SVS Securities - shut down?

No bnet you are not the only one living abroad, who has not received any correspondence. If you look through the thread, there is myself in France, a person in New Zealand and someone living in Ireland. None of us has received any communication whatsoever.

Like yourself I was fobbed off on the helpline, and have not received an answer to my e-mail, other than an electronically generated response, saying they had received the e-mail.

I find this very poor customer service,I think the whole financial industry stinks quite honestly, and would rather not have to deal with any of them.

Not sure what else we can do, other than wait until the 27th September, the situation for all us is stressful, but at least if you live in the UK, you have been assured that Leonard Curtis know that you exist, and things will be sorted eventually. For all of us outside the UK we will have to speculate what will happen to us.

johnburman wrote: »

I have been referring to the LC "customer service" or lack of it and have been criticised by others in various posts on this forum. The Administrators LC know tha tthere are 13.5k XO clients - all wholly un involved with the more 'interesting' parts of SVS, all of whom have segregated accounts of shares and cash. So why is not LC letting them know what is happening, reassuring them (where they can), and trying to be generally helpful, even on a class basis (that is not individually, which is expensive?

They are. They have set up a dedicated webpage to deal with investors and creditors collectively at https://www.leonardcurtis.co.uk/SVS/

On that page they have issued a total of 9 documents so far, including a notice of appointment, an initial letter to creditors (which includes investors), a copy of the administration order, not one but two sets of FAQ in response to questions so far raised, and warnings about scammers trying to exploit the situation.

All of the relevant information needed by investors and creditors at this time can be found at that webpage. LC have acted in an exemplary manner in this regard.

There will always be some people who are unsatisfied with the amount of information available at such an early stage in the process and will have the wholly unreasonable expectation that the administrators should provide information that either they do not have or cannot disclose. Those people tend to counterproductive to the administration as a whole and may end up costing some investors and creditors money that will have to be taken in fees to fund the cost of answering individual enquiries and frivolous complaints.

Why have the FCA allowed the appointment of Administrators who behave this way?

Based on the conduct of LC so far, the FCA has made a good choice. You seem to be in much better hands than say the investors in LC&F mini-bonds, who have had to deal with Smith & Williamson. You probably would have liked S&W. They are very reassuring initially, except they have to change their tune somewhat if their investigation starts to reveal the facts of the situation are much worse (for example revising a 100% recovery downward to 20%).

We should ask the FCA to call the helpline and see wha they make of it!

Yes, why not run up costs making pointless calls to another body that's ultimately funded by we consumers.

If LC have not contacted our of UK clients, that is an error. If that happens on Sept 27 that will be in breach of the Administration Order.

My view is you, and the other non-UK clients should tell the FCA of the situation.

If, by 27th September, non-UK clients (or any clients) haven't received any communication from LC (either unprompted or in response to the customers email requesting they update their contact details), then that would be grounds for complaint, but the FCA does not deal with complaints from custoimers, other than complaints about the FCA itself. The FCA must agree the choice of administrator, but LC is appointed by and answers to the High Court (by this court order). To complain, you should first contact LC, and if unsatisfied you would need to make an application to the court.

Edit: to add - I think it would be rather counterproductive to seek to have LC replaced, as you seem to desire. This will require a legal process, which LC may well decide to defend. If LC were unsuccessful and were indeed replaced as you might wish, all that would mean is some months in the future the whole process will be reset and will drag on even longer, cost a lot more, and you won't be treated any differently by the new administrator.

Here I agree with Masonic ,we have been told to wait for 8 weeks, let's do this first and see what LC come up with. Hoping by then we have some clear picture. If we are not satisfy then we may have to do as Johnburman suggesting. So let's wait first.We all are frustrated about situation, please wait and see.
The administrators are very expansive , their bills easily runs to many millions.( last year Baeuford Securities shut down admin PWC bill was 100 million reduced to 55millions). So what we should be doing now till 27/09 is to agree what action should collectively be taking to hurry up the LC as time is money.

How many brokers have been put into administration in the UK in the last 10 years.
How does this compare with others in Europe .
I get the feeling the dutch one is much better run , the risk department plays the major role , its irritating sometimes when they will not let you buy certain AIM listed shares.
And limit your holding in others you might have on AIM.
Every share has an in house risk grade
I was informed they only lend shares out ( for short positions ) to other clients of theirs that seems to be different .
Maybe the non UK residents would be wiser placing there investments nearer home.

Monsieur_Bourse wrote: »

Masonic, I guess it depends on what side of The Channel you are if you think that LC are doing a good job.I personally think the treatment of non-UK residents is appalling. If there is any sort of problem, then we should all have been contacted personally, explaining the situation, or at the very least post something on their website relating to non-UK residents.

So you can't access all of the information at: https://www.leonardcurtis.co.uk/SVS/?

If you can, then you know as much as anyone this side of the channel. The issues you raise relating to the FSCS are for the FSCS to answer. It has nothing to do with LC whether you will qualify for FSCS cover, LC has no influence over that decision. The FSCS is not currently accepting claims from anyone, UK resident or otherwise. That's because no investor in SVS has suffered a loss that could be compensated, and there is every possibility that they will not.

You got an answer from the FSCS: "He initially said he thought I would be, but stated certain products may not be."

This is the correct answer. If the product in question is covered, then you are covered. Meaning if you hold investments in a SVS nominee account, you're covered, whereas if you invested in the SVS 5 year mini-bond, you are not.

The FSCS has set up a dedicated webpage for SVS investors: https://www.fscs.org.uk/failed-firms/svs/

It states: "The Special Administrators will carry out an assessment of the client money and assets held by the firm to confirm the current position. Following the assessment, the Special Administrators will work to return as much client money and assets to customers as possible, as quickly as possible. Should the Special Administrators find that the firm does not hold enough client money or assets, then FSCS will cover asset and client money shortfalls, including the costs associated with their distribution back to clients, for eligible customers up to our compensation limit of £85,000."

Therefore you needed only to confirm with the FSCS that, as a non-UK resident, the FSCS considers you an "eligible customer", which it appears you have done.

I agreed that the FCA is not the place to complain about LC, but if things are not resolved swiftly, I will be looking into lodging a complaint with the ombudsman.

What do you hope to achieve from that? What financial loss do you believe you have suffered as a direct result of not receiving a letter in the post detailing the information you've become aware of posted online? Was it more stressful and inconvenient to read the information online compared to reading a paper letter? Have you already put a formal complaint in writing to SVS and given the required 8 weeks for them to resolve your complaint?