”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.