BerndaleCapital.com Review
1.548 •
22 REVIEWS
Out of business
Updated: Apr 13, 2022
•
BerndaleCapital is a forex broker. Berndale Capital offers the MetaTrader 4 and Mobile forex trading top platform. BerndaleCapital.com offers over 60 forex currency pairs, stock indices and crude oil,for your personal investment and trading options.
2018-11-30: ASIC has cancelled Berndale Capital's license and has banned Stavro D'Amore from providing financial services for 6 years. CLICK HERE to verify.
Website is down. Company seems to be out of business.
Out of business
1.548 •
22 REVIEWS
Recent User Reviews of BerndaleCapital.com
E
Ellebear
Melbourne, Australia,
Feb 27, 2019,
Registered user
Berndale Capital are SCAMMERS
They are crooks. Franky and Deny send the fake client statements to lure new clients
I deposited 10k in their managed account. That account has now gone into negative
They have locked me out of the account. I can't log in. I called repeatedly to follow up to no avail
I will be lodging a complaint and am interested in joining a class action
I deposited 10k in their managed account. That account has now gone into negative
They have locked me out of the account. I can't log in. I called repeatedly to follow up to no avail
I will be lodging a complaint and am interested in joining a class action
P
pdunn
Australia,
Feb 24, 2019,
Registered user
Berndale at it again
Be warned, investors of something called "Fintech Australia". I understand Fintech acts as an umbrella of sorts for startup businesses. Previous clients of Berndale Capital have received contact from a Frankie Azzopardi (previous employee of Berndale Capital) urging clients to invest funds into a new scheme under this name. He is showing other fake client statements to entice new investors.
C
Chris
Melbourne, Australia,
Feb 15, 2019,
Guest
Licenced cancelled says it all. ASIC regulated company is a joke. What scammers these guys are. Any client wanting more information, call Dan Oaks at the ABC on 0407-831808 as they are compiling a story this company. Also class action being considered. Clients should lodge complaint with AFCA, ASIC, the
Fraud Squad and there local federal member of Parliament.
Fraud Squad and there local federal member of Parliament.
C
ChrisM
Melbourne, Australia,
Feb 9, 2019,
Guest
Have nothing to do with this company
It is a joke that Berndale Capital is an ASIC regultated company. This means nothing, It appears they have been trading all year without being compliant with the full knowledge of ASIC. Doesn't look good for our money. Former clients interested in a class action against, the director, the chief financial officer and ASIC should continue to follow sites like this one.
J
jbmh1
Melbourne, Australia,
Jan 15, 2019,
Registered user
Class action
I'm interested in joining a class action. We are having the same problem with phone calls going straight to voicemail as reported by others on this forum. Is there any hope of getting any of our money back? Spoken to ASIC and have lodged a complaint with AFCA. Considering seeking legal advice. We'll be attending the court case brought on by ASIC in February.
K
kwilliams
Australia,
Dec 7, 2018,
Registered user
Company not contactable, ignoring calls and emails, not processing withdrawals
All that has account with Berndale Capital needs to report them to ASIC/AFCA asap.
They are ignoring calls and emails, not processing withdrawals.
Went to their registered address, it is just a reception desk which only let you leave message for them.
My account has been disabled today without any notification.
Looks like they are now taking our money and run.
They are ignoring calls and emails, not processing withdrawals.
Went to their registered address, it is just a reception desk which only let you leave message for them.
My account has been disabled today without any notification.
Looks like they are now taking our money and run.
J
James
New Zealand,
Nov 26, 2018,
Guest
I had much the same experience with Berndale. I deposited money with them and traded for just under one year.
I then requested a full withdrawal with no response for over a week. I then got a call and they told me that because I was running an EA I was in breach of their PDS and they would only return my initial deposit - they would keep the profit. Out of curiosity I asked how much profit was in the account? They said "umm 27% of the account I think?" I then informed them that this was impossible and that there was only 7% profit in the account. I sent my bank account statements to prove this.
There was then no response.
For the next three weeks I rang them everyday and emailed them about 10 times. The emails were not responded to and no one over the phone could help me.
I then contacted ASIC and AFCA and they gave me the contact details of the General Manager at Berndale and advised I place an official complaint with him. In Berndale's defense, when I contacted him he was very apologetic and actioned my withdrawal immediately.
If he didn't AFCA was going to handle the matter going forward in accordance with their external disputes resolution scheme.
