CMC Complaint & Ombudsmans Response

[Black Swan]

CMC got in house legal experts dealing with this nonsense every day of the week. If there was a 'remote' chance of you winning they would settle out of court for peanuts. They dont want bad publicity and if I were you i'd be very very careful coz next thing you get a very expensive libel case on ya hands. Cut ya loss move on call it experience before it costs a lot more. They can mess with you for years, adjournments requesting this and that, till ya run out of money and they wont even notice it.

what usually happens is that the big shot lawyer co. asks for a deposit upfront, IMHO they'll ask for between 5-10K from TomTom before opening a file, but crucially after putting on the charm, usually over 'tea and biccies' for half an hour in a meeting room.

 

[Claudia123]

what usually happens is that the big shot lawyer co. asks for a deposit upfront, IMHO they'll ask for between 5-10K from TomTom before opening a file, but crucially after putting on the charm, usually over 'tea and biccies' for half an hour in a meeting room.

yep - the only winners are the legal guys as always and they dont care coz ya got to pay them anyway (CMC always win which is a different issue)

 

[goldtip]

CMC got in house legal experts dealing with this nonsense every day of the week. If there was a 'remote' chance of you winning they would settle out of court for peanuts. They dont want bad publicity and if I were you i'd be very very careful coz next thing you get a very expensive libel case on ya hands. Cut ya loss move on call it experience before it costs a lot more. They can mess with you for years, adjournments requesting this and that, till ya run out of money and they wont even notice it.

 

[stevespray]

CMC got in house legal experts dealing with this nonsense every day of the week. If there was a 'remote' chance of you winning they would settle out of court for peanuts. They dont want bad publicity and if I were you i'd be very very careful coz next thing you get a very expensive libel case on ya hands. Cut ya loss move on call it experience before it costs a lot more. They can mess with you for years, adjournments requesting this and that, till ya run out of money and they wont even notice it.

Claudia - I disagree with you for several reasons.

Firstly because, having had to deal with some of these firms compliance departments myself, I understand how they generally operate. They dont like to be challenged and they particularly dont like it if you challenge their dealing proceedures - generally they will never find in your favour even if you provide facts which show that errors have been made by the firms employees. Dont forget that compliance staff are paid by the firms themselves!

The second and main reason I disagree with you is because so much of some firms T&Cs would be judged unfair if cases came to court. Any firm would struggle to show that their client agreements were anything more than 'consumer contracts' as deemed in law. This would present them with significant issues in cases such as the one TomTom has outlined. Consumer contract regulations specify that companies cannot place terms or conditions in contracts which are either unfair or promote an imbalance in the rights of the two parties. As a few peeps have pointed out already; the T&Cs only seem to ever favour the firms - this is a serious problem for the firms since it makes it easy to challenge. Firms get away with these T&C's in contracts because they are generally never challenged openly - they never let matters get into court. The problem which the firms really have is that they are opperating in that space between the raw financial markets and the 'retail consumer' - because of that the end user has huge protection which the firms themselves dont.

Steve.

 

[newt24]

just with drew all my money from cmc, I guess i dont have to tell u why, its pretty obvious !!! much of low down scum!

 

[Claudia123]

Claudia - I disagree with you for several reasons.

Firstly because, having had to deal with some of these firms compliance departments myself, I understand how they generally operate. They dont like to be challenged and they particularly dont like it if you challenge their dealing proceedures - generally they will never find in your favour even if you provide facts which show that errors have been made by the firms employees. Dont forget that compliance staff are paid by the firms themselves!

The second and main reason I disagree with you is because so much of some firms T&Cs would be judged unfair if cases came to court. Any firm would struggle to show that their client agreements were anything more than 'consumer contracts' as deemed in law. This would present them with significant issues in cases such as the one TomTom has outlined. Consumer contract regulations specify that companies cannot place terms or conditions in contracts which are either unfair or promote an imbalance in the rights of the two parties. As a few peeps have pointed out already; the T&Cs only seem to ever favour the firms - this is a serious problem for the firms since it makes it easy to challenge. Firms get away with these T&C's in contracts because they are generally never challenged openly - they never let matters get into court. The problem which the firms really have is that they are opperating in that space between the raw financial markets and the 'retail consumer' - because of that the end user has huge protection which the firms themselves dont.

Steve.

Hi Steve

I respect and understand your comments but still say the big guy will win over the little guy. Hopefully the 'retail consumer' will be protected but time will have to tell.

Going back to the original post the amount of money involved is what i dont undersand/believe - its ludicrous (good word for a German!). I trade with cmc and ig and find this impossible to happen.

Oh well just my thoughts.

Have a good day - barclays made my week!

Claudia

 

[goldtip]

Hi Steve

I respect and understand your comments but still say the big guy will win over the little guy. Hopefully the 'retail consumer' will be protected but time will have to tell.

Going back to the original post the amount of money involved is what i dont undersand/believe - its ludicrous (good word for a German!). I trade with cmc and ig and find this impossible to happen.

Oh well just my thoughts.

Have a good day - barclays made my week!

Claudia

Claudia

You seam familiar :whistling anyway do you happen to work for cmc

 

[goldtip]

Claudia - I disagree with you for several reasons.

