Capital Spreads fraudulently changed the prices of trade executed 2 weeks ago!!!!!!!!

[andycon]

If you can prove that you dont understand spreadbetting well enough, you could call up and say that, and they could be obliged to reverse the trade. I'm not joking. Good luck trying though.

I only want to do it on the losing trades though.

 

[stevespray]

I had a quick look at the CS price chart (hourly bars) for SMI Sept 11 and it is clear that they had a few days with problems at the 7am open. On at least three days the price spiked down for a short period at the market open. Looking at your trade ticket I can see that you opened the trade 8 seconds after the market opened. Clearly taking advantage of the pricing error? You then closed the trade(s) once price returned to its true level. I'm sure that we've all tried it in the past, even Arabianights! Simon has mentioned this on the main CS thread before. "If you get away with it then fair play" seems to be his general atitude along with, "But if we spot our error then we'll take the money back". Given that you did multipul trades then you probably increased the likelihood of them spotting it and trying to reverse the trades.


Of course there's two sides to every argument and I've mentioned this before;

"When is a trade not a trade"...

The law states that 'consideration' of a proposed contract must take place prior to acceptance. Clearly if someone accepts a trade and issues a contract note then it would be regarded that 'acceptance' had occured and that the deal was now binding. In law it would be hard for a SB Co to reverse a trade without your consent. In my opinion this (trade reversals) is one massive grey area which SB Co's never allow to come to court. Any court case going against a firm would have widespread ramifications across the whole industry.


Steve.

 

[Ross Spur]

If the SBs lose money when they make mistakes (as clients do), then they might have an incentive to make fewer errors. If they can reverse trades in their favour when they get it wrong, why bother fixing things?

 

[TheBramble]

Regardless of the OPs stupidity or not in failing to capitalise on his unexpected good fortune and taking the money and running while he still could, another poster has already suggested pushing them, hard. As SS says, the real threat of court action or even wider publicity will possibly be enough to cause them to reconsider.

If they don't - take them to court.

 

[stevespray]

Just to clarify...

I didnt mean to suggest that anybody take anyone to court!

I was just pointing out the big grey area regarding trade reversals made by the various firms and how those reversals are technically in breach of basic contract law as laid out in English Law.

Ultimately how the plaintiff deals with this matter is down to him and him alone. In such a situation it would be interesting to say the least if LCG went after the plaintiff for the disputed funds because LCG would basically arrive in court and offer a basis for a case based on the firms ability to reconsider acceptance of a trade after acceptance had already occured.

 

[tar]

He cant take them to the court !

"The contract is binding on both parties except for instances of a Pricing Error."

""Pricing Error" is defined as a misquote by LCG where the price quoted materially and clearly deviates from the prevailing market price (or the forward calculated market price) at the time that it was quoted. A Pricing Error as defined, but not exclusively, is a Bid price or Offer price which varies above or below the prevailing mid-market price of the underlying product by more than the size of the quoted bid/offer spread of that product. For example a bid/offer quote by LCG in the UK 100 Quarterly contract of 4804 – 4808 when the correct quote should have been 4797 – 4801 may be considered to be a Pricing Error as the LCG Bid of 4804 is more than the quoted spread of the product (in this case 4) away from the mid point (4799) of the correct quote."

"An email or on screen confirmation of a Transaction that does not accurately reflect the relevant underlying market price at the time when the trade was made either over the telephone, or via an OTP or a DTP, does not entitle the customer or LCG to enforce whatever has been inaccurately recorded in the contract note and is likely to constitute a Pricing Error."



Of course , he could also ask for a trade reversal if he have traded on a wrong price and lost money .

hard luck

 

[gfrost]

Does it wotk the other way with SB firms ?
So if you had been stopped out at a loss due to an error, do they refund your account at some later date ?

 

[Ross Spur]

Still waiting to read a T&C that states: 'We can make as many mistakes as we like, and it's never our fault.'

 

[Black Swan]

You cheated you eventually got caught...unlucky.. How many other price discrepancies did you discover using Paddy Power versus Capital Spreads?

 

[stevespray]

Re: He cant take them to the court !

"The contract is binding on both parties except for instances of a Pricing Error."

""Pricing Error" is defined as a misquote by LCG where the price quoted materially and clearly deviates from the prevailing market price (or the forward calculated market price) at the time that it was quoted. A Pricing Error as defined, but not exclusively, is a Bid price or Offer price which varies above or below the prevailing mid-market price of the underlying product by more than the size of the quoted bid/offer spread of that product. For example a bid/offer quote by LCG in the UK 100 Quarterly contract of 4804 – 4808 when the correct quote should have been 4797 – 4801 may be considered to be a Pricing Error as the LCG Bid of 4804 is more than the quoted spread of the product (in this case 4) away from the mid point (4799) of the correct quote."

"An email or on screen confirmation of a Transaction that does not accurately reflect the relevant underlying market price at the time when the trade was made either over the telephone, or via an OTP or a DTP, does not entitle the customer or LCG to enforce whatever has been inaccurately recorded in the contract note and is likely to constitute a Pricing Error."



