News Trades Hung - Issues with UK Financial Ombudsman Service

If they were allowed to do this to me, they might do this to you as well.

The Financial Ombudsman Service is not what you think it is. I share this story for educational purpose, to let you look behind the curtain. I’ve been trading different markets since 2000, but it was my first complaint ever. I have irrefutable evidences to prove the prejudice.

The procedure was only a barbaric joke. Nevertheless, my sense of humour is much better.

I reported them for fraud to the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and to the Action Fraud, based on Fraud Act 2006 chapter 35. Letter enclosed. It is proven fact that the ombudsman made an irrational decision and it was not a mistake. I know, it is unusual, to say the least, to use the Fraud Act in this context. The law is there to pursue and prosecute the little guy, not the authority. Post 15.

It is recognized fact that the adjudicator and the ombudsman rejected my complaint using different arguments, but both arguments supported my claim. Using those arguments my complaint should’ve been upheld. The real nature of the FOS was unveiled due to their incompetence. Posts 3 and 4.

However, the truly scandalous parts were presented by the team manager, the senior manager and the so called Independent Assessor. They covered the mess up shamefully. Posts 5-13.

At the end, I will show you how the Financial Ombudsman Service manipulates its statistics. My £5,000 dismissed complaint is published on their website as upheld. Reference: DRN0281948. Post 14.

Yes, I am going to write about the centralized, systemic corruption of the Financial Ombudsman Service UK, where there is no way to address the unbelievable bias and incompetence.

Would you believe me if I said the adjudicator has admitted in writing that he didn’t understand anything when he made his two rejecting decisions. Yet there was no way to question his biased verdict. Post 3.

Would you believe me if I said the ombudsman falsified data to dismiss my claim. Well, he had to, because his nonsense theory doesn’t exist. I mean literally, it doesn’t exist. Yet there was no way to address that fraud. Post 4.

Would you believe me if I said, after the adjudicator rejected my complaint with an argument which supported my claim and wasn’t related to the case, replying to my service complaint the team manager clearly stated that the admittedly wrong decision should be left intact, and the adjudicator shouldn’t have discussed that issue with me. What fair play? Post 6.

Would you believe me if I said the adjudicator supposedly deleted one of my emails with information he requested (probably contradicted the preconception) 20+ times, and the team manager, the senior manager, the Independent Assessor refused to recognize the issue? I was unable to address that problem. Post 8.

Would you believe me if I said that I had to file a Freedom of Information Act request to see the evidence which was used to reject my complaint, which should’ve been disclosed in the ombudsman’s decision at the first place? Hint: I couldn’t obtain any evidence supporting the ombudsman’s decision. You are going to see why. Post 9.

I know. You cannot believe it. Then just keep reading.

You will see how serious the problem is that no one has control over an ombudsman. You will see that there are no real checks and balances in the system. They cover up the issues anyway, so I am sure it is done on purpose. How could you expect the financial firms playing fair when even the legal system is that rigged?

They didn’t feel any shame when they got caught cheating. They didn’t show any regret. They don’t learn from mistakes. They are absolutely immoral. The goal could be genuine at the beginning, but now the Financial Ombudsman Service is only a subsidiary of the financial industry to protect itself against the public anger and the real accountability.

Let me write only one post about the underlying story. I take the responsibility for my stupidity. First time in my life I applied to participate in a bonus offer with a 90 calendar days release criteria. It was a white label of a FSA regulated broker I already had an account with and I am good at short term trading. What could go wrong, I thought. With a little account, I was about to profitably fulfill the required volume (account balance x 2,000) on the 3rd day. On that morning there was a 10 minutes period when out of the 11 trades on their platform 6 were mine. 7 lots each. I obviously caught attention. Few hours later came the disputed trade. I opened the disputed trade 50 sec after a news event and tried to close 30 sec later with £800 profit. While my entry was flawless, I tried to close the position 8 times in the next 6 minutes, without success. I managed my exposure on another account. The disputed trade was closed later by a partial margin call, with £5,000 loss. No loss was suffered on the whole exposure. Next day I recognized that 4 times out of the 8 consecutive requotes the new prices were within the used 1 pip deviation (0.4, 0.7, 0.7, 0.9 pip respectively).

I filed a complaint. They replied aggressively, saying:
“we do not provide a platform for individuals to just snipe us over news releases and take advantage of the fast moving market” and ”you tried to close it ONE MINUTE later” and “may I suggest that you try another broker”.
Do you hear the battle cry of the notorious bucket shop mentality? They refused to investigate the case. I lodged the complaint again, and their parent company said I was unfair but didn’t specify what rule I broke, if any. So I filed a second complaint with them, questioning their motivation regarding the 90 calendar days restriction, and asked again what rule I broke. Of course, they didn’t give me any explanation, but closed my account saying:
“we have a duty to our clients to protect them [...] Based on the emails that you have sent me and the nature of your complaints I do not believe that it is appropriate for you to continue leverage trading [...]”.
Can you picture the market maker protecting the client’s pocket by closing the account? The emails she mentioned? I asked in three different emails:
”What is the minimum time period to hold a position, not to be unfair? What are the prohibited parts of the day to trade,if a client doesn't want to be unfair? What max. ticket size am I allowed to trade, not to be unfair? How to trade at least 22x leverage for three months, everyday, not to be unfair?
Yes, annoying questions. They said it was a sign that I don’t understand the product. To make it more confusing, even after my warning, they closed only 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, on my two accounts I made £7,393 and lost £5,406 (the disputed £5,000 included).

Who was the unfair here? If they don’t permit short term trading the 90 calendar days release criteria is obviously unfair, but it wasn’t part of my complaint lodged with the FOS. Yet the FOS employees wrote pages about that topic in their decisions. The time restriction itself wasn’t a problem, the manipulation of the trade execution was. The motivation behind the 90 calendar days release criteria is clear and explains the further steps, i.e. the manipulation of the trade execution and the account closure. And only these two issues were the two parts of my complaint lodged with the FOS. If you find the ombudsman’s published decision and wonder why he is talking about the bonus offer and making funny statements like “Mr Sacrificial Lamb is unhappy that the bonus was paid to him early and he says that he did not meet the criteria to have it released,” don’t worry, I have no clue either. It doesn’t make any sense. Seriously, setting a pressuring 90 calendar days restriction, then releasing the bonus early? I don’t know what that means and it didn’t happen, but it sounds funny. Obviously, some of the lies the firm presented in this case were not shared with me.

Just to explain my anger, when I convinced the adjudicator to ask the firm why they closed only one of my two accounts, the firm sent these thoughts to the FOS: ”He could not see how he could possibly meet the release criteria of the offer.”
I finished 80% of the required volume on the 3rd day out of the 90, when the disputed trade happened. I asked, how to do it without being labelled unfair. It seems, if you fulfill it succesfully, you are unfair.
”What he failed to understand was that he had already met the release criteria. To us this was a clear indication that this client did not understand how lots and mini lots work.”
Oh, dear. What she failed to understand recognize was that I entered the remaining few trades 24 days later, so I had not met the release criteria yet at that time. It is well documented. There was nothing to be understood because it happened 24 days later. She tried to prove that I am stupid by sophisticating the dates. Why? It was another unnecessary lie.
”This, combined with the nature of his first complaint lead us to believe that the MT4 product was not suitable for him. As you know we have 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 closed.”
So it wasn’t about being on the other side of my trades in an unhedged book and losing money, was it? Because I didn’t even lose. I wonder if they close the losing clients’ accounts to protect them. Of course not. They close the profitable accounts. She literally said, they made the decision to close my account for something that happened 24 days later. Isn’t this decision void if it is based on a false statement? They never invoked paragraph 2.5 (the right to close the account without notice), so I challenged these false statements but the FOS didn’t care. It seems a financial firm is allowed to lie to the FOS without consequences.

