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

Decision detail

Summary

Mr G complained to OANDA about £34,000 in trading losses on his leveraged trading account opened in August 2024. He argued he should not have been allowed to trade given his circumstances, claiming he lacked trading experience (someone else completed his application), was vulnerable due to a motorcycle accident and job losses, and that OANDA failed to conduct proper affordability checks or identify him as inexperienced. OANDA offered £2,750 as a partial refund for losses after December 2024. The ombudsman found that OANDA properly assessed Mr G's appropriateness through knowledge questions (8 of 9 correct) and was entitled to rely on his claimed prior trading experience. The ombudsman noted Mr G had prior trading experience with another company, had been trading for months with mixed results, and continued trading after raising concerns in December 2024. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that OANDA complied with COBS 10 requirements by assessing Mr G's appropriateness through questions about knowledge and experience. Mr G demonstrated sufficient knowledge by answering 8 of 9 questions correctly and claimed prior trading experience. Although someone else completed the application, OANDA was entitled to rely on the answers provided. The ombudsman noted that Mr G had prior trading experience with another company, had experienced losses before, and had been trading for 3-4 months with mixed results before raising concerns in December. The ombudsman concluded that Mr G was aware of the risks in practice, not just in principle, and that his continued trading after December 2024 was his own choice. The ombudsman found that while OANDA could have handled the December enquiry better, it would not have made a material difference given Mr G's demonstrated knowledge and experience.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website