CMC Complaint & Ombudsmans Response

[seguna]

TomTom's case, taken at face value and as outlined by him seems a good case to me IF he can supply the evidence. Secondly, a court hearing is likely to be far more impartial than the farce he appears to have experienced at the hands of the FOS. Remember that whilst FOS rulings are binding on regulated firms, if a complainant is still unhappy with the outcome the option to litigate is there.

It appears to me that had TomTom had a fair and complete assessment via the FOS things wouldn't be where they are now.

Also, it should be noted that anyone who can spreadbet the DAX at £2000 per point has got deep pockets too. Maybe not as deep as CMCs but hey...

Like I said, it all depends on how strong TomTom's case is when it's all set out by his solicitors and put to CMC. Their legal team will inspect and review the evidence and formulate an opinion and a response based on what they think can be argued and proven. That's what it all comes down to - not who's right or wrong - unfortunate as that may sound. They may well therefore settle out of court if it suits them better.

Claudia, the issue of libel only comes in if TomTom states anything negative about CMC which is untrue and or cannot be proven. Libel does not arise just because you choose to complain or take legal action to obtain redress if you feel you've been unfairly treated.

 

[TomTom]

UPDATE.
A simialr case has just been won, this was involving a different SB Firm, however the curcumstances are the same as mine.
As for leagal costs these tend to escolate when a court hearings are aplicable.
Solisitors tell me this wont be the case as they can proove that CMC has failed to keep detailed ( FSA MARKETS ACT ) and disclose information to FOS and myself regarding this mattor.
There are other mitiagting curcumstances too which I can not post about here untill this is closed.

As for FOS there report shows misconduct on there ability to resolve and have views on complex isshues such as this.

 

[ns1000]

UPDATE.
A simialr case has just been won, this was involving a different SB Firm, however the curcumstances are the same as mine.

Any more details on the similar case you refer to. I haven't read anything, but may have missed it.

 

[TomTom]

Any more details on the similar case you refer to. I haven't read anything, but may have missed it.

Hi ns100,
The case was settled out of court.
If the mentioned case had of gone to court the SB Firm coul of opened a can of worms for its self.
Hope this is the case for me.

 

[stevespray]

TomTom,

In my opinion you need to be very careful with so called ‘cases’ which are settled ‘out of court’. Quite often, when you drill down into the matter, the case has not actually been ‘settled’ in a legal context ie the T&Cs / Laws / Regulations have NOT prevailed giving rise to the outcome. Instead, in order to save face or indeed to avoid a costly court battle which an organisation might not win, the defending party offers a settlement which is purely financial and doesn’t offer any kind of acknowledgement that any potential wrong doing took place.

So what the client ends up with is a covering letter which reads something along the lines of the following;

“Dear Mr X, Having given further thought to your claim of damages against us we are prepared to make the payment of a good will gesture of £x,xxx.xx – Whilst we still feel that we have not breached any conditions of our contract we see that this payment will offer a swift yet satisfactory end to this matter. Yours Mr Compliance-Officer”

This type of response obviously gives the client 99% of what he wants.... the cash! Companies realise this and this is generally how things get settled before court. It is unlikely that a client would pursue the firm further if the firm was offering a cash settlement which equated to the claimed amount. As a result no president is regarded as being set – the payout is exactly as it is described; ‘a goodwill gesture’ and the firm itself concedes no ground on the clients claim of mistreatment / wrong doing / breach of contract. Of course quite often, as the client, you would laugh at the fact that the firm are paying you the settlement amount yet remaining so steadfast in their defence of their practices but this is how this type of thing works.

Therefore, if you did raise such a matter in court, you’d need to be fairly sure on a number of points. The main one would be the reason that the firm made a payment to its client – was it ‘good will’ or was it actually a successful claim made because the client could demonstrate some kind of breach of regulation (or contract) which was subsequently upheld by the Compliance Department at the firm in question?
Secondly, was there an admission in writing? Quite often errors or situations which occur are settled without the need for any real compliance intervention. For example a client might just ring the firm and say that X, Y and Z took place and that they aren’t happy. After a day or so and maybe a few phone calls or emails the situation is resolved through an approach of fairness to all parties – no official complaint is ever made and no official compliance response is sent out.
Thirdly, how much background information can you gather on this other case. A lawyer may have knowledge of ‘another similar case’ but they may not be able to reference such a matter in court for one reason or another. The similar case may not be common knowledge. The background to the other case could be legally privileged information. The parties involved may not want to comment publicly on the matter.

Hope this helps,
Steve.

 

[seguna]

Tomtom

Stevespray has a point. Your focus should be on the merits of your own case. You and your counsel have to be really sure that any 'similiar' cases are indeed patterned to yours and can definitely be used to support your own argument.

My experience with lawyers is, BEWARE whatever they tell you, be sure of your own facts.

 

[TomTom]

Update.
Now have evedence that CMC refer clients to 'phone dealer' through an online message on the platform.
Pluss a statement from CMC that they record all there phone calls, not mish mash, hap hazzard we can not know what lines are recorded and what are not.
The case continues in my favor.