This case made progress because of the lies of the firm and the mistakes of the FOS. I was ready to leave it at that at the beginning, but I had to challenge the lies and the mistakes.

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

The adjudicator:

”Paragraph 4.9 [...] a Pricing Error [...]. It seems to me to be unlikely that all the activity involved in opening a trade, checking the subsequent closing price, deciding to give a closing instruction to take a profit, and then giving that instruction, could be completed within 29 seconds. The speed with which Mr Sacrificial Lamb completed the trades suggests that he might have known the closing price and had made the decision to close, before he placed the order to buy. It is my view that if the firm had allowed Mr Sacrificial Lamb to close the position at the price he tried to, the gain he would have made, would have been made as a result of him taking advantage of prices that he either knew or should have known were errors. In the circumstances I consider that it was not unreasonable for the firm to regard this particular trade to be in breach of its terms of business and accordingly, void the trades.”

It was not pricing error and it was the first time I heard about that excuse. I cited MIFID and told him that in that case he should’ve cancelled the trade, and that was exactly my claim. He cannot rule a pricing error and leave the trade intact. He didn’t recognize that it isn’t enough to agree with the prevention of my exit, he should’ve voided the entry as well. He alluded to an unrelated paragraph which supported my claim, i.e. the cancellation of the trade, but was able to reject my complaint after all. The prejudice was undeniable.

The adjudicator tried again 3 months later:

”In my adjudication I made reference to the firm's terms and conditions in paragraph 4.9, and that the firm had voided your trades on the basis that they were in breach of its terms of business. I now understand that this was not the case. You had pointed this out to me in your email and I apologise for not having addressed it sooner. There was no price error at the time of your disputed trade. [...] I have quoted below from an email received from the firm, which explains this.

‘I've looked at the emails you have forwarded on from Mr Sacrificial Lamb. [...] There was no pricing error on our platform at this time. I believe terms 4.18 and 4.19 would have been a more relevant term for you to quote than 4.9.’

Please accept my apologies for the confusion caused by my misunderstanding of the situation. I have attached a copy of the firm's terms and conditions so that you can see that which relates to your case (4.18 and 4.19). Despite my previous misunderstanding of the reason your trade failed, I am still unable to recommend that your complaint should be upheld.”

As you can see, the firm told him outright which paragraph to quote to reject my complaint, and he did. First, he tried to find a paragraph voluntarily to reject my claim, next time, he asked the firm what paragraph to use and he accepted the advice without hesitation. The strong bias and incompetence were undeniable. Was there any chance that the adjudicator picks a paragraph supporting the firm’s version and rules in my favour?

Another 4 months later he asked me to explain the story again, then he questioned the firm and forwarded their reply to me for comment. I saw that he asked the firm:

”I do not understand how the 'one pip deviation' works. Can you explain....”

Seriously? That was the core of the problem. He just confessed that he didn’t understand anything when he made his decisions. It is the evidence that the case wasn’t investigated, he just picked a paragraph to reject the complaint.

Beyond that the firm told him that my orders were not executed despite the 1 PIP deviation, because the PIP deviation is on the fifth decimal place of the quote. It is not true. Actually, the 1/10 PIP deviation is on the fifth decimal place.

The adjudicator promised to make a new decision at the beginning of each month, but another 4 months later I received an email from a new adjudicator, who didn’t say a single word about the subject of the complaint, just sent the case to the ombudsman without explanation. Don’t you believe me? Here is his entire adjudication:

“I am the adjudicator who is looking at your complaint in Colin Phillip’s absence. Having looked through the file, I believe that you were not given a reasonable amount of notice to close your account. The firm gave you a week’s notice of this on Friday 16 March 2012 in a letter that was sent to you in Hungary. It would have been unlikely that the letter would have reached you until Wednesday 21 March 2012 at the earliest. I do not consider this notice to be reasonable in the situation and I believe an additional £150 on top of the £100 already suggested should be awarded for the distress and inconvenience caused. Could you let me know any thoughts or comments on this proposal by 6 January 2014 at the latest please? As the complaint is currently at the ombudsman stage, I will be passing the complaint to the ombudsman at that date.”

I asked him in 9 different emails to address the evidences, but he refused. I proved that the firm lied about the disputed trade and I proved that the firm lied about the closure of my account, but they didn’t say a single word about these facts. They didn’t address any evidence and didn’t answer any question. That is why the ombudsman was the first person to deal with the fifth decimal place lie.

The ombudsman:

PIP (percentage in point) is the base unit of the foreign exchange market. It is the fourth decimal place of the foreign exchange quote (or second in the case of the JPY).

When the firm lied that PIP relates to the fifth decimal place of the quote, I told to the adjudicator that I set the fourth decimal place as 1, and called it 1 PIP, because that is 1 PIP. Then I thought, after the ‘professional’ adjudications, I have to be prepared for the impossible, thus I have submitted evidences to prove that 1 PIP is the fourth decimal place of the quote, and proved with the firm’s own data that the firm itself uses the term as I do, i.e. the fourth decimal place of the quote. I thought there won’t be any problem with this issue. I couldn’t have imagined what came after that. The ombudsman picked this issue to be the crucial one and rejected my complaint, saying he found a major player using the term ‘1 PIP’ as the fifth decimal place of the quote, therefore my fourth decimal place assumption is wrong. Of course, the ombudsman lied. He falsified evidence.

He started his conclusion with a harsh mockery:

”I have considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint.”

Then he went ahead:

”[…] When placing a trade the trading system allows a trader to specify a limit for how much the price can slip between the order being input and executed. If the price moves by more than the agreed amount then the trade will be rejected. Mr Sacrificial Lamb set this limit as 1 pip. […]

The business has said that a pip relates to the fifth decimal place. Mr Sacrificial Lamb considers that it relates to the fourth. […] This complaint arises from the different views of what the definition of a ‘pip’ is. Mr Sacrificial Lamb has quoted various information sources to support his view that it relates to the fourth decimal place. […] If the business’s definition of the term was unusual then I would expect this to be made clearer to clients.

I have checked how other businesses define the term. One major player in these markets defines a pip in the same way as Mr Sacrificial Lamb i.e. the fourth decimal place of a quote. However, another major player defines it as follows ‘Pip stands for percentage in point, the smallest increment by which a Forex cross price changes.’

I am therefore satisfied that there is no accepted definition of the term pip and that it is therefore reasonable to have expected Mr Sacrificial Lamb to establish the definition used by the business rather than make an assumption as to what it was.

Because of this I am satisfied that the business acted correctly in not executing Mr Sacrificial Lamb’s trades.”

