Not upheld: Other regulated complaint complaint against Capital Com (UK) Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr P complained that Capital Com (UK) Limited's spread betting account operations caused him losses, specifically regarding how hedging mode trades could be opened when his account was under margin call. Mr P argued that CC's website was unclear about whether hedging trades could be opened below 100% margin, and that the spread costs associated with hedging trades increased his risk of breaching the 50% margin close-out level. The ombudsman found that CC's policy was fair, that Mr P understood how hedging mode worked, and that his losses resulted from his own trading decisions and market movements rather than firm wrongdoing. The ombudsman upheld CC's offer of £685.66 compensation for complaint handling delays but rejected Mr P's claim for compensation for his trading losses.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while CC's website page on margin calls was silent regarding hedging mode treatment, this did not constitute a breach of policy or regulatory obligations. The ombudsman was satisfied that Mr P would have understood how hedging mode worked (valuation against bid and offer prices) and would have known his account position. The ombudsman concluded that trading decisions were Mr P's responsibility alone, and CC was not obligated to prevent him from breaching the 50% margin requirement. The losses resulted from market movements and pricing of positions, not from any firm wrongdoing. The ombudsman rejected the inference that CC's goodwill offer indicated wrongdoing.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website