News Trades Hung - Issues with UK Financial Ombudsman Service - Page 2
Page 2 of 732 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 318

Thread: News Trades Hung - Issues with UK Financial Ombudsman Service

  1. #11
    The Independent Assessor again:

    I contacted her office when I realized that the ombudsman's decision dated 2 days before my deadline to publish my opinion for the ombudsman's review died. She stated the date is wrong. She also said:
    ”I will see that the Ombudsman said”I have considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what's fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint”. For that reason, it seems that regardless of when the Ombudsman composed his conclusion, he took all of the evidence you filed into account.”
    Oh no! Perhaps not the magic sentence again! It convinced that the senior director and it had been sufficient to convince the individual assessor as well. The ombudsman made a fair and reasonable choice, since he said so. He believed all the available evidences, since he explained. Hilarious. Is it? How can somebody, claimed to be independent, alluding to the unfounded statement of a single side (the ombudsman) to disregard the evidences of the other hand (me)? I say an'independent' someone. Have I said yet that she's'independent'? It is not important what date you have on an official document. It is irrelevant if they're the sole breaching the deadline. The date on the legal document refers to when the document becomes official. The ombudsman's choice had become official two days before my deadline died.

    On the other hand, do you recognize that she commented on the case?
    ”Regardless of when the Ombudsman composed his conclusion, he took all of the evidence you filed into account,” she said. Before, when I complained about their bias citing unaddressed evidences and fundamentally wrong decisions, she vehemently refused to take care of my complaint, saying that she cannot comment on the case. Oh, wait. Now she defended the ombudsman, therefore she could comment on the case. Using the ombudsman's own stock phrases to defend the ombudsman clearly describes the integrity and the independence of the individual assessor.

  2. #12
    The Independent Assessor again:

    I contacted her office next time after I asked the disclosure of the evidence but I did not get any feedback from the FOS for a while. Earlier they found everything fine and fully explained, so who cares about the minor issue that there's no revealed evidence in the rejecting decision. I think you are in agreement with me if your complaint is reversed, at least, you want to see the used evidence.

    Well, the individual assessor did not agree:
    ”I explained in my previous correspondence which complaints of poor service I was able to review. I can't add further complaint points now my critique and Opinion was issued because it was final. That means I can't now look into additional points from you. Having said that I don't think the issues you desired me to look at are something I could have reviewed. The Ombudsman has verified this was the proof he was able to base his choice. You might disagree with his interpretation of the evidence but that was a matter because of his use of conclusion which is not something I can comment on”.

    She was talking about the Saxo Bank link. Therefore, the ombudsman took the description of the fourth playoff position 1 PIP value, he used it to establish his fifth decimal loion nonsense and the individual assessor says it isn't bias or fraud, it is interpretation. I wonder why this exceptional approach isn't advertised on their website. If you want to defend her, think it over. I tried to handle fraud and bias, because the concealment of the evidence clearly demones the purposefulness.

  3. #13
    The Independent Assessor again:

    Here is something in their site:
    ” Sir Nicholas Montagu, chairman of the ombudsman service, welcomed Ms Somal to her new role, saying: The individual assessor plays a vital role - not only in supplying people who are unhappy with our service with recourse to an independent inspection, but also in helping people concentrate more broadly on where we can improve the experience of all our customers. Amerdeep brings a wealth of expertise from a career that has covered a vast range of subjects, from the criminal justice system to domestic violence and violence. This, coupled with her liberty, judgement and ethics, equips her for the role of Independent Assessor.”
    Wonderful words, I almost cried. I contacted her office last time because I did not give up to see her liberty and ethics. I attempted to address the allegedly deleted 20 mails I said earlier. I clarified the senior and team supervisors unacceptable ignorance and both contradictory, false explanations. Eventually I had some queries:
    ”How can it be feasible to get and answer my questions regarding the 20 mails, but not receiving the 20 mails in precisely the same mailbox? Who obtained those 20 mails with important informations if not the adjudior? Why did the team and senior supervisors not even attempt to address the issue, only covered up the issue? Why did the team and senior supervisors present two contradictory explanations? Why did the team manager say I sent the emails to a different mailbox? Exactly what did the senior manager mean by for a reason he did not receive them? What kind of reasons? Is the technical mistake (when there wasn't any ) recognized, since I sent the messages to the right mailbox? What was done to create sure preventing the same error in the future? I expect it represents a service complaint.”

    Really, she used her wealth of expertise to ignore the issue. The independent assessor did not care to refute:
    ” As clarified in my email of 7 May 2014. I cannot add further complaint points now my review and Opinion was issued as it was final. That means I cannot now start looking into further points from you. Any further correspondence from you'll be read and put on file but I will not be responding to any further correspondence”
    Can you picture her hands because she wished to help poorly? It seemed to be exactly the reverse. Can you see the massive contrast between the words of Sir Montagu and the reality? It appears they are allowed to delete your correspondence. So where are my 20 mails and why did they lie about this problem? We're not going to receive any response to that question.