Who is that unnamed major player? And what is the source of that intentionally misinterpreted one sentence quote? All I can see is that I have submitted various evidences to prove my point, but I cannot see anything against that point. Only the ombudsman cited the ‘pip stands for percentage in point, the smallest increment by which a Forex cross price changes’ quote, where as early as the next sentence makes it clear that 1 PIP is the fourth decimal place of the quote. The bias is undeniable. Again.

If you think it was an innocent mistake, dear FOS employee, just think it over:
(i) The ombudsman didn’t care that I undisputedly proved my point, using the financial firm’s own data, that even they consider 1 PIP being the fourth decimal place of the quote. How was it possible to ignore those conclusive evidences?
(ii) The ombudsman didn’t disclose his evidence in his decision, despite his obligation to do that.
(iii) I had to file a Freedom of Information Act request to see his evidence and they sent me an internet link which proved my point.
http://www.saxobank.com/support/financial-glossary/pip “Pip stands for percentage in point, the smallest increment by which a Forex cross price changes. Most currency pairs are quoted to four decimal places, meaning that a movement from 1.1850 to 1.1851 for a currency pair would constitute one pip. For a particular position, you can calculate the value of a single pip using the above formula. For instance, you know that the EUR/USD is quoted with four decimals, so for a given position you can multiply the position amount by the value of one pip, or USD 0.0001. So, on a EUR/USD 100,000 contract, one pip would equal USD 10. On a USD/JPY 100,000 contract, one pip is equal to JPY 1000 because USD/JPY is quoted with only two decimals (meaning one pip = JPY 0.01).”
How is that! He ruled that 1 PIP is the fifth decimal place of the quote by using an internet link which proves that 1 PIP is the fourth decimal place of the quote. Using this internet link my complaint should’ve been upheld.
(iv) When I pressured them to show me evidence supporting the ombudsman’s point, not my point, after two weeks silence, they confessed that they have nothing to support the ombudsman’s decision.
(v) Whenthe ombudsman couldn’t find anything to support his preconception, he falsified evidence to side with the financial firm. The purposefulness is undeniable because he tried to keep the alluded fake evidence hidden, despite his obligation to disclose it. He quoted only the first general sentence to make a false pretence.
(vi) I have never been provided with any evidence to support the rejection of the complaint. It was the interpretation of the ombudsman, they said, to use an info which proved my point as an evidence to reject the complaint.

So, it wasn’t a mistake. It is clear that the ombudsman knew exactly what he did. The guy is so arrogant he didn’t even care to seem to be fair. He knows he is untouchable. No one will call him to account for this fraud.

Let me summarize this nonsense again: I proved with the financial firm’s own data that the firm itself considers the fourth decimal place to be the 1 PIP value, as everyone else does.The ombudsman said the firm’s fifth decimal place interpretation is not unusual because he found someone using it the same way…… and cited the definition of the fourth decimal place 1 PIP value from a public glossary. Was it fair and reasonable?

I tried to discuss the problem with the ombudsman’s team, but they didn’t even reply.

Service complaint:

Let me explain how the system works. The adjudicators and the ombudsmen have to include in their ruling the magical “I have considered all the available evidences and arguments to decide what is fair and reasonable” statement (or something similar), then you can go anywhere, they are going to allude to that statement as undoubted truth.

Do you know what ’catch 22’ is? You will never be able to address bias or incompetence, because you cannot prove these accusations without quoting issues from your case. And when you quote issues from your case to prove your accusations, they refuse to answer, saying that they cannot comment on the case. Sometimes they just deny the bias out of the blue without addressing the overwhelming evidences of the opposite, but you will never ever get any answer when you try to address the outrageous incompetence. I bolded, coloured, then increased the text size of my main points. It didn’t help. They always found everything addressed and well explained regardless of the facts. Every time when they made these false statements I urged them to show me only one addressed argument in the adjudications. Of course, they couldn’t. They made countless false statements. I felt like their enemy, not their customer.

The team manager and my service complaint:

”Your 'complaints about our service' factsheet says: "if you think that in handling your case we have: treated you unfairly, failed to explain things properly....".
I was treated unfairly, the problem has never been addressed, they mishandled the case, broke the rules of the procedure and they were seriously biased…

(1) …when the adjudicator approached the case with preconception, picked a paragraph voluntarily and rejected my complaint when actually that paragraph (4.9) supported my complaint. To reject a complaint with a supporting paragraph one has to be seriously biased.
(2) …when the adjudicator, after his failed adjudication, accepted the firm's advice without considering or at least understanding my point. The firm told him: "I believe terms 4.18 and 4.19 would have been a more relevant term for you to quote than 4.9". He changed the alluded paragraph and left his decision unchanged. He did not address any of my arguments and did not explain his decision.
(3) …when the adjudicator failed to do anything after I proved with documents, that the firm lied to the Ombudsman Service in relation to both parts of my complaint. He should have addressed that issue, either by recognizing it or explaining why it is irrelevant.
(4) …when the new adjudicator agreed with the first erroneous adjudication and sent it for ombudsman review without any reasoning. Actually, he repeatedly refused to explain his decision.
(5) …when the new adjudicators considered it irrelevant, that the firm lied to the Ombudsman Service in relation to both parts of my complaint. He did not even mention this development.
(6) …when the adjudicators have not taken any of my evidences into account during this 21 months. If you think that I am wrong, please show me where they have done.
(7) …when the adjudicators refused to answer all of my questions related to the subject of the complaint. If you think that I am wrong, please show me where.

The summary of the 1479 words reply:

“Turning now to your concerns about the way that we have investigated, I have found no evidence that the adjudicator was in any way biased in favour of the firm or that he ignored your evidence.”

Did he read my service complaint? Trust me, it was the only one sentence addressing my concerns presented above. His reply was a chronological journal of the events and he blamed everything on me. He dedicated that one sentence to my whole service complaint, denying everything. As you can see, he didn’t waste his time to explain why the items I presented above were too irrelevant to address.

Let me quote this once again for you. I stated the proven fact:
”To reject a complaint with a supporting paragraph one has to be seriously biased.”
He said: “I have found no evidence that the adjudicator was in any way biased...”
No comment.

I couldn’t resist to ask again:

”Please show me where the evidences were addressed.”

Can you spot the whereabouts of any addressed evidence in his full, arrogant response?

“the adjudicator issued his opinion based of the evidence which had been submitted by the parties and he provided his reasons to you. The Ombudsman will now review the matter afresh and he will decide if the adjudicator has overlooked any evidence and he may weigh that evidence differently. Please let me know whether you would like me to arrange the payment of £150 by cheque or by BACS. If I haven’t heard from you by 31 January I will arrange to send a cheque.”

Not a single addressed evidence. He practically told me to take the £150 and to shut my mouth, without offering the chance to escalate the issue.

And another gem from the team manager: ”as the adjudicator had told you that your case was going to the ombudsman, I feel that he should not have entered into further discussion at this time, leaving it for the ombudsman to decide if further enquiries were required.”
He was referring to the adjudicator’s fundamentally wrong decision, when he impartially rejected my complaint with an unrelated paragraph which supported my claim. The team manager clearly stated that an admittedly wrong decision is not a problem, the adjudicator should’ve left it at that without further discussion. Fair play is not a concern, closing the case is. It is also clear that when the team manager, after so many months without any progress, allocated the case to a new adjudicator, he ordered him to send the complaint to the ombudsman without addressing anything. It practically meant that the ombudsman was the first person to deal with the fifth decimal place lie. Not that it matters at all.