Of course , he could also ask for a trade reversal if he have traded on a wrong price and lost money .

hard luck

You're missing the point on several levels. Firstly, not all T&Cs of a consumer contract my be enforced. In this instance the terms or conditions which you have quoted appear to allow one of the parties to circumvent clearly laid out contract law - in such an instance contract law would be deemed to be higher value than a customer agreement and would prevail over the matter. Under UK law someone is allowed to establish whether a contract exists or not. The particular T&Cs you quote clearly circumvent that right. Whilst I see the position that a firm may find itself in, I also understand the larger law of the land.

 

[TheBramble]

So you're basically saying he can't sign away his rights in this specific instance?

 

[tar]

Re: He cant take them to the court !

You're missing the point on several levels. Firstly, not all T&Cs of a consumer contract my be enforced. In this instance the terms or conditions which you have quoted appear to allow one of the parties to circumvent clearly laid out contract law - in such an instance contract law would be deemed to be higher value than a customer agreement and would prevail over the matter. Under UK law someone is allowed to establish whether a contract exists or not. The particular T&Cs you quote clearly circumvent that right. Whilst I see the position that a firm may find itself in, I also understand the larger law of the land.

The T&Cs that he agreed to be bound by that is the contract .

 

[TheBramble]

Re: He cant take them to the court !

The T&Cs that he agreed to be bound by that is the contract .

As per my post above, I'm not sure if SS is stating that you can't agree to define what constitutes a contract if in doing so its effect would be to nullify existing contract law.

 

[TheBramble]

Anyway, why are we all debating this?

OP - take it up with CS. They've got 'your' money. No matter what anybody here says you can or can't do or what will or won't happen, makes no difference.

 

[Vorbis]

Does it wotk the other way with SB firms ?
So if you had been stopped out at a loss due to an error, do they refund your account at some later date ?

I think that this is the crucial question, and I'm sure I've read accounts of incidences on here where they have done just that. (Though you may have to ring and ask for it).

I don't think the OP would have any chance in a court with this. It seems a similar situation to when an ATM starts spewing out extra cash, if nobody notices, you might get away with it, but it's naive to think they will just over-look it if they do notice.

 

[Ross Spur]

Yet another one for the FOS.

 

[dealer911]

Yet another one for the FOS.

Probably best to be a bit more selective when reporting to the FOS - Have had trades reversed myself due to bad pricing data (I bought cable at 1.36 a couple of weeks back!) - I think it's fair enough for punters to have a go at a bad price but you have to take it on the chin if it's spotted and reversed! - T&C's protect the SP company here so an utter waste of time to try and fight it.. I've even had trades busted in the past by exchanges due to bad prices. all part of the fun and games!

 

[6am]

don't think the OP would have any chance in a court with this. It seems a similar situation to when an ATM starts spewing out extra cash, if nobody notices, you might get away with it, but it's naive to think they will just over-look it if they do notice.

Of course it is different. In the case of ATM if you take money and do not return them it is a theft. To keep money you have to ask bank and if they are happy you can keep them.

In this case the trader asked for a deal at certain price and got a confirmation that it is OK to deal at this price. Therefore the deal should stand.

 

[dealer911]

Of course it is different. In the case of ATM if you take money and do not return them it is a theft. To keep money you have to ask bank and if they are happy you can keep them.

In this case the trader asked for a deal at certain price and got a confirmation that it is OK to deal at this price. Therefore the deal should stand.

Regulated Exchanges bust trades from time to time - SP companies should be held to the same standard - If the SB prices were out of line with the underlying market then they are also going to bust them... you can whinge all you like but it's a fact of life - the FOS,FSA,FBI will have no interest in this - if you dont understand the music get off the dance floor!

 

[stevespray]

Tar / The Bramble,

Just to clarify the points which you raised...

What I'm trying to say is this... When two people agree to 'trade', be it a second hand toaster or a spreadbet, there comes a point where the law considers that a contract has been formed (ie agreement reached on the price of the toaster / price of the spreadbet). In the UK the principle of contract works on what is known as 'the offer acceptance process'. Basically this means that Party A makes an 'offer' to Party B to trade at a particular price ("The Offer"). Party B can then consider the offer from Party A ("The Consideration"). So far no contract has been formed and Party A may withdraw his offer. At this point Party B may still reject Party A's offer. However, if Party B, after consideration, accepts Party A's offer then, in law, it is deemed that a contract has now come into existence and both A and B are bound by the terms of the contract ("Acceptance").

Now the problem which the various SB Co's have is this... In order to void a trade they have to show that acceptance never occured. As you can see this is difficult for them to prove given that most firms issue contract notes upon acceptance. More importantly, the firms actually admit that the errors are spotted after the event (after acceptance) and as such this would, in law, be an admission that they were considering the terms of an already formed contract after the event when the law makes it perfectly clear that 'consideration' must be carried out prior to 'acceptance'.

My point with the various sets of T&Cs is... most of them appear to try and circumvent the clearly established method of the formation of a contract.