SVS Securities - shut down?

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.

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.