Their website says: “The team manager will try to put right – as quickly as possible – anything we have done wrong.”
I don’t think that this team manager has read it. Neither this quote nor my service complaint.

Since no one was able to show me any addressed evidence, not to mention the ridiculous denial of the proven prejudice, I escalated the service complaint to the senior manager.

The senior manager and my escalated service complaint:

“Your ‘complaint about our service’ factsheet says: ‘If we get things wrong, it is important that you tell us, so we can try to put matters right. This also helps us improve our service for other customers’. In fact, you did your best to disregard and ignore my arguments, additionally you made false statements. It surely will not help to improve your service.

- You made a false statement that you could not find ignored evidence, meanwhile you recognized that I sent evidences. I urged you many times to show me one addressed evidence. You failed to do that but you keep making false statements about it. Not a single one of my evidences and arguments was addressed.
- You said you could not find evidence of the biased attitude. I did show you many in my complaint. Please see points 1 - 7. How could my whole complaint about your service escape your observation?
- I proved with documents that the firm lied to the ombudsman service. Not only you all have never addressed that fact, you all did not even answer to me. How could you completely ignore that point of my complaint?
- The adudicator was unable to put his findings into words, even after I proved that the firm lied. The adjudicator rejected my complaint two times and 8 months later he asked the firm: ‘I do not understand how the 'one pip deviation' works. Can you explain...’. The one pip deviation is the core of the problem. How could he make two decisions without understanding that problem?
-The adjudicators proved to be completely incompetent, while the team manager disregarded my concerns without addressing them. They did not understand anything about this case. They did not address a single evidence. They did not answer a single question regarding the subject of the complaint. They did not explain their decisions. Actually, they repeatedly refused to do these things. My understanding is, even if they had any thoughts about the subject, they would be unable to put their thoughts into sentences. They did not even try.”

Don’t you think that I did my best to address their incompetence? In the meantime, I received the ombudsman’s fifth decimal place fraudulent decision, I found the origin of that one sentence quote (Saxo Bank) in a minute and I sent some heated comments to the ombudsman’s team. Those comments and my escalated service complaint landed on the desk of the senior manager. She replied to both issues:

“I understand you feel both adjudicators did not address all of the points you raised in your submissions. But it isn’t the role of the adjudicator or ombudsman to answer every question that you may wish to ask. Instead it is their role to address what they consider the main issues.”

No, I don’t feel that they didn’t address all of the points I raised. I know that they didn’t address any of the points I raised. The first adjudicator rejected the complaint with an unrelated paragraph which supported my claim, while the second adjudicator just sent the case to the ombudsman without explanation. At least, they should’ve told me why they considered everything irrelevant. They didn’t address anything and they didn’t answer any question. They were unable to show me any proof of the opposite when I asked them many times.

The senior manager also said: “I am satisfied that the team manager responded to your concerns appropriately.”
Did he? I just brought so many issues here to prove that he ignored my service complaint as a whole. He denied everything in one sentence.

She said: “In his final decision, the ombudsman also confirmed he considered all of the available evidence before reaching a decision he considered to be fair and reasonable – as he was required to do.”
Oh, the magic sentence. How sick this system is! I undisputedly proved my point using the firm’s own data. What about those evidences? The ombudsman obviously ignored them without any explanation. How can the senior manager use the ombudsman’s false statement to support him?

She added disgracefully: “I am satisfied that both adjudicators acted impartially and provided you with the reasons for each of the conclusions that they reached.”
No comment. That was way too low even of her. The level of service reached a new bottom.

And finally: ”We take complaints about our service very seriously…”
Ah, the world famous morbid British humour.

As you could see I emphasized the incompetence issue in my escalated service complaint. Do you see her addressing that anywhere or at least mentioning it? Not a single word about that topic. We have a written confession that 8 months after his two rejecting decisions the adjudicator didn’t understand anything about the case. I wrote about that in my escalated service complaint. Yet the senior manager completely ignored the incompetence issue. And the bias concern as well. I wonder why the adjudicator and the ombudsman didn’t pick a paragraph supporting the firm’s version and rule in my favour. It could happen, couldn’t it?

Service complaint example:

How they dealt with a specific issue. The adjudicator pretended not to receive my email I sent 20+ times, while he answered from the same mailbox when he was asked about the 20+ emails. I told him that finally I had sent it to the main complaint.info mailbox and got the automatic acknowledgement message. Then miracle happened, he received my email.

Responding to my service complaint the team manager denied the fact:
"in fact you had already replied but to a different email address at this office”.

The senior manager said:
"The team manager said you had sent emails to a different email address at this office in response to the adjudicator's email. I am sorry this statement was incorrect and for any concern this caused. While I have no doubt you sent the emails directly to the adjudicator, for some reason he didn’t receive them".

Finally the reply from the Independent Assessor:
“I cannot add further complaint points now my review and Opinion has been issued as it was final. That means I cannot now look into further points from you. Any further correspondence from you will be read and placed on file but I will not be responding to any further correspondence.”

That was all. Two conflicting explanations and the Independent Assessor absolutely ignored the issue. At least they were loyal to their tradition and didn’t address anything. It was an unquestionable service complaint but they disregarded it and covered the mess up. Again. I thought missing 20+ emails in a statutory procedure is a serious issue, but there was no way to address that problem. They can delete your correspondence if they see fit without consequences. Do you see how corrupt this public agancy is?

My Freedom of Information Act request:

The FOS employees refused to answer my reasonable questions, so I decided to put some pressure on the issue that the ombudsman’s evidence wasn’t disclosed in the decision. I made a request under the Freedom of Information Act, asking the ombudsman’s team to disclose the evidence which was used to reject my complaint. The senior manager’s team sent me this link, discussed earlier:
http://www.saxobank.com/support/financial-glossary/pip

I expressed my objection, but they refused to comment. I repeated my request, saying that the link proves my version, so it obviously couldn’t be used to reject my complaint. It took them two weeks to reply. Of course, they couldn’t come up with anything. They confessed that there is no evidence to prove the rejection of my complaint.

“The ombudsman has confirmed that we have no further relevant information that has not been disclosed to you and […] there is no one at this service who can review how he interpreted this information. […] Because of this going forward I will not be responding to any correspondence you send unless it relates to new issues.”
Was it the confession of the fraud?

I misunderstood the two weeks silence before I received their answer, therefore I had lodged an official Freedom of Information Act request with their Information Rights Officer:
“Please provide me with the information (evidence) which convinced the ombudsman that the fifth decimal place of the foreign exchange quote is the 1 pip value”.
In the meantime, I learnt from the Independent Assessor that she had discussed the issue with the Information Rights Officer, so I expected them to tell me the same, i.e. they have no more relevant data. The Information Rights Officer surprised me:
“[…] unfortunately I am unable to provide you with the information that you have requested. […] This information constitutes your own personal data because it identifies and relates to you”.
She advised me to file a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act and pay £10 fee. The Information Rights Officer knew that the data doesn’t exist, yet she wrongly qualified it as my personal data and asked me to pay £10 for it.

