Problem My story with Gain Capital (forex .com) UK

[ada1976]

Hi Anthony,
Thank you for that fine-tuned impressive insight perspective it leaves up to ones repute standarts. From first inquiry (Manifest Error) dealt in their compliance department final respond has been received today. Before the Regulatory Authorities I will write them a final letter including all my findings as well as my grave concern and discontent of their final respond.
I am sure you will be please to know this will help me for future references. I assure you that their final respond serves no morality or integrity but dark clouds on their behalf.

Victor.

 

[ada1976]

Allow me to set your mind at rest

This is from their potantially down fall famous Manifest Error

A “Manifest Error” means a manifest or obvious misquote by us, or any Market, Liquidity Provider or official price source on which we have relied in connection with any Transaction, having regard to the current market conditions at the time an Order is placed as determined by us. When determining whether a situation amounts to a Manifest Error, we may take into account any information in our possession, including information concerning all relevant market conditions and any error in, or lack of clarity of, any information source or announcement. We will, when making a determination as to whether a situation amounts to a Manifest Error, act fairly towards you but the fact that you may have entered into, or refrained from entering into, a corresponding financial commitment, contract or Transaction in reliance on an Order placed with us (or that you have suffered or may suffer any loss) will not be taken into account by us in determining whether there has been a Manifest Error.
24.2 In respect of any Manifest Error, we may (but will not be obliged to):
(a) amend the details of each affected Transaction to reflect what we in our sole and absolute discretion consider to be the correct or fair terms of such Transaction absent such Manifest Error; or
(b) declare any or all affected Transactions void, in which case all such Transactions will be deemed not to have been entered into.
24.3 We will not be liable to you for any loss (including any incidental, indirect or consequential loss) you or any other person may suffer or incur as a result of or in connection with any Manifest Error (including any Manifest Error by us) or our decision to maintain, amend or declare void any affected Transaction, except to the extent that such Manifest Error resulted from our own willful default or fraud, as determined by a competent court in a final, non-appealable judgment.


AND HERE IS A COMPANY WITH FINAL FSA INFORCMENT


Terms 4 and 5

What did we think was unfair?

These terms sought to exclude the firm's liability for any obvious errors it made.

Why did we think they were unfair?

Firms have a duty to provide their services using reasonable skill and care. They cannot limit their liability for negligence or poor service.

Firms cannot limit their customers’ rights to redress.

They required customers to meet all their obligations and not to make errors, even if the firm made an error. This was not balanced.

What has the firm done?

They agreed to delete the terms on 4 January 2005.

Old terms

'London Capital Group Ltd will not accept any liability for any loss or damage you may suffer (including indirect or consequential losses) as a result of your reliance upon a Manifest Error'.

'…a Manifest Error is an obvious misquote... where the price quoted materially and clearly deviates from the prevailing market price at the time it was quoted'.

 

[ada1976]

Make sure to share all of that with the FSA, FOS, and NFA.

Pharoah! Are those three non negotiable or can we negosiate? I would like to take FOS out . I am sick and tired of middle man

 

[Pharaoh]

If you want your money back and the broker won't negotiate, the best option is to complain to any and all possible regulators. The FOS may turn out to be the one who can solve your problem.

 

[BigT1]

Hello ada1976,
.
I again refer and redirect your attention to my Post#7 of this thread.
.
As a client, you may demand the firm be held to the higher standard, since it is regulated by both the FSA and the NFA.
Do so, and let them tell you if and why the rules I quoted are not applicable.
.
This fact of jurisdictional registration represents an important distiction in the law, and is the reason that many firms that are not based in the US refuse to take US clients!
They simply do not want to be held to the higher standards demanded by US law, required when they have a US based operation.
In your case, the parent company has agreed to these terms required under CFTC rules for US registration.
.
If you are denied your rights by the UK subsidiary, you can formally request the NFA prohibit the firm from further operations within the US, henceforth!
You must understand in how powerful a seat you pirch.
Do not doubt the strenght of your position to slash at their Achilles heel.
.
AI

 

[Pharaoh]

Hmmmnn.... If offshore branches also have to observe NFA standards, that would apply to the good ruls and the bad rules (limited leverage, FIFO, etc.) too.

I wonder how the NFA would view this? There's only one way to find out. Someone who feels he has been wrong by the UK branch (ada1976 for example) needs to make that argument to the NFA.

So, slash away - NFA, FSA, FOS, and anyone else you can find to complain to.

 

[BigT1]

Hmmmnn.... If offshore branches also have to observe NFA standards, that would apply to the good ruls and the bad rules (limited leverage, FIFO, etc.) too.
I wonder how the NFA would view this? There's only one way to find out. Someone who feels he has been wrong by the UK branch (ada1976 for example) needs to make that argument to the NFA.
So, slash away - NFA, FSA, FOS, and anyone else you can find to complain to.

