Hi,

I think this is new to CAG.

I have a trading account with a forex broker.

i noticed a few trades on my ledger that I hadn't authorised.

On closer examination I discovered my son had been playing with my account.

He has a demo account and likes to pretend to trade,

but had used my live account a couple times on my iPad/iPhone.

My first instinct was to write it off and blame myself for not being diligent enough.

Then I came across a potential precedent.

SPREADEX LTD V COCHRANE [2012] EWHC 1290

http://www.druces.com/spreadex-vs-cochrane-online-terms-did-not-form-contract/

The case is a victory for the consumer over a forex broker for a few reasons.

- Contract was too onside and provided no benefit for the customer

- Unreasonable to expect the customer to read the dozens of pages of T&C which are hidden behind a checkbox on a sign up page. Goes against UTTCR according to the judge.

It's a long-shot but I have lodged a complaint with the broker asking for the trades to be refunded and quoted the case.

If they don't respond favourably I will try the FOS route.

As its high court, it is a precedent.

is your account with spreadex?

Sorry for the delay.

Been a busy year.

I have complained to my broker about the unauthorized trades and they are just leaning on their Terms and Conditions that I am responsible for all trades done on my account.

I’ve just opened a complaint with the FOS and sited the SpreadEX V Cochran’s case where it was ruled to be in breach of UTCCR. Fingers crossed.

FOS acknowledged my complaint will have a response or contact from them in 4 weeks.

Hope for the best. Just worried they are biased.

Not biased no, the concern here would be the access your son had to your account, which they may find is solely down to your lack of diligence.

They may see something different as did the judge in the cochran case but the FoS have no legal requirement to apply that ruling as a standard, thats reserved for the courts.

I have seen cases where FoS have been inconsistent even in their own findings, upholding one case and not upholding another where the circumstances are the same. Alot depends on the adjudicator.

That’s what worries me too. Will they be too dismissive and not thinking of the precedent.

Quick update, nothing really yet.

Just had a letter from the FOS saying they have asked the broker for a response.

The letter also mentioned that I should send in any additional information.

So I am going to put together a little bundle with screenshots and send it to them.

The FOS also asked if this is causing hardship.

Well it has had a knock on effect, is this worth highlighting?

Hardship would refer to say, did this cause you to be unable to provide food, heat, light etc

Update: The FOS are finally starting to look at the claim. I asked them about the likelihood of a successful complaint and the adjucator said it was doubtful.

Are they that much biased? There is a legal precedent. Will update when I hear more.

Just had a call from the FOS, they are not upholding the case. They completely ignored the legal precedent and said they were not bound by it.

Very disappointing.

as they will , they wont side with you upon these measures

time for a court claim me thinks...

As predicted the FOS caved in and wilted like a wet lettuce. Sided totally with the broker.

I've put the case out to tender with few solicitors. Will report back with anything they have to say.

wasted money you don't need a solicitor...…...

Yeah I know, but I don't know what I'm doing or where to look. Can't find any precedent.

Any insights?

Ok requested a information from the broker. I think there is a fundamental conflict of interest. They encourage capital deposits and take the opposing trading positions.

Will keep you posted.

Finding more evidence that Dealing Desk and Market Maker brokers have a fundamental conflict of interest. When you lose a trade they win and vice versa. They don't just make their profits on the spreads as they suggest.

Also the conflict of interest is never made clear or discussed apart from a small section in the terms and conditions which they make hard to read in a pop up window when applying for the account. Usual tick here to accept the T&C's

Some developments on European Regulation in the "Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID)".

Need to do more reading. Would be interesting if this could open the doors to claims against fx brokers. I don't think they have been straight with how clients funds are managed and their incentives for their clients to lose.

Does anyone know which part of the Consumer Rights Act touches on Conflicts of Interest. The more digging I do the more I find all forex brokers have a fundamental conflict of interest with their clients and the way they make money is through their clients loss.