I asked them to review their reply.
“[…] We are talking about the base unit (1 PIP) of the foreign exchange market, and that who uses the term in what way. […] It would be widely available public information, if it existed. It is not personal data, it does not identify me. […] On the other hand, in the Financial Ombudsman Service’s Director’s Report and Financial Statements 2010-2011, the previous Independent Assessor, Linda M Costelloe Baker, stated (page 64.): ”[…] complainants are entitled to copies of evidence that the Ombudsman would rely on in order to reach a decision and I recommended that the £10 fee should be refunded.”

They were able to surprise me again:
“The only information this service holds in relation to your request can be found within your complaint file. Having looked through this information I am satisfied you have been provided with this information previously. As this information is already accessible to you, section 21(1) of the Act says we do not have to provide it to you. […] This is because all the information in relation to your request has been sent to you in the form of an email […] We do not hold any further information in relation to your request.”

‘In relation to my request’, she said. As a reminder, my request was the data proving the fifth decimal place nonsense. What do you think? Have I received any data in relation to my request, i.e. proving the fifth decimal place theory? The wording is intentionally deceptive. I obviously have never received any data ‘in relation to my request’. Suggesting otherwise is dishonest. I haven’t been provided with any evidence that could be used to support the ombudsman’s decision. First they wanted me to make a Subject Access Request and paying £10 for the non-existent info, now they say I already have that info so they will not provide it to me. However, this horse was obviously dead, so I stopped beating it.

Independent Assessor:

I am going to spend more time discussing this useless window dressing position, because she is supposed to be independent from the FOS structure. I let you decide.

Their ’complaint about our service’ factsheet says ”if you’re not happy with the service you’ve received If we get things wrong, it is important that you tell us, so we can try to put matters right. This also helps us improve our service for other customers. We want to know if, for example, you think that in handling your case we have: treated you rudely or unfairly; failed to explain things properly; or caused unnecessary delay.”

That is what I tried to do. Addressing the unfair treatment, unexplained things, i.e. bias and incompetence. I cited issues, most of them presented here earlier, to prove these accusations. Obviously, I didn’t ask her to comment on those issues, I used them to prove my point. This is how I started my service complaint:




And so on. Isn’t it clear? Yet the Independent Assessor flat out refused to deal with my service complaint.
The bottom line of her reply: “You will see that the Ombudsman Service explained that I can look into complaints of poor service. Service complaints are about practical handling problems for example; the Ombudsman Service writing to the wrong address or taking too long. Most of the complaints that you made to me is about the merits of your complaint […] You have not made a service complaint that falls into my Terms of Reference so I will not be able to investigate your concerns.”
Of course, she didn’t even mention bias or incompetence in her refusal, although I devoted almost the full complaint to prove their bias and incompetence. But that doesn’t surprise us anymore, does it? Is bias accusation not about the practical handling of the case? Is there any way to address bias and incompetence in this corrupt system? I wasn’t smart enough to find that way.

They loudly stated everywhere on their website that they are so eager to improve their service that they want to hear our feedback to reach this majestic aim. I took that literally. For that reason I recommended to hire at least one adjudicator with some market experience. I think it is indisputable that these guys were absolutely clueless. Not so fast, as the always helpful independent assessor said:
”I also do not become involved in the day to day running of the Ombudsman Service. I would not therefore be able to comment on what experience it looks for in the Adjudicator’s it chooses to recruit”.
Another bad excuse. The qualification and experience are strategic questions, have nothing to do with the day to day running of an agency. But I understand she wanted to disregard my proposal in accordance with her capabilities.

The truth is that the Financial Ombudsman Service’s Director’s Report and Financial Statements 2012-2013 says on page 42:
“The independent assessor meets with members of the executive team and the Board on a formal basis quarterly, and at other times as appropriate. During these meetings the independent assessor’s feedback and recommendations are discussed, as well as any underlying themes in the complaints she has received – and the action that is being taken to address them”.
What a surprise! She wasn’t sincere, to say the least. It is her duty to report these problems. But wait! There is more. She alluded to her Terms of Reference. Let’s see her Terms of Reference:
“17) Each year, the independent assessor will report to the board of the ombudsman service on the number and nature of the complaints they have received”.
It seems there are more ways to report a problem. Again, it is not only possible but it is her duty to report these problems. I underline the fact that I suggested ‘it would not cost anything to hire at least one adjudicator’. I didn’t say higher level of qualification for all the clueless, I said one guy with some market experience, for god’s sake. At least that one guy could reject complaints properly, in a workmanlike manner. Obviously, they don’t want to improve their service. On the other hand, they won’t ever recognize the incompetence issue hence they won’t ever do anything to fix this problem.

The Independent Assessor again:

I contacted her office again when I recognized that the ombudsman’s decision dated 2 days before my deadline to submit my opinion for the ombudsman’s review expired. She said the date is wrong. Additionally she said:
“I can see that the Ombudsman stated “I have considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint”. Therefore, it seems that regardless of when the Ombudsman wrote his decision, he took all of the evidence you submitted into account.”
Oh no! Not the magic sentence again! It convinced the senior manager and it was enough to convince the independent assessor as well. The ombudsman made a fair and reasonable decision, because he said so. He considered all the available evidences, because he said so. Hilarious. Is it really an argument? How can someone, claimed to be independent, alluding to the unfounded statement of one side (the ombudsman) to disregard the evidences of the other side (me)? I say again, an ’independent’ someone. Have I mentioned yet that she is ’independent’? It is not important what date you have on an official document. It doesn’t matter if they are the one breaching the deadline. The date on the legal document refers to when the document becomes official. The ombudsman’s decision had become official two days before my deadline expired.

On the other hand, do you recognize that she commented on the case?
”Regardless of when the Ombudsman wrote his decision, he took all of the evidence you submitted into account,” she said. Earlier, when I complained about their bias citing unaddressed evidences and fundamentally wrong decisions, she vehemently refused to deal with my complaint, saying that she cannot comment on the case. Oh, wait. Now she defended the ombudsman, so she can comment on the case. Using the ombudsman’s own stock phrases to defend the ombudsman clearly describes the integrity and the independence of the independent assessor.

The Independent Assessor again:

I contacted her office third time after I requested the disclosure of the evidence but I didn’t 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 is no disclosed evidence in the rejecting decision. I think you are in agreement with me that if your complaint is rejected, at least, you want to see the used evidence.

Well, the independent assessor didn’t agree:
“I explained in my previous correspondence which complaints of poor service I was able to review. I cannot add further complaint points now my review and Opinion has been issued as it was final. That means I cannot now look into further points from you. Having said that I don’t think the issues you wanted me to look at are something I could have reviewed. The Ombudsman has confirmed this was the evidence he used to base his decision. You may disagree with his interpretation of the evidence but that was a matter for his use of judgement which is not something I can comment on”.

She was talking about the Saxo Bank link. So, the ombudsman took the description of the fourth decimal place 1 PIP value, he used it to prove his fifth decimal place nonsense and the independent assessor says it isn’t bias or fraud, it is interpretation. I wonder why this unique approach isn’t advertised on their website. If you want to defend her, think it over. I tried to address fraud and bias, because the concealment of the fake evidence clearly proves the purposefulness.