No, NFA cannot impose its rules on alien entities doing business outside the US, but it can require that if they choose to do business in the US thru a US subsidiary, they must agree to comply with US rules, to continue operations within the US; at least with respect to US citizens. This is a subtle distinction; not one they want openly known.
Even if a client is not a citizen, the NFA will evaluate the firm's actions in consideration of continued license to operate in the US.
This in itself is a powerful incentive to play nice.
.
AI

 

[ada1976]

You can claim back your losses

If your US OIL trades was on the 12th September 2012 between 3:46 pm - 7:16pm ET or 7:30pm-11pm UK and your positions liquidated due to sudden moves, resulting with losses please email me.
Victor_uysal@yahoo.co.uk

 

[ada1976]

their final response

On September 12, 2012, between 3:46:15 pm Eastern Time (ET) and 7:16:12 pm ET i placed a total of 18 US Oil Oct 12 trades in my trading account realizing an overall profit of 1,182.00 USD.

On that same day, apparently they experienced a technical issue with their electronic system used to feed the rates they receive externally from their liquidity providers. Therefore, a detailed analysis of the trading activity which occurred in my account, confirmed that the 18 US Oil Oct 12 trades were executed at off-market rates. This means that the rates used to fill my trades were not available in the market (they were “untrue” rates)>(yeah i was in cuckoo la la land too). As such, the trades were invalid. This is the reason why a debit for the same amount of my profit was posted in my account, with value date September 14, 2012, as a result of reversing the virtual profit i realized with these off market rates. they want me to accept their apologies as this adjustment was processed in the wrong currency (1,182.00 GBP instead of 1,182.00 USD). As such, an extra adjustment for a credit of 447.00 GBP was posted into my account on that same day. RONG CURRENCY?????


According to them i was correctly explained by their Support Team representatives, some of the US Oil Oct 12 trades completed between 3:46:15 pm ET and 7:16:12 pm ET should have not been executed; as such, the profit realized through this trading activity was not legitimate.

So in concluision, under the terms of Their Complaints Procedure, this was their final response. If i am dissatisfied with it, i may refer my complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service.



What part of " This is not a case for FOS" they dont understand? it just mind boglling.

 

[ada1976]

As Financial Ombudsman Service dont handle issues such as UNFAIR TERMS, i replied with final attempt



Thank you for your “ Final Respond “ email dated 10/10/2012.


Please allow me to address my grave concern and discontent to your conclusion which fail to comply with every code of conduct in your company’s terms and policies. Not to mention all the violations committed by you against rules and regulations drafted by Regulatory Authorities such as like FSA&NFA where your company was indorsed fines in 2010 by NFA and 2011 by FSA and yet here you are denying their existence in a somewhat supercilious way.


Let me also clarify again all my unanswered questions by your Costumer Support Team and by you.On the 12 September (not October as your email states) 18 US oil trades I placed between 3:46 pm Et and 7:16 pm a) would you please display those trades individually and with true quotes from your liquidity provider and name of liquidity provider. Since we established from your “Final Respond” email, that the error was made from the” Market Maker” which is you. Could you care to explain how and why this error occurred? B) If these US Oil trades I placed on the 12th September after 3:46 pm they amount to a “Manifest Error” and you declared all effected transactions void as if these trades never taken place. Shouldn’t’ you be also declared all effected transaction void in regards to trades with different products I placed after 7:16 pm 12th September and on the 13th and 14thof September?

Before the Error I had £332.73 in my account. If you did void trades placed after Manifest Error as I mentioned above, why my final balance to this day is £49 instead of £332.78.? My profits from your error totalled to £650.75 in British Pound. How did you figured out debited amount sum of £735? Did you not include loosing US oil trades?

In relation to manifest error where quotes; we will, when making a determination as to whether a situation amounts to a Manifest Error, act fairly towards you: Do you seriously believe you as Gain CapitalForex.UK act fairly towards me (client)? At this point may I inform you that FSA &NFA explains “Fair Term” &”Unfair Term “very clearly?

In conclusion I find your interpretation of clause 20.1 In your Customer Agreement serves only in the best interest of Broker (Gain capital Forex UK) not the client. This in itself Contrary to Financial Service Authority .Furthermore you can’t limit your liability for negligence or poor service. Between you as provider, me as Client has to be balanced. You are asking me not to make errors even when you make error. As to trade violations made by you I will let FSA & NFA to handle it.Under FSA & NFA rulls I am permited and obligated to report this Unfair Term including all the exchance documents between Gain Capital (Forex UK ) and me (Client)without assistance of The Finanacial Ombadsman