Firstly because, having had to deal with some of these firms compliance departments myself, I understand how they generally operate. They dont like to be challenged and they particularly dont like it if you challenge their dealing proceedures - generally they will never find in your favour even if you provide facts which show that errors have been made by the firms employees. Dont forget that compliance staff are paid by the firms themselves!

The second and main reason I disagree with you is because so much of some firms T&Cs would be judged unfair if cases came to court. Any firm would struggle to show that their client agreements were anything more than 'consumer contracts' as deemed in law. This would present them with significant issues in cases such as the one TomTom has outlined. Consumer contract regulations specify that companies cannot place terms or conditions in contracts which are either unfair or promote an imbalance in the rights of the two parties. As a few peeps have pointed out already; the T&Cs only seem to ever favour the firms - this is a serious problem for the firms since it makes it easy to challenge. Firms get away with these T&C's in contracts because they are generally never challenged openly - they never let matters get into court. The problem which the firms really have is that they are opperating in that space between the raw financial markets and the 'retail consumer' - because of that the end user has huge protection which the firms themselves dont.

Steve.

-Steve-

Love your work

 

[Claudia123]

Claudia

You seam familiar :whistling anyway do you happen to work for cmc

lol no I do not - have a good whistle. I trade from home and do use cmc sometimes.

 

[goldtip]

lol no I do not - have a good whistle. I trade from home and do use cmc sometimes.

 

[Claudia123]

:clap:

 

[Phil Mibbutz]

You have to wonder about the professionalism of a company that sends clients an e-mail containing the words: 'guarentee' and 'recieve'.

 

[Claudia123]

You have to wonder about the professionalism of a company that sends clients an e-mail containing the words: 'guarentee' and 'recieve'.

This is a very good point. But maybe its deliberate as the average client can't spell. Fortunately i can in two languages.

 

[gle101]

Claudia - I disagree with you for several reasons.

Firstly because, having had to deal with some of these firms compliance departments myself, I understand how they generally operate. They dont like to be challenged and they particularly dont like it if you challenge their dealing proceedures - generally they will never find in your favour even if you provide facts which show that errors have been made by the firms employees. Dont forget that compliance staff are paid by the firms themselves!

The second and main reason I disagree with you is because so much of some firms T&Cs would be judged unfair if cases came to court. Any firm would struggle to show that their client agreements were anything more than 'consumer contracts' as deemed in law. This would present them with significant issues in cases such as the one TomTom has outlined. Consumer contract regulations specify that companies cannot place terms or conditions in contracts which are either unfair or promote an imbalance in the rights of the two parties. As a few peeps have pointed out already; the T&Cs only seem to ever favour the firms - this is a serious problem for the firms since it makes it easy to challenge. Firms get away with these T&C's in contracts because they are generally never challenged openly - they never let matters get into court. The problem which the firms really have is that they are opperating in that space between the raw financial markets and the 'retail consumer' - because of that the end user has huge protection which the firms themselves dont.

Steve.

With all respect, as I suggested to you in another case, why don't you team up with TomTom taking this case to court? It is very easy to apply that one should take it further when there is no money at stake. To file a complaint to the company in question is another issue altogether, compared to actually taking the case to court. If it is so easy to win these cases, there must be lawyers who work on provision and gets paid only if it falls out in favor of the client.

 

[Claudia123]

With all respect, as I suggested to you in another case, why don't you team up with TomTom taking this case to court? It is very easy to apply that one should take it further when there is no money at stake. To file a complaint to the company in question is another issue altogether, compared to actually taking the case to court. If it is so easy to win these cases, there must be lawyers who work on provision and gets paid only if it falls out in favor of the client.

Coz he knows CMC will win. If your account go over you owe so you pay. Very simple. For someone to let account go so far (and i dont believe) why not stop out ? Madness or just bad trading or just rubbish. Maybe works for IG and just knocking CMC. Waste of time but is amusing.

 

[goldtip]

I think someone here works for cmc markets

 

[ns1000]

I think someone here works for cmc markets

Why? Because they're not saying 'yeah, sue the b*stards for everything they've got'?

If you can't disagree with the lynch mob mentality of some posters, what's the point in having a forum.

fwiw I think Tomtom has a good case, but cautioning him before he chalks up 20k in fees is a reasonable point to make.

 

[Claudia123]

Why? Because they're not saying 'yeah, sue the b*stards for everything they've got'?

If you can't disagree with the lynch mob mentality of some posters, what's the point in having a forum.

fwiw I think Tomtom has a good case, but cautioning him before he chalks up 20k in fees is a reasonable point to make.

This is my whole point - 20k to cmc is nothing. Tomtom it might be a fortune - i dunno.

 

[stevespray]

Coz he knows CMC will win.

What I'm saying is actually the reverse - If what TomTom has stated is entirely true then he has a very good case for the reasons I've outlined. That doesnt mean that he's certain to win it's just my opinion. If I thought that he'd lose then I'd say that.

Thanks,
Steve.

 

[Claudia123]

What I'm saying is actually the reverse - If what TomTom has stated is entirely true then he has a very good case for the reasons I've outlined. That doesnt mean that he's certain to win it's just my opinion. If I thought that he'd lose then I'd say that.

Thanks,
Steve.

Ok Steve no problems