The Independent Assessor again:

Here is something from their website:
”Sir Nicholas Montagu, chairman of the ombudsman service, welcomed Ms Somal to her new role, saying: The independent assessor plays a vital role - not only in providing people who are unhappy with our service with recourse to an independent review, but also in helping us focus more widely on where we could improve the experience of all our customers. Amerdeep brings a wealth of experience from a career which has covered a wide range of subjects, from the criminal justice system to domestic violence and disability. This, coupled with her independence, judgement and integrity, equips her ideally for the role of Independent Assessor.”
Beautiful words, I almost cried. I contacted her office last time because I didn’t give up to see her independence and integrity. I tried to address the supposedly deleted 20+ emails that I mentioned earlier. I explained the team and senior managers unacceptable ignorance and the two conflicting, false explanations. Finally, I had some questions:
”How is it possible to receive and answer my questions about the 20+ emails, but not receiving the 20+ emails in the same mailbox? Who received those 20+ emails with important informations if not the adjudicator? Why did the team and senior managers not even try to address the problem, only covered the issue up? Why did the team and senior managers present two conflicting explanations? Why did the team manager say that I sent the emails to a different mailbox? What did the senior manager mean by "for some reason he didn't receive them"? What kind of reasons? Is the technical error (if there was any) recognized, because I sent the messages to the right mailbox? What was done to make sure avoiding the same mistake in the future? I hope it constitutes a service complaint.”

Indeed, she used her wealth of experience to ignore the problem. The independent assessor didn’t even care to refute:
”As explained in my email of 7 May 2014. I cannot add further complaint points now my review and Opinion has been issued as it was final. That means I cannot now look into further points from you. Any further correspondence from you will be read and placed on file but I will not be responding to any further correspondence.”
Can you picture her wringing her hands because she wanted to help badly? It seemed to be exactly the opposite. Do you see the huge contrast between the words of Sir Montagu and the reality? It seems they are allowed to delete your correspondence without any consequence. So where are my 20+ emails and why did they lie about the issue? We are not going to get any answer to that question.

On the other hand, she refused to deal with my service complaints again, saying that she had issued her review earlier. Let’s see her favourite excuse, her Terms of Reference:
“8) The independent assessor will not consider a complaint where: a) You have previously made a complaint to the independent assessor about the same issue.”
This is the part with the closest relevance, but the 20+ missing emails were a new, never addressed problem. She has never issued any opinion about the 20+ missing emails. There is nothing in her Terms of Reference to justify her refusal to deal with my service complaint. She used a false excuse again to disregard a real service issue. Do you see how she uses her famous wealth of experience?

I think I demonstrated that the independent assessor is not independent and she has no integrity. She is part of the complaint rejecting machine. I think she has very limited authority, but she covers the mess up happily. The system is designed to be insufficient. The Independent Assessor is appointed and paid by the board of the FOS, by the organisation she is supposed to oversee. How would she be independent? On the other hand, the opportunism of the independent assessor is truly remarkable.

The falsified statistics:

According to the Wikipedia, they claim to uphold 49% of the complaints. My complaint is published on their website as an upheld complaint. They rejected my £5,000 claim and ordered the financial firm to pay £100 for a minor issue. The £5,000 amount is not even mentioned in the published decision. This is how a £5,000 fraudulently rejected complaint is posted on the FOS’s website as a £100 upheld complaint. Do you think I overreacted the situation? Let’s see:

20 Dec 2012 first adjudication: “my opinion is that I cannot recommend that Mr Sacrificial Lamb’s complaint be upheld […] I believe a sum of £100 is reasonable”.

26 March 2013 second adjudication: “Despite my previous misunderstanding of the reason your trade failed, I am still unable to recommend that your complaint should be upheld”.

16 Jan 2014 the team manager said: ”Mr Phillips issued his opinion to both parties which was that your case should be substantially rejected and that a small payment of £100 should be paid to you”.

Yet the conclusion of the ombudsman: ”My final decision is that I uphold Mr Sacrificial Lamb’s complaint in part. I order the firm to pay him the sum of £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused”.

Which part of my complaint was upheld? Distress or inconvenience was not part of my complaint. They awarded £100 to publish the case as upheld.

We are talking about the same complaint and the same decision. They did not change the decision, only the labelling of the complaint. It was a rejected £5,000 complaint with £100 payment, now it is an upheld complaint with £100 payment. It is published on the FOS’s website as a £100 upheld complaint, without mentioning the £5,000 amount. People reading the decision will not recognize that my £5,000 claim is rejected. It is not an upheld complaint.

Don’t you think that their numbers are fake?

I reported their fraud to the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and to the Action Fraud. I wrote this letter for the fun.

Subject: The legitimate fraud. Running an organized crime syndicate or the malfunction of a public agency.

Sent to: (1) Serious Fraud Office (SFO)
(2) Action Fraud

Dear Fraud Hunters,

For the last more than two years I have been the witness and the victim of a very dangerous fraud scheme. I am writing to you because I think your legislative power is necessary to stop the scheme, otherwise people will lose their faith in the system. The public must be made aware of this fraud and I understand that it is my duty to report it. It is a new type of fraud where the fraudster is a public agency which pretends to be fair and impartial. The number of the victims could reach hundreds of thousands and many of them do not even recognize that they were defrauded. This agency seems to be above the law. They can do practically anything, they say, the law is not a concern. It is a confidence trick to defraud the customers after gaining their trust. We rely on their false promises addressed at the bottom of this email. It is the interest of the wider public to know that these statements are actually false.

They produce most of the visible characteristics of a fraud (red flags) as explained on your (SFO) website:

- Internal controls that are not enforced: Check. I tried to address my valid concerns so many times during the two years procedure. They refused to recognize the problems.
- Missing documents: Check. They supposedly deleted one of my emails with important information 20+ times and refused to address that issue despite my numerous requests.
- Alterations on documents (e.g. back dating): Check. During the procedure I was given a deadline of 06. Jan. 2014 to submit my opinion, yet their final decision is dated 04. Jan. 2014. The date on the legal document refers to when the document becomes official. Their final decision had become official two days before my deadline expired. No one cares.
- One employee has control of a process from start to finish with no segregation of duties: Check. Despite my strong objection, their final decision was the first occasion my arguments were considered (well, some of them). A fraudulent decision was made and there is nowhere to appeal. No one oversees that corrupt employee. The system is intentionally created that way.

Of course, I am talking about the most dangerous organized crime syndicate, the Financial Ombudsman Service UK.

Please find the text with more details that I am willing to post on public forums attached.

The factual allegations:

Fraud Act 2006 c. 35, Section 4: Fraud by abuse of position.
“(1) A person is in breach of this section if he— (a) occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of another person, (b) dishonestly abuses that position, and (c) intends, by means of the abuse of that position— (i) to make a gain for himself or another, or (ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.”

The con artist:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, financial ombudsman;

PIP (percentage in point) is the base unit of the foreign exchange market. It is the fourth decimal place of the foreign exchange quote. To defend itself the financial firm lied that PIP relates to the fifth decimal place of the quote. The ombudsman (Michael Stubbs) rejected my complaint, saying that he found a major player using the term ‘1 PIP’ as the fifth decimal place of the quote, therefore my fourth decimal place assumption is wrong.