In sum, I would NEVER give them money going forward. Unbelievable how such a large and seemingly reputable company can be so unorganized and useless.
I then requested a full withdrawal with no response for over a week. I then got a call and they told me that because I was running an EA I was in breach of their PDS and they would only return my initial deposit - they would keep the profit. Out of curiosity I asked how much profit was in the account? They said "umm 27% of the account I think?" I then informed them that this was impossible and that there was only 7% profit in the account. I sent my bank account statements to prove this.
There was then no response.
For the next three weeks I rang them everyday and emailed them about 10 times. The emails were not responded to and no one over the phone could help me.
I then contacted ASIC and AFCA and they gave me the contact details of the General Manager at Berndale and advised I place an official complaint with him. In Berndale's defense, when I contacted him he was very apologetic and actioned my withdrawal immediately.
If he didn't AFCA was going to handle the matter going forward in accordance with their external disputes resolution scheme.
In sum, I would NEVER give them money going forward. Unbelievable how such a large and seemingly reputable company can be so unorganized and useless.
S
seanalexander1
USA,
Nov 15, 2018,
Registered user
SCAM!!! They ignore withdrawal requests. Most likely they are insolvent and getting worse with time.
I did finally recover my money after many long distance phone calls ($200 worth). Each time they said they would take care of the withdrawal and did not.
Also server went off line for two days (unacceptable for a forex broker). When it came back online two of my profitable trades disappeared.
DO NOT GIVE THESE GUYS YOUR MONEY YOU WILL NOT GET IT BACK!
I did finally recover my money after many long distance phone calls ($200 worth). Each time they said they would take care of the withdrawal and did not.
Also server went off line for two days (unacceptable for a forex broker). When it came back online two of my profitable trades disappeared.
DO NOT GIVE THESE GUYS YOUR MONEY YOU WILL NOT GET IT BACK!
T
travel
Austria,
Oct 19, 2018,
Registered user
the reality by Berndale
Determination
Case No: 538803 Determination Page 1 of 4
Case number: 538803 19 October 2018
1 Overview
1.1 Dispute
On 6 June 2018 the applicant opened an account with the financial services provider (FSP). This dispute is about the applicant’s instructions to the FSP on 24 July 2018 to withdraw the balance in the account in the amount of EUR10,001.38 (the funds).
The applicant seeks for the FSP to honour the withdrawal request.
1.2 Issues and key findings
Is the FSP required to process the applicant’s withdrawal request?
The FSP is required to process the withdrawal requests because:
• The applicant provided sufficient information to show the withdrawal request was made, he had (and continues to have) sufficient funds in his trading account.
• The FSP has not identified any valid reason for not transferring the applicant’s funds to his bank account.
What loss did the FSP’s breach cause the applicant?
The FSP’s breach caused the applicant loss of EUR10,001.38.
1.3 Determination
This determination is in favour of the applicant.
The FSP must, within 28 days of the applicant’s acceptance of the determination, pay the applicant EUR10,001.38 plus interest as set out in section 2 of this Determination.
Case No: 538803 Determination Page 2 of 4
2 Reasons for determination
2.1 Is the FSP required to process the applicant’s withdrawal request?
The applicant traded the FSP’s margin fx products
The applicant was the FSP’s customer and traded margin fx contracts issued by the FSP. This trading was governed by a contract between the parties in the form of the FSP’s terms and conditions.
The FSP has not provided he FOS with a copy of its terms and conditions despite requests from FOS for this information. Typically, the terms and conditions would set out the FSP’s withdrawal processes and identify factors which may cause the FSP to not act on a withdrawal request.
The applicant has the onus of proving the claim
The applicant has the onus of establishing:
• the applicant made the withdrawal requests
• the FSP received the withdrawal requests
• the withdrawal requests contained sufficient information for the FSP to act upon
• the applicant had sufficient funds in his accounts
• the funds were not received from the FSP into the bank account nominated in the withdrawal form.
The FSP has the onus of proving reasons for not processing the withdrawal
Once the above matters are established, the onus shifts to the FSP to identify and prove a contractual or other reason for not paying the funds into the applicant’s nominated bank account.
FOS may draw an adverse inference
The applicant generally bears the onus of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that the FSP breached an obligation owed to him and that the breach caused him to suffer a loss.
