Not upheld: Unfair trade execution / market gapping complaint against StoneX Financial Ltd trading as City Index

Decision detail

Summary

Mr C complained that City Index executed two CFD trades unfairly, causing losses when he should have made profits. He alleged the firm failed to execute at correct prices and applied policies inconsistently, pointing to another trade where gapping worked in his favour. The ombudsman found that City Index executed both trades at the best available prices when Mr C's resting order triggers were reached, following market gapping that moved prices beyond both opening and take profit levels. The ombudsman concluded the losses resulted from market conditions, not firm error, and rejected the inconsistency claim as the profitable trade reflected different market conditions. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Mr C's orders were structured to execute at the best available price once market price levels were reached. When the market gapped and moved beyond both the opening and take profit price levels before the position opened, both orders triggered in quick succession at the best available prices at that moment. This was the intended operation of the orders, not a failure by City Index. The ombudsman rejected the argument that City Index applied policies inconsistently, noting that the third trade showed different market conditions that favoured Mr C, not evidence of inconsistency.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website