(i) The ombudsman did not care that I undisputedly proved my point, using the financial firm’s own data, that even the firm considers 1 PIP being the fourth decimal place of the quote. How was it possible to ignore those conclusive evidences?
(ii) The ombudsman did not disclose his evidence in the decision, despite his obligation to do that.
(iii) I had to file a Freedom of Information Act request to see his evidence and they sent me an internet link which proved my point.
http://www.saxobank.com/support/financial-glossary/pip
“Pip stands for percentage in point, the smallest increment by which a Forex cross price changes. Most currency pairs are quoted to four decimal places, meaning that a movement from 1.1850 to 1.1851 for a currency pair would constitute one pip. For a particular position, you can calculate the value of a single pip using the above formula. For instance, you know that the EUR/USD is quoted with four decimals, so for a given position you can multiply the position amount by the value of one pip, or USD 0.0001. So, on a EUR/USD 100,000 contract, one pip would equal USD 10. On a USD/JPY 100,000 contract, one pip is equal to JPY 1000 because USD/JPY is quoted with only two decimals (meaning one pip = JPY 0.01).”
He ruled that 1 PIP is the fifth decimal place of the quote by using an internet link which proves that 1 PIP is the fourth decimal place of the quote, as I stated. Using this internet link my complaint should have been upheld.
(iv) When I pressured them to show me evidence supporting the ombudsman’s point, not my point, after two weeks silence, they confessed that they have nothing to support the ombudsman’s decision.
(v) Whenthe ombudsman could not find anything to support his preconception, he falsified evidence to side with the financial firm. The purposefulness is undeniable because he tried to keep the alluded fake evidence hidden, despite his obligation to disclose it. He quoted only the first general sentence to make a false pretence.
(vi) I have never been provided with any evidence to support the rejection of my complaint. It was the interpretation of the ombudsman, they said, to use an info which proved my point as an evidence to reject my complaint.

As I said in my prologue, most of the customers do not recognize that they were defrauded by this immoral criminal group. It is because most of the time there are two options to pick from, hence they can side with the financial firms without any risk. In my case they picked an argument where there was no other side. They did not recognize that and their true nature was unveiled accordingly.

To make it clear: The ombudsman could not provide me with any data to support his decision because his theory does not exist. It was an irrational decision.

It was a wilful abuse of his power. He abused his position for career gain on his side, causing £5,000 loss on my side. There is no one in the system to oversee an ombudsman. Michael Stubbs knows that he can do anything without consequences. Considering how the associates in crime (the senior manager and the independent assessor) defended his fraudulent decision, it is clear that they act on instructions. That is how this crime syndicate operates. They are instructed to find in favour of the financial firms, they defend each other, they use the same stock phrases to disregard the pleas. The ombudsman is required to make a fair and reasonable decision, but he abused his position for personal career gain instead (to satisfy his superiors), causing financial loss to me.


Fraud Act 2006 c. 35, Section 3: Fraud by failing to disclose information.
”A person is in breach of this section if he – (a) dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is under a legal duty to disclose, and (b) intends, by failing to disclose the information - (i) to make a gain for himself or another, or (ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.”

The con artist:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, financial ombudsman;

The ombudsman failed to disclose his evidence when he rejected my complaint, despite his legal duty to do that. I have never been provided with any data to support the rejection of my complaint. How can this decision be in effect at all? Not to disclose his fake evidence was the crucial requirement to reject my complaint. He could not have dismissed my claim with his argument if he had disclosed his falsified evidence. Obviously, he failed to disclose information to cover his fraud.

The Crown Prosecution Service explains the ‘failure to disclose information’:
“There is no requirement that the failure to disclose must relate to "material" or "relevant "information, nor is there any de minimis provision. If a Defendant disclosed 90% of what he was under a legal duty to disclose but failed to disclose the (possibly unimportant) remaining 10%, the actus reus of the offence could be complete. Under such circumstances the Defendant would have to rely on the absence of dishonesty. [...] Prosecutors must be acutely aware of the public interest in such cases, bear in mind the relative standing of the parties and pay particular regard to any explanation for the failure given by the Defendant.”

In this case what the ombudsman failed to disclose was ’material’ and ’ relevant’. It was his only one, crucial, fake evidence.


Fraud Act 2006 c. 35, Section 2: Fraud by false representation.
“(1) A person is in breach of this section if he— (a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and (b) intends, by making the representation— (i) to make a gain for himself or another, or (ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss. (2) A representation is false if— (a) it is untrue or misleading, and (b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.”

The con artist:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, financial ombudsman;
E+W+N.I.
The Financial Ombudsman Service, and in this case Michael Stubbs, falsifies its statistics. My complaint is published on the FOS’s website as an upheld complaint (DRN0281948). They rejected my £5,000 claim and ordered the financial firm to pay £100 for a minor issue. The £5,000 amount is not even mentioned in the published decision. Please check the transformation of my complaint’s labelling during the case:

20 Dec 2012 first adjudication: “my opinion is that I cannot recommend that Mr Sacrificial Lamb’s complaint be upheld […] I believe a sum of £100 is reasonable”.

26 March 2013 second adjudication: “Despite my previous misunderstanding of the reason your trade failed, I am still unable to recommend that your complaint should be upheld”.

16 Jan 2014 the team manager said: ” The adjudicator issued his opinion to both parties which was that your case should be substantially rejected and that a small payment of £100 should be paid to you”.

Yet the conclusion of the ombudsman: ”My final decision is that I uphold Mr Sacrificial Lamb’s complaint in part. I order the firm to pay him the sum of £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused”.

Which part of my complaint was upheld? Distress or inconvenience was not part of my complaint. They awarded £100 to publish the case as upheld.

We are talking about the same complaint and the same decision. They did not change the decision, only the labelling of the complaint. It was a rejected £5,000 complaint with £100 payment, now it is an upheld complaint with £100 payment. It is published on the FOS’s website as a £100 upheld complaint, without mentioning the £5,000 amount. People reading the decision will not recognize that my £5,000 claim is rejected. It is not an upheld complaint.

Their statistics are obviously fake. The Financial Ombudsman Service falsely represents its numbers to gain the trust of the potential victims, exposing them to a risk of loss. By loss I mean if I had known two years ago what I know now, I would not have lodged this complaint with the FOS. I wasted two years when apparently I did not have any chance to get fair treatment. After the wasted two years (and lost hope in the system) I did not have the energy and the motivation to take the case to the Small Claims Court. Their mission is accomplished. Considering the way the ombudsman reached his decision, it is clear that I have never had any chance to get fair treatment. They misled me with the false representation of their statistics.


Fraud Act 2006 c. 35, Section 4: Fraud by abuse of position.
“(2) A person may be regarded as having abused his position even though his conduct consisted of an omission rather than an act.”

The con artists:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, independent assessor;
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, senior manager;
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, team manager;

Let me explain how the associates in crime operate in this crime syndicate through an example. The adjudicator supposedly deleted one of my emails with important information 20+ times.

Responding to my service complaint the team manager denied the fact, saying: "in fact you had already replied but to a different email address at this office”.

The senior manager said: "The team manager said you had sent emails to a different email address at this office in response to the adjudicator's email. I am sorry this statement was incorrect and for any concern this caused. While I have no doubt you sent the emails directly to the adjudicator, for some reason he didn’t receive them".

Finally the reply of the Independent Assessor: “I cannot add further complaint points now my review and Opinion has been issued as it was final. That means I cannot now look into further points from you. Any further correspondence from you will be read and placed on file but I will not be responding to any further correspondence.”

That was all. Two conflicting explanations and the Independent Assessor ignored the issue completely. Where are those emails? I thought missing 20+ emails in a statutory procedure is a serious issue, but there was no way to address that problem. They covered the mess up. They can delete the client’s correspondence if they see fit without consequences.

You can see on the linked public forums that I tried to address serious service problems. I proved that they were biased. I proved that they treated me unfairly, failed to address key evidences, completely failed to explain their actions and mishandled the case. Not to mention their incompetence. The abovementioned con artists did their best to disregard my concerns by false statements, when it is their primary duty to address these problems.

This is how this crime syndicate works. They act on the instructions of their superiors, they commit fraud and they defend each other. They failed to do their duty. They all abused their positions by omission. They were motivated by their expected career gains.


Fraud Act 2006 c. 35, Section 2: Fraud by false representation.
“(1) A person is in breach of this section if he— (a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and (b) intends, by making the representation— (i) to make a gain for himself or another, or (ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss. (2) A representation is false if— (a) it is untrue or misleading, and (b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.”

The con artists:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, chairman;
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, board member;
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, board member;
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, board member;
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, board member;
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, board member;
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, chief executive & chief ombudsman (interim);
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, director of strategic service development;
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, director of finance and performance;
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, director of communications and customer insight;
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, operations director;
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, principal ombudsman and legal director;
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, director of human resources (HR) and organisational development;

The Financial Ombudsman Service misrepresents its true nature by false statements to gain the trust of the potential victims exposing them to a risk of loss, as I explained above in the case of the falsified statistics. It is not disclosed that they are allowed to make decisions without reference to the facts and evidences. It is not disclosed that there is no way to address any wrongdoing in this system. Apparently, they are advertising exactly the opposite. Not a single one of the allegations below is true. They misled me with their false representation regarding the followed principles and the goal of the agency.

The deceptive, false, misleading, unthruthful statements from the FOS website:

“We’ll listen to both sides of the story. And we’ll be honest.”
“our promise ... We won’t take sides and we’ll look at every problem with an open mind.”
“... settling disputes, without taking sides”
“We will always take account of what you tell us about the case.”
“Our job is to help settle individual disputes […] fairly, reasonably, quickly.”
“Our ombudsmen and adjudicators base their decisions on what they consider is the fair and reasonable approach in the particular circumstances of each individual case.”

Not true, as I presented in the attached document. Their preconception is proven fact. The adjudicator turned my complaint down with a paragraph which supported my claim and was not related to the case. Later, he had to withdraw his reasoning. The ombudsman rejected my complaint by opting for a non-existing theory. He did not disclose any data to support his decision, and later they confessed that they have no evidence to support his decision. I have never been provided with any data to support the rejection of the complaint. On the other hand, I proved my point perfectly with the financial firm’s own data. They ignored that. Their bias cannot be denied. They are not honest to say the least and they take sides. It was a fraudulent decision. Not fair, still less reasonable.

“putting knowledge and expertise at the heart of everything we do”

Not true, as I presented in the attached document. Actually, I cannot believe that they are able to write that down. They are absolutely clueless. They are not qualified and do not have any experience. It is recognized fact that the adjudicator and the ombudsman rejected my complaint using different arguments, but both arguments supported my claim. Using those arguments my complaint should have been upheld. The adjudicator has admitted in writing that he didn’t understand the case when he made his rejecting decisions. You cannot overestimate their incompetence. They did not understand anything about the case. They could not say a single word about the subject. It was their incompetence unmasking the preconception.

“we always try to explain our views and decisions clearly”

Not true, as I presented in the attached document. I asked them so many times to explain their decisions. I told them it is their duty to address evidences and explain their decisions. I filed a service complaint about that issue without any success. The ombudsman did not even disclose his evidence in his decision.

“We know that, as in any organisation, things can sometimes go wrong. Please tell us if this happens, so that we can put things right and learn from any mistakes.”
“we want to hear if you think, in handling the case, we have: treated you rudely or unfairly; failed to explain things properly”
“We take complaints about our service very seriously. If we get things wrong, it’s important that you tell us, so we can try to put matters right. This also helps us improve our service in future for other customers.”
“The team manager will try to put right – as quickly as possible – anything we have done wrong.”

Not true, as I presented in the attached document. When the adjudicator rejected my complaint with a paragraph which supported my claim, the team manager clearly stated that the admittedly wrong adjudication should be left intact and the adjudicator should not have discussed that issue with me. So much for putting things right. When the ombudsman got caught falsifying evidence and rejected my complaint with data which supported my claim (just like the adjudicator), instead of putting things right, he did not even reply to me. I tried to address the so many service problems, for example my supposedly deleted more than 20 emails with important data, but instead of putting things right, they ignored and disregarded the issues. And so on.

So, things obviously went wrong and I told them, as they asked. Did they put matters right and learn from the mistakes, as they promised? No, they did not even try. Exactly the opposite. They always found everything fully explained and addressed, even though they were unable to show me any proof of that statement, despite my repeated calls. They defend each other at all costs. They are blatantly lying even when facing conclusive evidences. They dishonestly covered up all the wrongdoings. They flat out rejected to put things right.


In conclusion, I would like to give expression to my hope that what I presented here deserves your attention. My case clearly proves that the Financial Ombudsman Service UK is entirely separated from any concept of checks and balances, accountability, fairness, or neutrality. For all the above mentioned reasons I would like to ask you to use your legislative power to guarantee the impartial functioning of this corrupt public agency, along with the enforcement of their internal controls or checks and balances.

Please find the text with more details that I am willing to post on public forums attached.

FOS case reference: 1150-7103

The ombudsman’s decision reference: DRN0281948

If you need the original documents please let me know. I am going to publish this email on public forums to reach the widest possible audience. Nevertheless, however things may turn out I will not hold my breath waiting for your response.

Yours sincerely,
The Sacrificial Lamb

Which broker is this you refer to?

LCG and its white label IntertraderMT4. I wanted to dedicate this thread to the FOS solely but the moderator changed the thread title.
The brokerage story is not unique, but the FOS is truly scandalous.

FWIW, i used this broker a few years ago - a part of tradefair i think it was. I made £1000 on an aud news trade, and they took it back. 12hrs later, then even alluding to a reuters screenshot, which there platform doesnt even use. According to FSA, they arent allowed to cancel trades, after so long. I wonder if they would have cancelled it if i lost £1000. I just left them.
In this industry though they are whitelabelling lots of other uk brokers (same $hit, different name):

London Capital Group
247 Markets
Accendo Trading
Capital CFDs
Capital Derivatives
Capital Forex
Capital Forex Pro
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
Web Trade India
XTB Spreads

Unusually strong words from an expert condemning the Financial Ombudsman Service.
http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/opin...012901.article

"I am constantly staggered at how this industry tolerates the waywardness and irrationality of the Financial Ombudsman Service."

"It is, of course, politically convenient to have some mechanism that satisfies consumers and their salaried advocates. Having such a mechanism is the important thing, ensuring that it is balanced and fair and follows the law appears to be of secondary importance."

It seems more and more of us come to this same conclusion.