new provider until 11 March, over six weeks later. The issue here seems to have

been ITI’s fault as they instructed a transfer of £33,253.8 rather than £33,253.84. ITI

failed to pick up on this error which caused the six week delay. In fact, they emailed

Mr T twice, on 10 February and 2 March, to say the problem wasn’t theirs – they said

the money had been sent so if it wasn’t showing with the new provider, this wasn’t

something they could influence. They suggested he work things out with the new

provider.

And even after the transfer was complete, again Mr T went weeks while waiting for

confirmation his account was closed. Though there were sporadic responses from

ITI, it still appeared Mr T’s account was open some eight weeks after him asking for

closure.

Page 4 of 5

My view is that the impact the delays and level of service is greater than our

investigator assessed it to be. It is clear Mr T spent a considerable amount of time in

engaging with the transfer – he sent multiple emails, many of which went

unanswered, and it was he who clarified the errors which ITI had made on more than

one occasion, even with the settlement we’d asked them to pay.

In addition to his time, I can also appreciate the considerable concern he’d have felt

during the six weeks where a large sum of money appeared to have gone missing.

Mr T has told us about the toll the stress, worry and sleepless nights have taken on

his wellbeing. And I also recognise that at the time of instructing the transfer, Mr T

was over 80.

Where our service establishes that an error has been made, we have to consider the

impact this had on the complainant, and I’m persuaded that a sum of £700 would be

a better figure to recognise what happened in this case.

I then explained that interest would be payable on a late settlement, that ITI should close

Mr T’s ISA and acknowledged that £50 compensation may have already been paid.

In addition to my findings, I asked Mr T what he did with his cash once it’d transferred as I

wanted to understand whether there’d been any financial loss by way of missed opportunity

on an investment he’d been waiting to make.

In response to my provisional decision, Mr T explained that he had indeed been waiting to

invest the money and did think missed opportunities had disadvantaged him financially.

Despite this, he didn’t want to pursue a claim for additional compensation given the time it

would take for him to go through his statements. Instead, he accepted my provisional

findings.

ITI didn’t reply.

What I’ve decided – and why

I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and

reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint.

In my provisional decision, I explained that I felt a higher award of £700 for distress and

inconvenience would be a fairer sum to compensate Mr T in the circumstances. Having

reconsidered this case in full and in the absence of any new or contrary submissions from

the parties, I see no reason to depart from this conclusion.

Putting things right

It is my decision that ITI should pay Mr T £700 to recognise the distress and inconvenience

caused when handling his ISA transfer and closure request.

My understanding is that owing to confusion with another matter, ITI paid Mr T £50 on

28 April 2022 in relation to this complaint. If this is correct, ITI can deduct this sum from the

award I am now making.

Should Mr T accept my final decision and ITI not pay him within 28 days of them being

notified of his acceptance, I direct ITI to pay simple interest on any sum outstanding at a rate

of 8% per year from the date of my decision until the date of settlement.

In addition, if it has not already done so I require that ITI close Mr T’s ISA and send him the

confirmation he requires.

Page 5 of 5

My final decision

My decision is that I uphold Mr T’s complaint against ITI Capital Limited and that they should

put the matter right as outlined above.

Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr T to accept or

reject my decision before 5 January 2023.

XXXXXXXXX

Ombudsman

..................................................................................

The FOS has instructed ITI Capital to contact me and confirm all accounts are closed,....I'm still waiting!

I pray these accounts do not come back from the dead to haunt me at a later date with inactivity charges.

RasputinB

The FCA have two "extra" ITI Capital contact numbers that they are making available.
02075628001 which is likely to be unanswered and switch to a message service after 6 minutes.
02038898362 is for the dealing desk but they say that they will pass messages on to compliance etc.
I'd suggest that anyone with a burning need to get action tries plenty of calls to the latter number.

Josl

Higher amount of the last award is due to the claimants age. He’s gone through no more crappy service than any one of us. FOS makes concessions to elderly, ill and those deemed vulnerable. 

johnburman

pleased that the FOS individually considers the quantum of compensation before awarding it but in reality they tend to award the same or rather within a limited range 

what is important is that all those who have received appalling service from iti obtain compensation for it. 

most will not. most don't know about the FOS. 

SamAus

21st December, deadline day, and four months into my transfer and no luck. ITI sent my new broker a valuation which purported to show a negative balance. I'm still unsure as to how one might generate a negative balance through the pure and simple sale/buying of shares, coupled with the fact that I have over 4,000 shares in the stock. Put a complaint into the FOS, adding to the many. It's an absolute disgrace, in this shambles of a country and joke of a regulator, that someone like ITI was able to receive client assets. They didn't even have an office, in stead borrowing space at a Regus in London, and they were allowed to take into custody over £10m in client assets. Thank you everyone for sharing your insight and experiences. It continues to be tough on me emotionally, as I could really do with my money back, and never asked for my assets to be transferred to such a shambles, but I could never get the assets out. Have a great Christmas all, and keep supporting each other.

johnburman

it's part of your claim on the FOS 

But you must tell the FCA too... my feeling is that the FCA don't know what is going on with ITI and how they still are treating their retail clients 

RasputinB

If you organise complaints properly it is quite possible to have multiple complaints against ITI which increases the amount of D&I payments etc.
Getting the compensation from ITI is another matter and, of course, it is questionable as to whether dealing with the FOS is worth the time and trouble. That is IMO exactly how they want it to be so that out of the thousands of ex-SVS clients who received disgraceful service only a few score persevered to the Ombudsman stage. Couple this with the policy of settlements with non-disclosure agreements and I find comments such as "shambles of a country and joke of a regulator" perfectly understandable. What can be done about it? I have chosen to invest elsewhere.

masonic

The system is designed such that the vast majority of complaints are settled by the firm in private (just subject to reporting within vague complaint volume statistics), while of those that go to the FOS the majority get settled by an adjudicator or investigator in private. Very few indeed fail to get resolved at that stage and end up with a public Ombudsman decision. The publication is intended to serve as precedent to avoid firms disputing similar resolutions, so as not to put undue strain on the service. Seeing multiple similar decision against the same firm is a red flag in itself.

The trouble is with unscrupulous firms that try it on with low-ball offers and who no longer need to preserve a reputation. The regulator has proven toothless against firms that try to obstruct the process.

The trouble with taking your business outside the jurisdiction of the FCA is that you'd need to have a very good understanding of the alternative regulatory regime, and faith that you would be treated on an equal footing as a foreigner to the locals (see Icelandic banking crisis for example).