Not upheld: Failure to identify vulnerability and intervene; irresponsible trading facilitation; failure to conduct affordability checks complaint against Plus500 UK Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr K complained that Plus500 failed to identify signs of vulnerability while he traded CFDs, resulting in losses of approximately £31,648. He argued the firm should have identified warning signs including credit card funding, failed payments, and increasing losses, and should have conducted further checks or intervened. Plus500 assessed CFD trading as appropriate based on Mr K's self-declared information in 2020 and 2024, and operated on an execution-only basis. The ombudsman found that Plus500 properly conducted appropriateness assessments, was entitled to rely on Mr K's consistent self-declared information, and that the account activity did not present a clear pattern of vulnerability requiring intervention in the context of high-risk CFD trading. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Plus500 carried out appropriate assessments in line with FCA rules and was entitled to rely on Mr K's self-declared information, which was consistent and not obviously doubtful. While individual account activity factors (credit card funding, unsuccessful payments, losses, repeated deposits) could indicate vulnerability in some circumstances, they do not automatically do so. In the context of a high-risk CFD trading account operated on an execution-only basis, these factors did not present a pattern that would reasonably have appeared unusual or indicative of harm. The FCA guidance on vulnerability does not require firms to assume vulnerability without clear indicators or to verify all aspects of a customer's financial position in an execution-only context. When Mr K did disclose his situation in March 2025, Plus500 appropriately restricted and closed the account.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website