Not upheld: Investment mis-selling complaint against OANDA Europe Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr P complained that his Singapore 30 trade was closed without his authorization on 14 August 2019, causing financial loss. OANDA investigated and found the closure order was placed from an iPhone with a traceable IP address and location, with no evidence of account compromise or unusual activity. Mr P disputed this, claiming he does not own an iPhone and the IP location does not match his residence. The ombudsman applied a balance of probabilities test and found that while Mr P's denial constituted evidence, it was outweighed by evidence the order originated from his account. Under the account terms, Mr P retained sole responsibility for account activity, and the ombudsman found no evidence of account compromise at OANDA's end. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied a balance of probabilities test, requiring Mr P to establish three elements: that he did not close the trade, that he did not place the closure order, and that OANDA was responsible for the closure. While Mr P's statement that he did not close the trade constitutes evidence, it was outweighed by evidence that the closure order originated from within his account. Mr P's assertions about not owning an iPhone and the IP location mismatch do not establish the required elements. Under the account terms, Mr P retained sole responsibility for account activity unless evidence showed otherwise. No evidence demonstrated account compromise at OANDA's end, and if compromise occurred at Mr P's end, he would bear responsibility.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website