DRN-6279018

The complaint Mr H complains about the poor customer services and communication received from (‘IG’) in relation to the sale of positions in a company (‘Company C’) which was subject to Corporate Action, and the impact this had on his other shareholdings (dividend payments received). Mr H also complains about poor complaint handling by IG. What happened Mr H is an execution-only client of IG. He has a Share Account with the business. In September 2024, Mr H received information from a third-party to say that there would likely be a takeover of Company C, which he held positions in. But he says he didn’t hear anything from IG about this until after the market closed on 20 November. Mr H says the communication he received on 20 November from IG said that there was some uncertainty about elements of the acquisition of Company C, but as Company C would not be trading on the London Stock Exchange from 24 November, action needed to be taken by customers who held positions in the company. IG offered its customers with shares in Company C two options: - Option1 – trade out any positions before the market closes on 21 November - Option 2 – to not sell (default position), and holders will receive new shares with the acquiring company (‘Company A’) alongside a cash per share settlement. Mr H decided to take Option 1 and sold his shares in Company C within the trading window. As per standard terms and conditions, he expected to receive proceeds of sale (net of any fees) within two business days. Mr H complains this didn’t happen. He says he had no option to withdraw the proceeds of sale until January 2025. Mr H further complains that, for reasons that are still unclear to him, he was also restricted from withdrawing income acquired in December 2024, from dividends received on other shareholdings. He does not know why this was subjected to the same restrictions. Finally, Mr H complains that complaint handling at IG is poor. From there being a lack of visibility about the complaint’s handling procedure to a failure to acknowledge emails and contact received expressing dissatisfaction. Mr H says the impact as a result of these claimed failings includes, a loss of interest on blocked funds, a loss of opportunity to invest proceeds elsewhere, and many hours spent corresponding on this matter when much of this could have been avoided with better communication from IG. Mr H formally complained to IG. IG investigated and responded to Mr H’s complaint in

-- 1 of 6 --

January 2025. IG looked at the business’ handling of communication around the Corporate Action, crediting proceeds of sale, and the overall customer services provided. IG said its communication about the Corporate Action was clear and Mr H selected his preferred option within the specified timescale. As such, the business couldn’t agree there was an impact. IG also explained that crediting the sale proceeds was outside of its control, so it didn’t uphold this complaint either. IG did, however, uphold Mr H’s complaint about the customer service he experienced. IG acknowledged that responses to some emails were delayed, and some updates weren’t provided. IG apologised for this and offered Mr H £250 to resolve this aspect of his complaint. Mr H was unhappy with this reply, so he escalated his complaint to our service. An investigator started looking into Mr H’s complaint but found there wasn’t sufficient information to be able to understand all that happened in this situation. Specifically, relating to the complaint about dividends. So, more information was requested. Our investigator then considered all the replies received from IG and Mr H to requests for further information, along with all other relevant facts and evidence shared during the investigation. Our investigator found that IG had not acted fairly and outlined his reasons for this decision. In relation to trade and settlement delays, our investigator decided: - The delays were because of the custodian model IG operates. - IG had shown evidence of its numerous exchanges with the custodian trying to resolve matters, including before the mandatory exchange took place. - Whilst he agrees with Mr H that his trade was a regular trade and should have operated within the two-day timescale, factors beyond IG’s control caused the delays he experienced. And as terms and conditions say the business is not liable for any faults or delays caused by third parties, he could not ask IG to remedy this aspect of his complaint. In relation to the customer service Mr H experienced, our investigator decided: - He can understand the frustration Mr H experienced in not receiving clear replies and having to chase up when acknowledgements weren’t received - He cannot recommend IG use automatic email replies as that is a commercial decision - That the IG’s website isn’t clear about the complaints process the business operates, but notes that Mr H received contact information on who to call to complain to. - Whilst some poor service has been provided, he could not recommend all the outcomes Mr H had hoped would happen by escalating this complaint. In relation to the complaint about withheld dividends, our investigator decided: - IG were made aware of this complaint by Mr H on 2 January 2025 - IG acknowledged receipt of Mr H’s email, but failed to provide a substantive

