DRN-6291865

The complaint Mr H complains he wasn’t able to close CFD positions within his Interactive Brokers (U.K.) Limited (IBUK) SIPP account. What happened Mr H had a CFD trading account within a wider SIPP arrangement with IBUK. In June 2024 IBUK told Mr H it was withdrawing its CFD offering for SIPP accounts. It said he could retain that segment of his account while it still had open positions. But that he couldn’t open any new trades. Shortly afterwards, Mr H complained that he’d been unable to close positions when he’d tried to. He said he’d been given error messages saying that he didn’t have permission to trade CFDs. IBUK responded in September 2024. It didn’t uphold his complaint. It said Mr H wouldn’t be able to amend orders but could close positions using the “close” button. It said it hadn’t been able to replicate or identify any other system issues at its end and so wasn’t able to troubleshoot the problem any further. Mr H wasn’t satisfied and brought his complaint to our service. One of our investigators looked into things. She said while Mr H had been forced to realise losses on trades, Mr H could have mitigated his losses by closing them sooner. Mr H said he didn’t think we’d understood his complaint correctly and asked for an ombudsman’s decision. I issued a provisional decision about the complaint, in which I said: Firstly I think it’s crucial to identify what this complaint is about. In her assessment the investigator talked about both the issues Mr H had with being unable to close existing positions. But also the fact Mr H was no longer able to add new positions after IBUK restricted his account to closing only in June 2024. There is considerable overlap between this complaint and another complaint Mr H has brought to our service, which also concerns the leadup to and impact of IBUK telling him it wouldn’t offer CFD trading in his SIPP any longer. I find that the matter of Mr H’s ability (or lack thereof) to add to existing positions has been raised and addressed in both complaints. But it is much more closely intertwined with the other broader issues raised in the other complaint. Whereas the remaining issue here – his inability to close positions when he wanted to - stands as a discrete issue. So I have addressed Mr H’s arguments around his desire to add to existing positions within the context of his other complaint. This decision is solely concerned with the problems Mr H had executing sell orders. I’m issuing this provisional decision to make that distinction clear, and because that matter wasn’t addressed in detail by our investigator.

-- 1 of 3 --

Mr H has said that “there were a number of occasions where I was trying to close CFD positions and I was getting the message along the lines that I was not allowed to trade CFDs”. He has gone on to explain that he specifically experiences this when modifying an existing limit order, although he’s been able to work around this by cancelling the order completely and opening a new order. IBUK has said it’s not been able to identify an issue where Mr H was generally unable to close any positions. But that he needed to input orders in a particular way by initiating a close order in order for it to be successful. Without having seen exactly what Mr H experienced, or what he was trying to do when entering orders, it’s difficult to know exactly what happened. But based on the parties’ submissions I think it’s more likely than not that Mr H has been unable to enter orders when attempting to modify existing orders, or possibly when selecting to open a trade in the opposite direction to his position (which would have the effect of closing the existing trade). IBUK’s explained that these will cause Mr H to run into an error alert because of the close only restrictions to his account. While the modification of an existing order or the opening of an opposite trade to close an existing one would both, technically, reduce Mr H’s exposure and therefore be consistent with his inability to open new trades, I understand that IBUK’s system isn’t able to differentiate between them and a new order. Effectively it captures those instructions as new trade orders and so they are caught by the block placed on the account,. I don’t think that’s unreasonable in and of itself. It’s marginally more awkward for Mr H – he needs to specifically select “close trade” and needs to modify orders by cancelling the existing order and opening a new one. But I don’t think those inconveniences materially impact his ability to trade in the way his account is currently set up – in other words to gradually reduce his exposure by closing his existing positions. Even if I’m wrong here and due to some technical issue with IBUK’s system, Mr H wasn’t able to enter a closure order when he wanted to, I’m currently unable to reasonably conclude he’s suffered a loss. In order to do so I’d need to be persuaded that he was unfairly denied the opportunity to enter an order. But also that, had he been able to enter the order when he wanted to, he’d have made a larger profit or avoided a larger loss. Were Mr H unable to close a position it is possible the market may have moved in such a way that he suffered a loss by the time he was able to close it. But in my view, absent any contemporaneous evidence as to what Mr H would have done, it’s equally possible the market would have improved (from his perspective) by the time he was able to close the trade. Overall I think IBUK could have communicated a bit more clearly with Mr H here, and explained how he would need to enter or modify orders after it restricted his account. Rather than him having had to somewhat work that out on his own. But I’m not persuaded that Mr H has suffered a loss that I can currently quantify, or material distress or inconvenience as a result. So I currently don’t intend to uphold his complaint. Neither party responded to my provisional decision before the deadline I’d set.

-- 2 of 3 --

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. Having done so, and as neither party provided anything new in response to my provisional conclusions above, I see no reason to depart from those conclusions. I therefore make the same findings and conclusions here, and make them final. My final decision For the reasons given here and in my provisional decision, I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr H to accept or reject my decision before 14 May 2026. Luke Gordon Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --