Not upheld: Investment mis-selling complaint against Pepperstone Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr G complained that Pepperstone Limited caused him to lose money on his spread betting account, claiming the platform did not adequately explain how it worked and that two trades in September 2021 were executed incorrectly when he intended only partial closures. Mr G also complained that the firm allowed him to continue trading despite knowing he was experiencing anxiety due to losses. The ombudsman found that Pepperstone met its regulatory obligations, the order data showed trades were executed according to Mr G's instructions, and the firm acted reasonably by placing the account on 'close only' status after Mr G disclosed his anxiety. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Pepperstone met FCA regulatory obligations under COBS 10 by conducting an appropriateness assessment and providing risk warnings. The order data demonstrated that the trades executed matched the instructions Mr G provided, even if he did not intend the full closures. Although Pepperstone gave incorrect information on 27 September 2021, Mr G did not follow those instructions and instead placed an order to fully close the position. The firm acted reasonably by placing the account on 'close only' status after Mr G disclosed anxiety and stress.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website