    On the flip side, she refused to deal with my service complaints , saying that she had issued her inspection before. Let us see her favourite explanation, her Terms of Reference:
    ” 8) The independent assessor won't consider a criticism: a) You've previously made a complaint to the individual assessor regarding precisely the same issue.”
    This is the component with the nearest significance, but the 20 lost mails were a new, never addressed problem. She has never issued any notion regarding the 20 lost mails. There is nothing in her Terms of Reference to justify her refusal to manage my service complaint. She utilized a false explanation again to dismiss a real service issue. Can you see how she utilizes her famous wealth of expertise?

    I believe I demoned the independent assessor is not independent and she has no integrity. She is a part of this complaint rejecting machine. I believe she's very limited authority, but she covers up the mess thankfully. The machine is intended to be inadequate. The Independent Assessor is appointed and paid by the board of the FOS, from the organisation she's supposed to oversee. How could she be independent? On the flip side, the opportunism of the individual assessor is really remarkable.

  4. #14
    The falsified data:

    According to the Wikipedia, they claim to uphold 49% of the complaints. My criticism is published on their site as an exemption criticism. They rejected my #5,000 claim and ordered the financial firm to cover #100 to get a minor issue. The 5,000 amount isn't even cited in the published conclusion. This is how a 5,000 fraudulently rejected complaint is posted on the FOS's site as a #100 upheld complaint. Do you think I overreacted the circumstance? Let us see:

    20 Dec 2012 initial adjudiion:”my view is I cannot recommend that Mr Sacrificial Lamb's criticism be upheld [...] I believe a sum of 100 is reasonable”.

    26 March 2013 second adjudiion:” Regardless of my previous misunderstanding of the reason your trade failed, I am still unable to recommend that your complaint should be kept”.

    16 Jan 2014 the group manager said:” Mr Phillips issued his own view to both parties which was that your situation should be considerably rejected and that a small payment of 100 must be paid to you”.

    Nevertheless the conclusion of the ombudsman:”My final conclusion is that I uphold Mr Sacrificial Lamb's criticism in part. I order the firm to cover the amount of 100 for the distress and inconvenience caused”.

    Which section of my criticism was upheld? Distress or annoyance was not part of my criticism. They awarded #100 to print the situation as upheld.

    We're speaking about precisely the same complaint and the same decision. They did not alter the conclusion, only the labelling of this criticism. This is a rejected #5,000 complaint with #100 payment, now it is an upheld complaint with #100 payment. It is published on the FOS's site as a #100 upheld complaint, without even mentioning the 5,000 amount. People reading the decision won't realize that my 5,000 claim is reversed. It isn't an upheld complaint.

    Do not you think that their numbers are fake?

  5. #15

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by ;
    Which broker is that you refer to?
    LCG and its own white label IntertraderMT4. I wanted to dedie this thread to the FOS solely but the moderator changed the thread name.
    The brokerage story is not unique, but the FOS is really scandalous.

  7. #17
    FWIW, I used this broker a few years back - a part of tradefair I believe it was. I made #1000 on an aud news trade, and they took it right back. 12hrs afterwards, then alluding to a reuters screenshot, which there platform doesnt even utilize. In accore with FSA, they arent allowed to cancel transactions, after so long. I wonder if they'd have cancelled it in case I dropped #1000. I just left them.
    In this industry though they are whitelabelling lots of additional uk brokers (same $hit, different title ):

    London Capital Group
    247 Markets
    Accendo Trading
    Capital CFDs
    Capital Derivatives
    Capital Forex
    Capital Forex Guru
    Capital Spreads
    DealingDesk
    Financial Spreads
    Finansbet
    FirstSpreads
    FXcel
    Goodbody Trader
    Guardian Spread Trading
    InterTrader
    Intertrader.com
    JPJ Spreads
    LCG FX
    LCG Markets
    LCG Metatrader
    Pelican Spreads
    Precision Financial Markets
    QTrade FX MT4
    Savi FX
    Saxo Bank
    Financial Spreads
    SC Market
    Selftrade Markets
    Spread Trader (DK)
    Spreadlink
    TD Financial Spread Trading
    Tradefair Spreads
    TradeWise Spreads
    Twowayspreads
    Internet Trade India
    XTB Spreads

  8. #18
    Let me compose just 1 post about the underlying narrative. I take the responsibility for my stupidity. First time in my entire life I applied to participate in a bonus deal with a 90 calendar days launch standards. It was a white tag of a FSA regulated broker I had an account together and I'm good at short term trading. What could go wrong, I thought. With just a little account, I was going to profitably fulfill the required quantity (account balance x 2,000) on the 3rd day. On that morning there was a 10 minutes interval when from the 11 trades in their platform 6 were mine. 7 lots each. I clearly caught attention. Few hours later came the contested exchange. I started the contested trade 50 sec following a news event and attempted to close 30 sec later with #800 profit. While my entrance was flawless, I attempted to close the place 8 times in another 6 minutes, without success. I managed my vulnerability on another account. The contested exchange was closed later by a semi annual margin call, with #5,000 loss. No loss was suffered on the whole exposure. Next day I realized that 4 times from the 8 successive requotes the new prices were within the utilized 1 pip variation (0.4, 0.7, 0.7, 0.9 pip respectively).

