SVS Securities - shut down?

Clairabella

Result at last!  ICI have paid £200 into my account as compensation for distress and inconvenience and £62 for loss of interest. They paid within 10 days from the FOS decision and 14 months from my contacting FOS. It's not perhaps as much as I'd anticipated but I honestly couldn't be bothered any more. Many thanks to all on here.

My2penneth

SVS - OFFICIALLY NOW DISSOLVED.

RasputinB

More Ombudsman Decisions have been added to the FOS web site.

For DRN-3842958 £700 was awarded to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused when handling an ISA transfer and closure request.

My suspicion is that as the FOS eventually realised the depth of the problems with ITI (and became frustrated themselves by the lack, or tardiness, of ITI’s responses) they have started to award more realistic amounts.

If so, the process has not been fair for earlier claimants.

eskbanker

RasputinB said:

More Ombudsman Decisions have been added to the FOS web site.

For DRN-3842958 £700 was awarded to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused when handling an ISA transfer and closure request.

My suspicion is that as the FOS eventually realised the depth of the problems with ITI (and became frustrated themselves by the lack, or tardiness, of ITI’s responses) they have started to award more realistic amounts.

If so, the process has not been fair for earlier claimants.

Not sure that the latest DRN really supports that conclusion, in that the circumstances appear to be particularly trying - one aspect that I don't recall seeing previously was a £33K cash sum 'going missing' for six weeks in between ITI and a receiving provider, which understandably caused significantly more D&I than the more typical processing delays seen in other cases.

This complaint also entails concern about the protracted ITI account closure, which FOS appears to have considered significant, and they also seem to believe that the complainant's age was relevant!

And I also recognise that at the time of instructing the transfer, Mr T was over 80.

Having said that, I'm not claiming that FOS are always entirely consistent, but simply that I don't see this one case as signifying a trend of more generous settlements than earlier comparable ones, do you have specific previous ones in mind that are sufficiently similar but with lower D&I compensation?

Presumably they felt that this case warranted inclusion in the middle tier of their D&I scale rather than the bottom one, but assessments against these categorisations do seem open to a fair amount of subjectivity:

An award

...of up to £300

If an error has caused the consumer more than the levels of frustration and annoyance you might reasonably expect from day-to-day life, and the impact has been more than just minimal, then an apology won’t be enough to remedy the mistake.

An award between £100 and £300 might be fair where there have been repeated small errors, or a larger single mistake, requiring a reasonable effort to sort out. These typically result in an impact that lasts a few days, or even weeks, and cause either some distress, inconvenience, disappointment or loss of expectation.

[...]

An award

...of up to £750

An award of over £300 and up to around £750 might be fair where the impact of a mistake has caused considerable distress, upset and worry – and/or significant inconvenience and disruption that needs a lot of extra effort to sort out. Typically, the impact lasts over many weeks or months, but it could also be fair to award in this range if a mistake has a serious short-term impact.

RasputinB

If I find time on my hands I may analyse the decisions to see how the D&I amounts have increased.
But I think that most of us have now moved on from SVS and ITI so probably not much value in doing so.
I'd also comment that it looks to me that most of the ones who pushed all the way to an actual Ombudsman Decision aren't amongst the ones who have commented on this forum.

johnburman

As ever the discussion on FOS compensation is interesting

The amounts awarded for the delay etc. are modest, but the FOS does seem to be appreciating this and generally they have been getting bigger....they are still too small in my view.

But if you look at the TOTAL number of complaints against ITI they number 50; with 46 being upheld.

Yes, 4 were not but that these were old and on specific facts to do with discretionary services.

So the success rate against ITI is phenomenally high.

As I suggested in earlier posts all customers who have suffered delays or inconvenience caused by ITI should COMPLAIN TO THE FOS.  You have nothing to lose and several hundred pounds (per account or person) to gain PLUS any cash you have actually lost.

The more interesting question is that for a small broker, 50 complaints/46 successful complaints look very high to me.  Why are they still allowed to continue in business?  Where is their "Treating Clients Fairly" duty? 

johnburman

I see

I'd also comment that it looks to me that most of the ones who pushed all the way to an actual Ombudsman Decision aren't amongst the ones who have commented on this forum.

I'm sure there are several, but of the 46, there are many who have not.  And I bet only a very small percentage complained to the FOS: there are the mass of clients who could claim but have not done so.

And yes we are all trying to move on from this nightmare.  But I fear it is going to happen again judging by the shambles of the FCA in dealing with this. 

eskbanker

johnburman said:

As I suggested in earlier posts all customers who have suffered delays or inconvenience caused by ITI should COMPLAIN TO THE FOS.  You have nothing to lose and several hundred pounds (per account or person) to gain PLUS any cash you have actually lost.

Complaints must be escalated to FOS within six months of exhausting (appropriate term!) the ITI process, so it seems something of a long shot that anyone will still be going through that by now.

johnburman said:

The more interesting question is that for a small broker, 50 complaints/46 successful complaints look very high to me.  Why are they still allowed to continue in business?

Well, they're not, their retail operations have been closed down, as discussed last year!

RasputinB

johnburman said:

 Why are they still allowed to continue in business?  Where is their "Treating Clients Fairly" duty? 

ITI aren't continuing in business for retail clients in the UK. An associated company that I had referred to has also closed to retail clients. But last time I looked no disciplinary action had been taken against ITI management.

RasputinB

eskbanker said:

Complaints must be escalated to FOS within six months of exhausting (appropriate term!) the ITI process, so it seems something of a long shot that anyone will still be going through that by now.

A customer usually needs to complain to us within 6 years of the event complained about.
Time limits for businesses (financial-ombudsman.org.uk)