IronFx exposed at the European Parliament

Dear BinaryLad,

Thank you for your prompt response as always.

Our request was as to the specific client you are referring to.

We have not had any new client requests since your suggestions.

We would appreciate you pointing us to the specific client case.

Thank you
The case of G.M.

There are also unanswered questions regarding Her
Dear BinaryLad,

Thank you for your prompt response as always.

Our request was as to the specific client you are referring to.

We have not had any new client requests since your suggestions.

We would appreciate you pointing us to the specific client case.

Thank you
The case of G.M.

There are also unanswered questions regarding Luxotix and Derda's cases.
 
The case of G.M.

There are also unanswered questions regarding Her

The case of G.M.

There are also unanswered questions regarding Luxotix and Derda's cases.

Dear BinaryLad,

Thank you for your prompt reply on the matter.

As mentioned before there is a standard process we have to follow up a complaint:

1. Provide a reference number.

2. Provide the company’s final position upon investigation.

3. If the client is not happy with our response, there are two option:

a. Take legal action via the Courts

b. Seek the arbitration of the FOS Service

4. Once either (3a) or (3b) is actioned, the complaint is moved away from the company and if rejected it cannot be reinstated for legal precedent reasons.

On the specific cases you mentioned below please see our comments:

Luxotic: Client chose to follow the FOS path. The complaint referred to the Financial Ombudsman Service was rejected by the Financial Ombudsman Service on 31 October 2017, therefore the complaint cannot be reinstated as it will create a legal precedent. As per the prescribed EU regulations, the complainant is now free to take the legal route if they disagree with the FOS process.

Derda: Similar case to the above. Client chose to follow the FOS path. The complaint referred to the Financial Ombudsman Service was rejected by the Financial Ombudsman Service on 31 October 2017, therefore the complaint cannot be reinstated as it will create a legal precedent. As per the prescribed EU regulations, the complainant is now free to take the legal route if they disagree with the FOS process.

G.M.: The Company has sent a response to the client’s registered email address.

Thank you
 
Dear IronFX Officer! Dear All, I'm a real victim of IronFX!

To clarify IronFX Officer response: The complaint to FOS was not rejected, but my complaint was not examined by the FOS!
I made an opposition to the FOS, and I have reported this to European Securities and Markets Authority and to the EU Commission.

Nevertheless: According to Union Law, Clients' Funds explicit belong to Clients and
IronFX has no authority to withhold those funds irrespective of Circumstance!


IronFx is not entitled to withhold my initial DEPOSIT by law!

The question remains: Why IronFx doing this for 3 years?

IronFx suggest to take legal route, because there is no investor protection in Cyprus!

Best Regards
Derda Bernadett from Europe

Dear BinaryLad,

Thank you for your prompt reply on the matter.

As mentioned before there is a standard process we have to follow up a complaint:

1. Provide a reference number.

2. Provide the company’s final position upon investigation.

3. If the client is not happy with our response, there are two option:

a. Take legal action via the Courts

b. Seek the arbitration of the FOS Service

4. Once either (3a) or (3b) is actioned, the complaint is moved away from the company and if rejected it cannot be reinstated for legal precedent reasons.

On the specific cases you mentioned below please see our comments:

Luxotic: Client chose to follow the FOS path. The complaint referred to the Financial Ombudsman Service was rejected by the Financial Ombudsman Service on 31 October 2017, therefore the complaint cannot be reinstated as it will create a legal precedent. As per the prescribed EU regulations, the complainant is now free to take the legal route if they disagree with the FOS process.

Derda: Similar case to the above. Client chose to follow the FOS path. The complaint referred to the Financial Ombudsman Service was rejected by the Financial Ombudsman Service on 31 October 2017, therefore the complaint cannot be reinstated as it will create a legal precedent. As per the prescribed EU regulations, the complainant is now free to take the legal route if they disagree with the FOS process.

G.M.: The Company has sent a response to the client’s registered email address.

Thank you
 
Dear IronFX Officer! Dear All, I'm a real victim of IronFX!

To clarify IronFX Officer response: The complaint to FOS was not rejected, but my complaint was not examined by the FOS!
I made an opposition to the FOS, and I have reported this to European Securities and Markets Authority and to the EU Commission.

Nevertheless: According to Union Law, Clients' Funds explicit belong to Clients and
IronFX has no authority to withhold those funds irrespective of Circumstance!


IronFx is not entitled to withhold my initial DEPOSIT by law!

The question remains: Why IronFx doing this for 3 years?

IronFx suggest to take legal route, because there is no investor protection in Cyprus!

Best Regards
Derda Bernadett from Europe

Dear Derda.Bernadett,

We note that your query was attended by the Company and a response was sent to you on 19 January 2016.

We further note that had your complaint referred to the FOS which was rejected by the FOS on 31 October 2017.

We have mentioned the above in our initial reply to your comments in the FPA thread https://www.forexpeacearmy.com/community/threads/ironfx-exposed-at-the-european-parliament.54373 (post #5)

As mentioned, repeatedly, we consider this issue now closed.

We also refer your repetitive comments to multiple threads to @AsstModerator and we request for action to be taken against your spamming.

Thank you
 
Back
Top