    I registered a complaint. They answered aggressively, saying:
    ”we do not supply a platform for people to just snipe us over news releases and take advantage of the fast moving market” and”you attempted to close it ONE MINUTE later” and”may I recommend that you attempt another broker”.
    Can you hear the battle cry of the notorious bucket shop mentality? They refused to inquire into the circumstance. I lodged the complaint again, along with their parent firm said I was unjust but did not define what rule I broke, if any. I filed another complaint together, questioning their motivation regarding the 90 calendar days restriction, and asked what rule I broke. Of course, they did not give me any excuse, but shut my account saying:
    ” we have a duty to our clients to safeguard them [...] Based on the emails that you have sent me along with the nature of your complaints I do not believe that it is appropriate for you to continue leverage trading [...]”.
    Can you envision the market maker protecting the customer's pocket by shutting the account? The mails she said? I asked in three distinct mails:
    ” What's the minimum time frame to hold a position, not to be unjust? What are the illegal regions of the day to exchange,if a customer does not want to be unjust? What max. Ticket dimensions am I permitted to exchange, to not be unfair? How to exchange at least 22x leverage for three months, everyday, to not be unfair?
    Yes, annoying questions. They stated it was a sign that I don't understand the product. To make it more confusing, even after my warning, they shut just one of my two accounts with the company. Not to mention, I haven't had a losing day with this firm. Even on that day, in my two accounts I left #7,393 and dropped #5,406 (the contested #5,000 included).

    Who was the most unfair ? When they don't permit short term trading the 90 calendar days launch standards is clearly unjust, but it wasn't part of my complaint lodged with the FOS. Yet the FOS employees wrote pages about that subject in their decisions. The time restriction itself wasn't a issue, the exploitation of the trade execution was. The motivation behind the 90 calendar days launch standards is clear and explains the additional measures, i.e. the exploitation of the trade execution and the account closed. And just these two problems were the two components of my complaint lodged with the FOS. If you find the ombudsman's published decision and wonder why he is discussing the bonus deal and making humorous statements like” Mr Sacrificial Lamb is unhappy that the bonus was paid to him early and he says that he did not meet the standards to have it released,” don't worry, I have no clue either. It does not make any sense. Seriously, placing a pressuring 90 calendar days restriction, then releasing the bonus early? I don't understand what that means and it did not occur, but it sounds funny. Obviously, a number of the lies the company introduced in this case weren't shared with me.

    Just to explain my anger, once I convinced the adjudior to ask the company why they shut just one of my two accounts, the firm delivered these ideas to the FOS:”He couldn't see how he could possibly meet with the release criteria of the deal.”
    I finished 80% of the required quantity on the 3rd day from the 90, when the contested trade occurred. I asked, how to get it done without being tagged unfair. It seems, if you fulfill it succesfully, you're unfair.
    ”What he failed to understand was that he'd met the launch standards. To us this was a clear sign that this customer did not understand how lots and mini lots get the job done ”
    Oh, dear. What she neglected to understand realize was that I entered the remaining few trades 24 days later, so I had not met the discharge standards yet at the moment. It is well documented. There was nothing to be understood because it occurred 24 days later. She strove to prove that I'm stupid by sophistiing the dates. Why? It was another unnecessary lie.
    ”This, combined with the character of the first criticism direct us to feel that the MT4 product was not acceptable for him. As you know we've got a duty to our clients to protect them should we believe they do not understand the product. It was therefore in the clients best interest that the MT4 account was shut ”
    Therefore it wasn't about being on the other side of my trades in an unhedged book and losing money, was it? Because I did not even shed. I wonder if they close the losing clients' accounts to safeguard them. Of course not. They close the profitable accounts. She literally stated, that they made the decision to close my account for something which occurred 24 days later. Is not this decision void if it's founded on a false statement? They invoked paragraph 2.5 (the best to close the account without notice), so that I challenged those false statements but the FOS did not care. It seems a financial company is permitted to lie to the FOS without impacts.

    This case made progress because of the lies of the company as well as the mistakes of the FOS. I was prepared to leave it at the beginning, but I needed to challenge the lies and the mistakes.

    What angered me was that the company kept insulting me personally. It was unnecessary.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
This website uses cookies
We use cookies to store session information to facilitate remembering your login information, to allow you to save website preferences, to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners.