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 morerelevant 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 (Kwong-Ning Chan), 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 [redacted]’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.

Let me write only one post about the underlying story. The foreign exchange brokerage rejected my position closing requests (8 times) on my online trading platform. I managed my exposure on another account and the disputed position was closed later with £5,000 loss. On the whole exposure, no loss was suffered. They said, the price wasn’t there to execute, I said, with my settings it should’ve been executed. They refused to investigate and advised me to leave the firm. I filed the complaint again, and their parent company closed my account. So, I lodged a complaint with the FOS. I complained about the mentioned disputed trade and the closure of the account.

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, but there was no way to address that problem. 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. It is proven fact that the ombudsman made an irrational decision and it was not a mistake. I am aware that it is a criminal offence. 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.