Not upheld: irresponsible lending / failure to properly assess appropriateness for complex products complaint against Plus500 UK Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B, a student with no experience trading complex products, failed Plus500's appropriateness test in September 2020 but was allowed to open a CFD trading account after acknowledging a risk warning. He traded actively from October 2020 through July 2021, when he experienced margin calls resulting in losses of approximately EUR 7,000. Mr B complained in October 2025 that Plus500 should not have allowed him to trade given his failed appropriateness test and claimed he did not understand he was trading leveraged products. The ombudsman found that while Plus500 failed to provide meaningful individualised consideration and the risk warning was not sufficiently disruptive, Mr B's demonstrated intention to proceed and his months of trading experience meant the losses were not caused by Plus500's decision to open the account, and the complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Plus500 failed to provide meaningful individualised consideration and the risk warning did not substantially disrupt the application process, Mr B demonstrated sufficient deliberate intention to proceed that additional disruption would likely not have stopped him. Furthermore, even if Plus500 was wrong to allow Mr B to trade, the losses in July 2021 were substantially distant from the account opening decision (approximately 10 months later), by which time Mr B had gained experience trading CFDs and should have understood the risks. The ombudsman was not persuaded Mr B was unaware he was trading leveraged CFDs, given the information available and his months of trading activity.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website