-- 2 of 6 --

response within the eight-week FCA complaint handling timeframe - Attempts to obtain answers from IG to this complaint point during the course of the investigation were not forthcoming - As more than eight-weeks had passed since this complaint was raised to the business, and no response has been received, the issue does fall within our remit for investigation - IG should have done more to look into this complaint about withheld dividends when it was raised in January 2025 - IG should pay Mr H any dividends he should have received, plus 8% simple interest from the time Mr H should have received the dividend payments to when these became available. Our investigator went onto explain, even accounting for simple interest of 8% on top of the payments of dividends, the original remedy offered of £250 would be fair and reasonable to resolve both the complaint about poor service and any interest owing on the dividends that were held when they shouldn’t have been. He asked both parties to accept his view, which initially both parties did accept. However, around a month later, Mr H said he still wasn’t satisfied IG had sufficiently addressed or compensated his concerns about access to dividends. IG provided evidence to show it had no sight of an issue at the relevant time, and the investigator explained to Mr H that as things stood, she didn’t have enough to recommend more action or remedy. Mr H didn’t agree, so the complaint was passed to an Ombudsman for a final decision. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Prior to issuing this final decision, I issued a provisional decision to both parties in this case. This was because I reached a slightly different outcome to my investigator colleague in relation to Mr H’s complaint about dividend payments not being available. And I wanted to give both Mr H and IG an opportunity to consider my view regarding this point, and my overall view, before issuing a final decision. IG responded and accepted my provisional decision. Mr H, however, rejected my view and provided several comments in response to my provisional decision. Having read Mr H’s comments and considered his objections, I won’t be changing my decision. I will however summarise the decision I shared with both parties, and outline the key comments raised by Mr H in his response to my provisional decision and explain why these objections don’t change my decision. What I’ve decided – delays in receiving settlement Regarding Mr H’s complaint about the trade of his positions failing to meet the two-working day timeframe, I agree that Mr H did not receive funds within two-working days as he should have done as per the terms and conditions of this Share Account. However, I also agree from the evidence I have seen that factors beyond IG’s control, involving third parties,

-- 3 of 6 --

prevented this settlement within the expected timeframe. IG explained how the mandatory exchange resulted in both cash and stock components (the entire settlement including both share proceeds and dividend payments) remaining pending on client accounts until the “flip” (the changes happening with Company C) was successfully completed. And as this didn’t happen until 31 December 2024, funds couldn’t be released to clients until the start of January 2025 I don’t think IG could have done anything more or differently here which would have given Mr H access to his funds sooner. IG provided evidence of its exchanges with the custodian seeking clarity and progress in this matter, which is all the business could really do. I’m therefore satisfied IG is not responsible for the delays Mr H experienced, and that the business could not reasonably settle Mr H’s trade within the two-working day timescale. What I’ve decided – no access to dividends I share a slightly different view to my investigator colleague in that I do not believe IG can be held responsible for the problems Mr H says he experienced withdrawing dividend payments received into his Share Account. This is because the business was not aware there was a problem during the window Mr H says he experienced issues. Within my provisional decision, I agreed that IG missed an opportunity to look into this matter further in January 2025 when Mr H first raised the issue with the business. And how, taking a proactive approach here could have prevented further confusion and frustration. However, more information was provided by IG after our investigator shared their view which makes me believe the business was not aware there was a problem with accessing other funds held within Mr H’s Share Account at the time. IG emailed our investigator and explained: - After checking its records, there is no evidence that Mr H attempted with withdraw dividends received in December, or that this was being blocked by IG - Internal records suggest Mr H’s account was fully operational - There are no reported issues with withdrawals during the window Mr H claims to have been impacted - Troubleshooting resources are available for clients to use in the event their desktop platform isn’t working, and the business cannot see Mr H engaged with any of this material. The investigator then contacted Mr H to explain the reply that had been received, and asked Mr H if he had any evidence that he was having problems with withdrawing dividends from his account. Mr H explained: - He has no evidence of the difficulties he faced withdrawing dividends (he didn’t think he would need this) - He recalls that on his account he had two cash figures – “Available to Deal” and “Available to Withdraw” – the latter only had the balance of previous receipts. On balance, I cannot be critical of IG for failing provide Mr H with access to his dividends received in December 2024. Whilst I do not doubt Mr H’s recollection of events, I’m satisfied

