Interactive Investor Services Limited · DRN-6184051

The complaint Ms S complains about the way Interactive Investor Services Limited (IISL) executed a trade she placed to purchase shares in a foreign stock. She says it didn’t deal with her request appropriately and has caused her a loss due to misinformation. What happened Ms S holds an investment account with IISL. On 18 December 2024, she obtained an online quote on IISL’s website for a contribution of £50,000 in an ETF. She says the quote she received showed the quantity available for her to purchase was 99 shares – and has provided a screen shot to show this. But she says when she went ahead to make the purchase seconds later, she only received 97 shares. Ms S immediately contacted IISL to cancel the trade as the amount she received was different to the estimate provided. As the order couldn’t be cancelled, she raised a complaint. IISL responded to the complaint but didn’t uphold it. In summary it said: • It reviewed the concerns and found no error occurred in the execution of the trade. The foreign exchange (FX) rates displayed during quotes are indicative and not guaranteed. • The order was submitted as a quantity buy order for 97 shares, not an invest order. The estimated 99 shares likely indicated the maximum number of shares purchasable with Ms S’s full cash balance. This was an estimation and not a guarantee. • Due to the stock price, even an invest order would have capped the purchase at 97 shares. Attempting to buy 99 shares would have resulted in a negative cash balance. Ms S didn’t agree with the response, so referred her complaint to this service for an independent review. One of our investigators looked into the complaint and thought it should be upheld in part. In summary she said: • The indicative quote provided prior to purchase doesn’t include details of the FX fee IISL charges. So, it wasn’t clear to Ms S how this 1.5% margin rate would affect the number of shares she was able to purchase with her funds. And this FX margin rate appears to be the main difference between the indicative quote page and the actual shares that were available to purchase. This has caused Ms S a loss of expectation. The impact of this was that she believed she would be able to purchase more shares than she received. • There hasn’t been a financial loss, as the FX margin rate would have still been payable even if it was disclosed more clearly, but the loss of expectation has caused Ms S distress. IISL should pay her £150 in compensation as a fair way to resolve things. IISL didn’t agree and requested that an ombudsman reaches a decision on the complaint. In summary it said: • Ms S requested to trade 97 shares. Based on her available funds and the indicative

-- 1 of 4 --

rates it was estimated she could have bought 99 shares; however, this is completely irrelevant to her submitted request. • Whilst it is correct there is an FX element it wouldn’t have any bearing on Ms S’s submitted trade instruction. The cost for currency conversions is made available online. Before placing an international order online, all the relevant information is provided, this includes: an indicative share price, the number of shares being purchased, an indicative conversion rate if applicable and estimated total cost. Customers are provided with the option to place the order or cancel at this point. It is their responsibility to check this information before proceeding so they can make a fully informed investment decision. The margin rate is built into the indicative rate that is quoted. When customers place an international order, they are accepting the quote provided. • Its ‘Terms of Service’ set out the rates and charges that must be paid and that any such amounts due may be deducted from any funds held. Ms S also provided some further submissions. In summary she said: • She disagrees she made a request for 97 shares. She has provided a screenshot she captured when placing the trade, she placed an order to purchase £50,000 worth of shares, which IISL’s system estimated would buy her 99 shares. She did not request to buy 97 shares. She questions why the estimate of 99 shares turned into an actual purchase of only 97 shares for £50,000. • If there are FX costs, why don't IISL show the FX cost to the customer before the customer places the order instead of hiding them in documentation elsewhere. It shows only the trading commission and asks the customer to confirm this but not the FX cost. All costs should be clearly shown and there should be no reason why the FX commission is not clearly stated on the order form, but the trading commission is. • The compensation amount suggested is not enough either for the financial loss she has suffered and the huge amount of stress this has caused her. 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. The crux of this complaint centres around a dispute of the amount of shares Ms S received from a trade she placed with IISL. She was expecting to receive 99 shares for her £50,000 intended contribution but only received 97 shares when the trade completed. To support her case, Ms S has provided a screenshot she captured shortly before placing the trade. This indicative quote provides an estimated quantity available of ‘99’ shares for £50,000. It gives a buy price and confirms the settlement currency is GBP. But it doesn’t give any information about the fees that would be taken, and the impact that would have on the trade. In contrast the actual contract note shows that 97 shares were purchased. It details the price, the currency rate and the fact there was an FX charge of £620.51 and commission of £3.99, and the total cost for the trade was £49,643. IISL claim Ms S placed a request order for 97 shares, so it executed the trade she requested. But she disputes this and refers to the screenshot provided to show her intention was to purchase £50,000 worth of shares and based on the information she was given she expected to receive 99 shares.

-- 2 of 4 --

I haven’t been provided with the screenshots of the actual trade Ms S placed, IISL say this can’t be replicated. So, it isn’t clear what type of trade was placed. But I think I can draw some observations from the evidence provided: • Mrs S was expecting to receive 99 shares based on the indicative quote she saw. • The indicative quote didn’t provide any information that would alert her to the impact charges would have on her purchasing power – the most relevant being the FX charge. • The discrepancy in the number of shares purchased is largely due to the fact once the charges were incorporated into the transaction slightly less shares could be purchased with the intended £50,000 contribution that was entered into the indicative quote. Having considered the available evidence, I think there is a failing to provide clear information to Ms S by IISL. I acknowledge that the indicative quote is only an estimation and not a guarantee of how many shares will be purchased once a trade is placed, and there are a number of factors that impact what can actually be traded. But the fact the indicative quote failed to provide information about charges that IISL knew would be applied, and that were set out once the transaction had completed, means she wasn’t put in an informed position before going on to trade. The only point I’ve seen that set out the amount of the FX charge clearly was after the trade was completed in the contract note. I also acknowledge that information was available online about IISL’s charges. But I don’t think it is reasonable to expect Ms S to have to find this information where key information was missing from the quote. The provision of information at the appropriate time would have allowed Ms S to understand the fact charges would impact her ability to purchase the expected number of shares. But I haven’t seen there was a reference or link to any further information about charges in the quote. In my view, this all amounts to a failing, which caused Ms S a loss of expectation. I’ve gone on to think about what IISL needs to do to put things right. Firstly, I’ve considered whether IISL has caused Ms S a financial loss. But I don’t think it has. I’m satisfied the trade was carried out in line with the relevant terms. I’m not persuaded it would be reasonable to reach a conclusion that Ms S would have decided to forgo the transaction if clearer information was provided during the process. So, I think even if better information about the charges applicable was given sooner, it is most likely Ms S would have still completed the transaction – as opposed to not gone ahead at all. This means she would have still incurred charges, and her funds would have bought her the same number of shares. But I do think the lack of clarity with information has had an impact on Ms S. I note she has explained that she has suffered mental stress due to the situation, and she was clearly upset when she didn’t receive the shares she was expecting. I think a compensation payment is warranted to recognise the impact of the loss of expectation. While I acknowledge Ms S feels more compensation is due, I agree £150 is a fair and reasonable level of compensation in the circumstances, and in line with our approach to awards of this type. So, in resolution to the complaint, I direct IISL to pay this amount to Ms S. My final decision I uphold the complaint in part. My final decision is that Interactive Investor Services Limited should pay Ms S £150 in compensation.

-- 3 of 4 --

Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Ms S to accept or reject my decision before 16 April 2026. Daniel Little Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --