Not upheld: Investment mis-selling complaint against Interactive Brokers (UK) Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6185273 of 2026-06-24T00:00:00+00:00. Investment mis-selling complaint against Interactive Brokers (UK) Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6185273 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-24T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Interactive Brokers (UK) Limited |
| Product | Investment |
| Claim type | Investment mis-selling |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | No remedy ordered. The ombudsman found no evidence that IBUK charged the premium twice, lacked transparency, or treated Mr H unfairly, and therefore did not require IBUK to take any action. |
Summary
Mr H complained that Interactive Brokers (UK) Limited (IBUK) double-charged him fees when his Long Put options were automatically exercised on 15 March 2025, resulting in the closure of his Long futures positions and a loss of approximately $875. Mr H argued that the option premium was already reflected in his net liquidity when purchased and was deducted again during exercise, constituting double charging. IBUK rejected the complaint, explaining that the cost basis and profit/loss calculations were standard and their systems were working as designed. The ombudsman found no evidence of double charging, determining that the premium paid at purchase forms part of the overall profitability calculation and is not debited separately at exercise. The ombudsman upheld IBUK's position that the outcome was in accordance with their contractual terms and regulatory obligations, and therefore did not uphold the complaint.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that Mr H's complaint arose from a misunderstanding of how options are settled. When an option is purchased, the premium is paid at the time of purchase and represents the cost of acquiring the right. Upon exercise, the value realised is determined by the difference between the strike price and the market value at exercise. The premium paid remains the cost of entering the position and forms part of the overall profitability calculation, but is not debited separately. The statement shows the premium reflected at the point of purchase and it remains on the same line since purchase, meaning it was counted once, not twice. The ombudsman noted that options values are impacted by multiple factors including time decay, and it is possible for an option to be 'in the money' at exercise yet result in an overall net loss once the premium and other costs are considered.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Interactive Brokers (UK) Limited, all decisions | 1 | 0% |
| Investment mis-selling, all decisions | 14,163 | 37% |
| Investment, all decisions | 14,180 | 34% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website