-- 4 of 6 --

that the documentary evidence available supports that there is no record of dividends attempting to be withdrawn, or issue raised at the time (in December) to say accessing certain services was an issue. This was first raised by Mr H around the same time as the settlement of the Company C trade resolved, giving Mr H full access to his funds. IG therefore couldn’t have known there was a problem in order to put the situation right for Mr H. And as there was no way of knowing there was an issue, I cannot say there was a failing by the business here beyond its failure to handle the correspondence about this matter sooner. What I’ve decided – communication Regarding Mr H’s complaint about poor complaint handling, it is my view that there is a failing in services provided by IG here. Mr H says he has experienced: - Unclear or no replies to queries raised - A need to chase up acknowledgements and updates when these weren’t forthcoming. IG did uphold this aspect of Mr H’s complaint and acknowledges delays in responses and, on occasion, no responses being issued at all. And I’m of the view this same experience feeds into Mr H’s complaint about access to dividends as the business should have addressed this point sooner. IG have apologised for poor communication, and the business has confirmed it has already paid Mr H £250 compensation to resolve this aspect of his complaint. I consider this figure to be fair and reasonable to resolve all communication points highlighted where IG could have done better. Overall, in my provisional decision, I explained that as IG had now paid Mr H £250 in compensation the business didn’t need to do anything else to resolve this complaint. Mr H’s comments on my provisional decision Mr H disagreed with my provisional decision for the following reasons: 1. He still doesn’t have a clear explanation as to the reasons why (whether human error or system fault) the sale of his Company C shares were bundled with the cash payments due under Corporate Action. 2. My statement about Mr H not having said he would have done anything different (regarding selecting Option 1 when it came to the sale of his shares) was unwarranted. He clarifies that he panicked and took Option 1, but as an execution only client he takes responsibility for this decision. 3. Mr H had thought that my investigator colleague’s view meant IG needed to pay interest on withheld dividends in addition to the £250 compensation payment. He says there is strong circumstantial evidence that dividends were blocked. He is disappointed that there will be no token remedy for this aspect of his complaint. Mr H did also comment how, he was pleased that there is acknowledgement about the poor communication by IG. He says more recent interactions with the business have also been disappointing. And he hopes customer facing services will improve soon. Response to Mr H’s comments

-- 5 of 6 --

I’ve carefully considered Mr H’s comments and having done so, won’t be changing my provisional decision. This is because nothing materially new has been provided that would alter my view. But I will respond to each point, using the numbering system above for ease of reference, in the hope that this helps bring some closure on this complaint for Mr H: 1. I do believe this point has been clearly addressed already in earlier contact about this complaint. But to clarify, the mandatory exchange resulted in both cash and stock components remaining pending on client accounts until the changes with Company C had been completed. The custodian here (a third-party financial business) needed to complete its part of the process (i.e. securing settlement) so that funds could be distributed to shareholders. And this process took some time to complete, which was all beyond IG’s control. 2. I note Mr H’s comment here and have largely removed reference of decisions made around selecting Option 1 from this final decision. 3. I note Mr H’s view that there is strong circumstantial evidence to support problems with accessing dividend payments received in December 2024. However, based on the actual evidence IG was able to provide (no log or record of there being an issue raised or reported in December) I’m of the view that I cannot be critical of a business for failing to provide services when it wasn’t aware there was an issue. IG had no system reports or indications there was an issue at the time. As such, I find no failing here. Putting things right IG has already confirmed that it has paid Mr H £250 compensation. As such, I do not direct any further remedy or payment is made as I consider this to be adequate to resolve Mr H’s complaint about poor complaint handling. My final decision I partly uphold Mr H’s complaint. At the same time, I find that IG has already taken the steps it needs to take to put the situation right for Mr H. As such, I do not direct any further remedy. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr H to accept or reject my decision before 11 May 2026. Emily Bowyer Ombudsman

-- 6 of 6 --