In a court of law, the parties are required to produce all relevant documentation. A failure to do so is a contempt of court. As an external dispute resolution scheme, the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) has no such powers. Instead, it requires the parties to abide by their contractual obligations as set out in the Terms of Reference (TOR).
The TOR requires the parties to produce information requested by FOS. FOS may draw an adverse inference if a party to a dispute fails to comply with a request for information, without reasonable excuse.
The Operational Guidelines (Guidelines) to the TOR explain that an adverse inference may be that the withheld information:
• does not favour the party who has failed to provide the requested information; or
Case No: 538803 Determination Page 3 of 4
• undermines their position.
The Guidelines state it is not necessary for FOS to specify, in advance of a failure to comply with a FOS request, exactly what inference FOS will draw from the failure.
The FSP has failed to respond to any of FOS’s information requests. Where appropriate, I have drawn adverse inferences against the FSP that its failure to respond has meant it is not able to substantiate its position.
The FSP opened a trading account for the applicant
By email dated 6 June 2018, the FSP confirmed that an account had been created for the applicant on their server. The applicant ordered a bank transfer in the amount of EUR10,000 the same day.
FOS has requested from the FSP the terms of the account and the account trading history together with balances in the account. The FSP has not responded with this information request.
The applicant followed the FSP’s withdrawal process
The applicant has provided the following information to FOS:
• details of his Funds Withdrawal Form dated 24 July 2018
• a copy of a report showing a full history of the account held with the FSP.
The report shows that the applicant had sufficient funds to meet the withdrawal request as at 24 July 2018. It shows an account balance in the amount of EUR10,001.38. The report also shows that the applicant had no open positions at that time. I accept this amount is owed to the applicant.
On 24 July 2018 the applicant submitted a Funds Withdrawal Form to withdraw the balance in the account. Since then, the applicant has sent several emails to the FSP following up on his withdrawal request without success. There is no evidence of a reply from the FSP.
One of the emails was sent by the applicant on 22 August 2018. The applicant has provided FOS with an email dated 23 August 2018 showing the FSP read this email. In the absence of any submissions by the FSP to the contrary, I am prepared to accept that it received the withdrawal request and follow up emails.
The FSP has not provided any valid reason for not transferring the funds
Given that the FSP has not provided me with information about the account type, it’s trading history and emails (among other things), I draw an adverse inference that the information withheld from me does not favour the FSP or it undermines their position.
It follows that the FSP has not demonstrated any reasonable basis for the delayed withdrawal. By failing to process the withdrawal request, the FSP has not followed instructions in circumstances where the applicant has made his intention clear to withdraw the funds from the account.
I am persuaded that the applicant should receive the balance remaining in his account in the amount of EUR10,001.38.
Case No: 538803 Determination Page 4 of 4
2.2 What loss did the FSP’s breach cause the applicant?
The FSP’s still owes the applicant EUR10,001.38
Compensation for loss does not automatically follow a finding that the FSP has breached the law. The onus is on the applicant to establish, on the balance of probabilities that the FSP breached its duty, the applicants suffered a loss, and the breach caused the loss.
I accept that if the FSP did not breach its obligations to process the applicant’s withdrawal request, the applicant would have received his monies shortly after 24 July 2018 or within 48 hours in accordance with the industry practice.
The FSP is required to pay the applicant EUR10,001.38.
It is fair to award interest
To maintain the real value of the applicant’s compensation, I consider that it is fair that the FSP pay interest equivalent to the change in the ABS Consumer Price Index1 from 26 July 2018, the date the FSP ought to have transferred to the applicant EUR10,001.38 to the date of payment under this Determination.
3 Supporting information
3.1 Process
I have determined this dispute based on what it believes is fair in all the circumstances. In doing so I have regard to the relevant law, good industry practice, codes of practice and previous FOS decisions (but are not bound by these). I have taken into account relevant material submitted by the parties.
I am satisfied there has been a full exchange of relevant documents relied on to make this determination and that each party has had the opportunity to address any issues raised by the other. In particular, I am satisfied that the FSP has had numerous opportunities to make submissions.
This dispute has been expedited to a determination due to the FSP’s failure to make a substantive response to the issues in dispute. No recommendation was issued.
Dr June Smith
Lead Ombudsman
Financial Ombudsman Service Australia
Aug 3, 2018 - 1 Star I have made a request for repayment on 07/24/2018 and until today no reaction. conditions are not as advertised
Case No: 538803 Determination Page 1 of 4
Case number: 538803 19 October 2018
1 Overview
1.1 Dispute
On 6 June 2018 the applicant opened an account with the financial services provider (FSP). This dispute is about the applicant’s instructions to the FSP on 24 July 2018 to withdraw the balance in the account in the amount of EUR10,001.38 (the funds).
The applicant seeks for the FSP to honour the withdrawal request.
1.2 Issues and key findings
Is the FSP required to process the applicant’s withdrawal request?
The FSP is required to process the withdrawal requests because:
• The applicant provided sufficient information to show the withdrawal request was made, he had (and continues to have) sufficient funds in his trading account.
• The FSP has not identified any valid reason for not transferring the applicant’s funds to his bank account.
What loss did the FSP’s breach cause the applicant?
The FSP’s breach caused the applicant loss of EUR10,001.38.
1.3 Determination
This determination is in favour of the applicant.
The FSP must, within 28 days of the applicant’s acceptance of the determination, pay the applicant EUR10,001.38 plus interest as set out in section 2 of this Determination.
Case No: 538803 Determination Page 2 of 4
2 Reasons for determination
2.1 Is the FSP required to process the applicant’s withdrawal request?
The applicant traded the FSP’s margin fx products
The applicant was the FSP’s customer and traded margin fx contracts issued by the FSP. This trading was governed by a contract between the parties in the form of the FSP’s terms and conditions.
The FSP has not provided he FOS with a copy of its terms and conditions despite requests from FOS for this information. Typically, the terms and conditions would set out the FSP’s withdrawal processes and identify factors which may cause the FSP to not act on a withdrawal request.
The applicant has the onus of proving the claim
The applicant has the onus of establishing:
• the applicant made the withdrawal requests
• the FSP received the withdrawal requests
• the withdrawal requests contained sufficient information for the FSP to act upon
• the applicant had sufficient funds in his accounts
• the funds were not received from the FSP into the bank account nominated in the withdrawal form.
The FSP has the onus of proving reasons for not processing the withdrawal
Once the above matters are established, the onus shifts to the FSP to identify and prove a contractual or other reason for not paying the funds into the applicant’s nominated bank account.
FOS may draw an adverse inference
The applicant generally bears the onus of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that the FSP breached an obligation owed to him and that the breach caused him to suffer a loss.
In a court of law, the parties are required to produce all relevant documentation. A failure to do so is a contempt of court. As an external dispute resolution scheme, the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) has no such powers. Instead, it requires the parties to abide by their contractual obligations as set out in the Terms of Reference (TOR).
The TOR requires the parties to produce information requested by FOS. FOS may draw an adverse inference if a party to a dispute fails to comply with a request for information, without reasonable excuse.
The Operational Guidelines (Guidelines) to the TOR explain that an adverse inference may be that the withheld information:
• does not favour the party who has failed to provide the requested information; or
Case No: 538803 Determination Page 3 of 4
• undermines their position.
The Guidelines state it is not necessary for FOS to specify, in advance of a failure to comply with a FOS request, exactly what inference FOS will draw from the failure.
The FSP has failed to respond to any of FOS’s information requests. Where appropriate, I have drawn adverse inferences against the FSP that its failure to respond has meant it is not able to substantiate its position.
The FSP opened a trading account for the applicant
By email dated 6 June 2018, the FSP confirmed that an account had been created for the applicant on their server. The applicant ordered a bank transfer in the amount of EUR10,000 the same day.
FOS has requested from the FSP the terms of the account and the account trading history together with balances in the account. The FSP has not responded with this information request.
The applicant followed the FSP’s withdrawal process
The applicant has provided the following information to FOS:
• details of his Funds Withdrawal Form dated 24 July 2018
• a copy of a report showing a full history of the account held with the FSP.
The report shows that the applicant had sufficient funds to meet the withdrawal request as at 24 July 2018. It shows an account balance in the amount of EUR10,001.38. The report also shows that the applicant had no open positions at that time. I accept this amount is owed to the applicant.
On 24 July 2018 the applicant submitted a Funds Withdrawal Form to withdraw the balance in the account. Since then, the applicant has sent several emails to the FSP following up on his withdrawal request without success. There is no evidence of a reply from the FSP.
One of the emails was sent by the applicant on 22 August 2018. The applicant has provided FOS with an email dated 23 August 2018 showing the FSP read this email. In the absence of any submissions by the FSP to the contrary, I am prepared to accept that it received the withdrawal request and follow up emails.