 

[gle101]

Update.
Now have evedence that CMC refer clients to 'phone dealer' through an online message on the platform.
Pluss a statement from CMC that they record all there phone calls, not mish mash, hap hazzard we can not know what lines are recorded and what are not.
The case continues in my favor.

Is this the case 2 years back in time?

 

[Black Swan]

If i were you (and on the basis that this has now gone legal) I'd say nothing publically in relation to your case. In fact IMHO you may have ruined what slim chance you had by your constant flaming of CMC on such an open forum with so many contributors, particularly when you bear in mind how high this site and all its posts rank in google searches.
In point of fact you may, if you don't handle yourself very carefully from here on in, find yourself at the end of an action by CMC.

 

[karl6666]

agree

If i were you (and on the basis that this has now gone legal) I'd say nothing publically in relation to your case. In fact IMHO you may have ruined what slim chance you had by your constant flaming of CMC on such an open forum with so many contributors, particularly when you bear in mind how high this site and all its posts rank in google searches.
In point of fact you may, if you don't handle yourself very carefully from here on in, find yourself at the end of an action by CMC.

Agree

surely you are giving all your evidence / defence on public view. Maybe tomtom is correct in his case, but solicitors all p1ss in the same pot, drinking buddies, they will string it out as long as possible, with no real outcome, stress and expense that could spread out over many years, yes any solicitor will take on your case because they cant lose....... they make a bucket of cash regardless

Karl

 

[stevespray]

I'm guessing that there are two possible angles from TomTom's perspective;

Firstly the angle which the last two posts have pointed out - That the finer points of the case are being discussed in public with Uncle Tom Cobley and all adding their views. However, surely CMC already know TomTom's complaints and arguements since he has submitted them to the Ombudsman Service?

The second angle is one where TomTom is creating a thread where he may collect or find out details of other cases or complaints which he might not otherwise discover. This could potentially offset the first angle. On top of that TomTom appears to be adopting the 'Dog with a bone' stance against CMC. This sends a powerful message to the firm - the client is clearly prepared to persue the matter further. This increases the chances of the firm offering settlement especially if the firm realise that the client does have a valid complaint.

Steve

 

[karl6666]

patience

All valid points here. But has anybody here try to sue somebody, to claim for damages.

I admire tomtoms b0llocks, but if he has the patience time and money good luck. But the case, if it hasn’t, will take over his life. It could take years, solicitors letters, solicitors phone calls, court dates, collecting evidence, time from work /leisure time solicitors meetings, ombudsman, the other party ‘not playing ball’ and ignoring correspondence. A few times in business I hear, ‘if you ignore it long enough it will go away’, they can ignore it , because they have your dosh and string it out over a long time, costing you more and more
This sort of pressure drains every bit of energy and positivity out of a person, if he gets his money. What price is the worry, lack of sleep at 1000’s of hours, will he be compensated for that.

Karl

 

[goldtip]

Poor Execution

Could anyone get them for poor execution and freezing of the application ? It tends to happen when your making a sizable profit.

 

[seguna]

I think CMC are unlikely to drag up the issue of posts on a site like this and the forum contents. Whether the statements made on here can be used as evidence in court is highly debatable, and even if admitted, how much credence will be give to our ramblings?

Ultimately comes down to the clear evidence that Tomtom is able to produce himself and or garner through others either via this site or elsewhere. I still suspect CMC will likely settle out of court if the case put forward is solid enough but not admit wrongdoing etc. They'd rather do that than get into a long drawn out thing just to wear Tomtom down - they wouldn't spend all that money on defence when they can settle out of court for much less and attach a Tomlin order or something like that.

 

[gle101]

I wouldn't be surprised to find TomTom dropping the case in the month to come (hopefully I'm wrong). It is another thing talking about it on a forum like this. But taking serious legal action and pursuing it is, another issue altogether. Using this thread as a platform to attack CMC is not making his case stronger. Why, simply because we only hear his side of the story.

 

[gle101]

Could anyone get them for poor execution and freezing of the application ? It tends to happen when your making a sizable profit.

You have a choice to move on to another SB firm. Competition is the best regulator.

 

[goldtip]

You have a choice to move on to another SB firm. Competition is the best regulator.

True, it just sucks when you have been hoodwinked I sympathise w/ Toms complaint a similar thing happened to me. It's not fair because you have no way of closing your position with the exception of SL or TP which some people prefer not to use based on market condition.

 

[gle101]

True, it just sucks when you have been hoodwinked I sympathise w/ Toms complaint a similar thing happened to me. It's not fair because you have no way of closing your position with the exception of SL or TP which some people prefer not to use based on market condition.

What about hedging? There is a lot of miscreants, but ultimately the responsibility is your own, to secure yourself.

 

[goldtip]

What about hedging? There is a lot of miscreants, but ultimately the responsibility is your own, to secure yourself.

If I only knew what I know now (hedging) then, then perhaps the situation would be different but that does not give them the right to make it impossible for you to execute a trade for over half an hour. does it !

 

[gle101]

If I only knew what I know now (hedging) then, then perhaps the situation would be different but that does not give them the right to make it impossible for you to execute a trade for over half an hour. does it !

Yes I agree with you on this issue. But it doesn't really help your situation. I think the competition is increasing in a big way today. I wonder, if they can afford to play such a game in the future.