The FSP has not provided any valid reason for not transferring the funds
Given that the FSP has not provided me with information about the account type, it’s trading history and emails (among other things), I draw an adverse inference that the information withheld from me does not favour the FSP or it undermines their position.
It follows that the FSP has not demonstrated any reasonable basis for the delayed withdrawal. By failing to process the withdrawal request, the FSP has not followed instructions in circumstances where the applicant has made his intention clear to withdraw the funds from the account.
I am persuaded that the applicant should receive the balance remaining in his account in the amount of EUR10,001.38.
Case No: 538803 Determination Page 4 of 4
2.2 What loss did the FSP’s breach cause the applicant?
The FSP’s still owes the applicant EUR10,001.38
Compensation for loss does not automatically follow a finding that the FSP has breached the law. The onus is on the applicant to establish, on the balance of probabilities that the FSP breached its duty, the applicants suffered a loss, and the breach caused the loss.
I accept that if the FSP did not breach its obligations to process the applicant’s withdrawal request, the applicant would have received his monies shortly after 24 July 2018 or within 48 hours in accordance with the industry practice.
The FSP is required to pay the applicant EUR10,001.38.
It is fair to award interest
To maintain the real value of the applicant’s compensation, I consider that it is fair that the FSP pay interest equivalent to the change in the ABS Consumer Price Index1 from 26 July 2018, the date the FSP ought to have transferred to the applicant EUR10,001.38 to the date of payment under this Determination.
3 Supporting information
3.1 Process
I have determined this dispute based on what it believes is fair in all the circumstances. In doing so I have regard to the relevant law, good industry practice, codes of practice and previous FOS decisions (but are not bound by these). I have taken into account relevant material submitted by the parties.
I am satisfied there has been a full exchange of relevant documents relied on to make this determination and that each party has had the opportunity to address any issues raised by the other. In particular, I am satisfied that the FSP has had numerous opportunities to make submissions.
This dispute has been expedited to a determination due to the FSP’s failure to make a substantive response to the issues in dispute. No recommendation was issued.
Dr June Smith
Lead Ombudsman
Financial Ombudsman Service Australia
Aug 3, 2018 - 1 Star I have made a request for repayment on 07/24/2018 and until today no reaction. conditions are not as advertised
J
jpdlegault
Lasalle (Montreal burrough), QC, Canada,
Oct 15, 2018,
Registered user
Low spread costs
My last review was that their spread costs were fairly high but that was because they have two types of paired instruments. At first I tried eurusd pair but after the last review, I found eurusd.b. All those pairs ending with the suffix ".b" are some of the most aggressive spread costs I have ever seen. And because of that I have increased my evaluation to 4 stars.
Oct 5, 2018 - 3 Stars I agree with you totally FPA, and no hard feelings James!
I trade EU nad one thing I could not miss noticing since the neir new installation are the high spread costs (1.7 before commissions) right during the Euro session today. I therefore lower my assessment to no more than 3 stars.
Oct 4, 2018 - 5 Stars To James from the UK, look I am giving them a 5 stars and I am not a fake out there. I really live in Montreal Canada, BerndaleCapital does not pay a penny for anything I write in here. I am just another trader. Whereas you, James, you are making suggestions based on nothing. It is your testimony that is at risk of being discarded as true. You sign as a guest! Are at the employ of competitor broker. I am a registered user in this forum and I am a live client at BerndaleCapital. What are your motives to give a 1 star when you sign in as a guest? If you have something real to say then say it! Not just accusations thrown into the wind.
Oct 3, 2018 - 5 Stars With regards to my previous entry, I got my new credentials and was able to re log in to my live account. It just took longer than expected to install that new technology at BernadaleCapital's end. I should have been more patient since sometimes installation of new technology may take longer than anticipated (I should know as a former programmer analyst) and I also should have taken into account the time difference between Merlbourne and Montreal. I apologize to BerndaleCapital if I may have raised suspicion when all they did is act in kindness and professionalism. It is I who showed impatience. This is why I am giving them a 5 stars.
Oct 2, 2018 - No Rating I could not login on Monday Oct 01 broker time (Sunday Sep 30 EST/EDT) I wrote to my manager and she told me that they were installing new technology and that I would be getting new login details withing the next 2 hours. That was almost 2 days ago. If this is happening to all their client base then I am just going to wait for this long installation to be completed, but if I am singled out I would want to know why???
2018-10-04 Review Moderation Team Note
For the record, James left his review before your first 5 Star review was approved. Nonetheless, the FPA believes that the claim by James that all the 5 star reviews are fakes from the company is incorrect.
The FPA goes to great efforts to screen all reviews, positive and negative. It is possible a few fakes can slip through, but we believe the overwhelming majority of reviews displayed on the FPA's website are honest experiences of real traders. In cases where fakes submitted by a company are discovered, those get notes to let people know and are set to Zero stars.
We would like to ask all reviewers to focus on their own experiences. Just because one client reports a bad experience does not automatically mean everyone had the same problem. Just because one client reports a good experience does not mean that all clients never have had or never will have any problems. The FPA has seen low rated companies improve their ratings over time. The FPA has seen well rated companies turn around and steal money from some or all of their clients.
If you have a good experience with a company, leave a review and tell everyone why. If you have a bad experience with a company, leave a review and tell everyone why. If it's a very bad experience, you can also open a thread in the Scam Alerts folder of the FPA's forums. If your experience changes, as jpdlegault's did, leave a followup review with the rating you feel the company now deserves. Your old review will be nested beneath the new one and only the new rating will count towards the company's average.
The FPA will be very grateful is this is the end of any arguments between reviewers on this review page.
Oct 5, 2018 - 3 Stars I agree with you totally FPA, and no hard feelings James!
I trade EU nad one thing I could not miss noticing since the neir new installation are the high spread costs (1.7 before commissions) right during the Euro session today. I therefore lower my assessment to no more than 3 stars.
Oct 4, 2018 - 5 Stars To James from the UK, look I am giving them a 5 stars and I am not a fake out there. I really live in Montreal Canada, BerndaleCapital does not pay a penny for anything I write in here. I am just another trader. Whereas you, James, you are making suggestions based on nothing. It is your testimony that is at risk of being discarded as true. You sign as a guest! Are at the employ of competitor broker. I am a registered user in this forum and I am a live client at BerndaleCapital. What are your motives to give a 1 star when you sign in as a guest? If you have something real to say then say it! Not just accusations thrown into the wind.
Oct 3, 2018 - 5 Stars With regards to my previous entry, I got my new credentials and was able to re log in to my live account. It just took longer than expected to install that new technology at BernadaleCapital's end. I should have been more patient since sometimes installation of new technology may take longer than anticipated (I should know as a former programmer analyst) and I also should have taken into account the time difference between Merlbourne and Montreal. I apologize to BerndaleCapital if I may have raised suspicion when all they did is act in kindness and professionalism. It is I who showed impatience. This is why I am giving them a 5 stars.
Oct 2, 2018 - No Rating I could not login on Monday Oct 01 broker time (Sunday Sep 30 EST/EDT) I wrote to my manager and she told me that they were installing new technology and that I would be getting new login details withing the next 2 hours. That was almost 2 days ago. If this is happening to all their client base then I am just going to wait for this long installation to be completed, but if I am singled out I would want to know why???
2018-10-04 Review Moderation Team Note
For the record, James left his review before your first 5 Star review was approved. Nonetheless, the FPA believes that the claim by James that all the 5 star reviews are fakes from the company is incorrect.
The FPA goes to great efforts to screen all reviews, positive and negative. It is possible a few fakes can slip through, but we believe the overwhelming majority of reviews displayed on the FPA's website are honest experiences of real traders. In cases where fakes submitted by a company are discovered, those get notes to let people know and are set to Zero stars.
We would like to ask all reviewers to focus on their own experiences. Just because one client reports a bad experience does not automatically mean everyone had the same problem. Just because one client reports a good experience does not mean that all clients never have had or never will have any problems. The FPA has seen low rated companies improve their ratings over time. The FPA has seen well rated companies turn around and steal money from some or all of their clients.
If you have a good experience with a company, leave a review and tell everyone why. If you have a bad experience with a company, leave a review and tell everyone why. If it's a very bad experience, you can also open a thread in the Scam Alerts folder of the FPA's forums. If your experience changes, as jpdlegault's did, leave a followup review with the rating you feel the company now deserves. Your old review will be nested beneath the new one and only the new rating will count towards the company's average.
The FPA will be very grateful is this is the end of any arguments between reviewers on this review page.