CFD referrals to Britain’s ombudsman rose 84% while share-dealing complaints fell

New CFD complaints referred to Britain’s Financial Ombudsman Service increased from 61 to 112 in the July–September quarter, comparing 2025 with 2026. The rise of 51 cases amounts to 83.6%. Over the same periods, new share-dealing cases fell from 219 to 155, or 29.2%, while spread-betting cases edged down from 23 to 21. Comparing the published product tables shows a movement in CFD referrals that the other two trading categories did not share.[1][2]

The comparison concerns cases reaching an independent dispute-resolution body. The Ombudsman is not the financial regulator, and the tables do not supply a population of active CFD customers against which to measure the rise. They establish more referred disputes, rather than an 84% increase in customers experiencing problems. They also separate new cases from the outcomes of complaints resolved during the quarter. That distinction limits both risk comparisons and estimates of proven customer harm.[1][2][3]

The change nevertheless deserves close scrutiny. Retail CFDs can involve leverage, liquidation, pricing, margin calls and contract terms that create disputes different from those in a conventional investment account. An increase in independent-dispute referrals may identify a changing consumer experience or reporting pattern. Finding the cause requires additional evidence: firm-level caseloads, complaint grounds, activity levels, market conditions and final decisions. A substantial movement in raw referrals is a lead, not a final misconduct finding.[1][3]

Two quarterly tables, one comparable category

The Ombudsman's Q2 2025/26 figures cover July through September 2025; its Q2 2026/27 figures cover July through September 2026. Both tables include a 'CFDs (Contracts for Difference)' category within derivatives. This makes a like-for-like comparison of published product labels possible. The older figure is 61 and the newer figure 112. Divide the 51-case increase by 61 and the result is 83.6066%, conventionally rounded to 84%. The calculation concerns new cases referred in each three-month period, not every complaint handled internally by firms.[1][2]

The absolute number remains relatively modest compared with the Ombudsman's largest financial-product categories, such as current accounts. A percentage change from a small starting base can be striking without representing a comparable movement across the entire financial system. Fifty-one additional cases are materially relevant to a specialised market, but not evidence of tens of thousands of affected traders. Numbers should be reported with both their percentage and their base to avoid exaggeration.[1][2]

The same tables report 23 spread-betting complaints in Q2 2025/26 and 21 in Q2 2026/27, a small decrease. They report 219 and 155 respectively for share dealing. That means the CFD trend was not simply repeated in every trading-related product heading. A broker or regulator seeking to explain the CFD rise should investigate product-specific drivers rather than assuming a general surge in all investing disputes.[1][2]

A referred complaint is not a proven breach

The Ombudsman provides an uphold rate for CFD cases resolved in each quarter: 13% in Q2 2025/26 and 15% in Q2 2026/27. This information is useful, but it is not valid to apply 15% directly to the 112 newly received cases and announce that about 17 of those new complaints were justified. Cases resolved in a quarter generally come from a different pool, including matters referred earlier, and the outcome mix can be affected by processing backlogs and case complexity. The numerator and denominator of the uphold rate are not the new referrals total.[1][2]

The rise in the published uphold rate from 13% to 15% is two percentage points. It describes the proportion of the relevant resolved cases that the Ombudsman upheld, not the eventual outcomes of the 112 new referrals. The product table does not supply the resolved-case count needed to reconstruct an exact number upheld from that rounded percentage. A valid outcome comparison would follow the received cases to resolution or use matched resolved-case totals.[1][2]

An upheld complaint can concern a variety of matters: unfair application of terms, inadequate explanation, administrative error or a problem with order execution, depending on evidence. A case that is not upheld does not prove that the consumer's experience was pleasant or that no operational interruption occurred. It establishes that the Ombudsman did not conclude a remedy was due on the particular case and evidence. Neither outcome should be generalised across an entire broker's customers.[3]

The route to the Ombudsman also creates a filter between an initial customer problem and the quarterly count. Its guidance says the customer must first complain to the financial business. For these complaints, the business normally has eight weeks to provide a final response; the consumer can then bring the matter to the Ombudsman if dissatisfied, or if that time has elapsed without a response. Cases resolved within a broker’s own process may never become FOS referrals. Changes at that stage could affect the published totals without an equivalent change in trading incidents.[3]

What can generate a CFD dispute

CFDs reflect changes in an underlying asset and can be traded on margin. A dispute may concern stop orders, slippage, pricing, the timing of a margin close-out or the information given at account opening. FOS’s business guidance distinguishes advice and suitability from execution-only relationships, where the assessment can concern appropriateness and risk understanding. The required evidence follows the actual issue: time-stamped prices and orders for an execution dispute, margin terms and account balances for a close-out, or onboarding and advisory records for the relevant assessment.[3][4]

The Ombudsman’s guidance explains that it considers the individual circumstances and available evidence when deciding whether a business acted fairly. An adverse market move can generate a loss even when the trade and margin procedures followed the applicable terms. Conversely, a disputed price or process can require examination even if the financial amount is small. The aggregate product line cannot distinguish those cases, and a rise in referrals does not establish which ground will ultimately be upheld.[3][4]

A firm that handles high volumes of active trading may generate more referrals even if its rate per transaction is unchanged. Volatility can increase trade frequency, margin calls and the severity of price moves. Changes to customer onboarding or product restrictions can also affect the population making complaints. To test whether service standards deteriorated in 2026, the case count would need to be paired with active account numbers, trades, notional exposure and complaint grounds. None is included in the two quarterly product tables in a way that enables that complete test.[1][2]

A separate FCA review identifies a question about charges

A 15 October FCA publication supplies relevant context for the next enquiry. In May, the regulator asked 81 firms about changes following its November 2025 price-and-value review. Most had made or planned changes, but the FCA said many were minor. Only 12% reported changing charges. The regulator described improvements to assessments, onboarding and disclosures alongside continuing concerns about overnight financing costs and how those costs are explained.[5]

The concerns include clients holding offsetting buy and sell positions on the same underlying asset. Such a customer may reduce net directional exposure while continuing to incur charges on the open contracts. The FCA also said funding-charge mark-ups remained insufficiently transparent and only a minority had added annualised cost comparisons. These are specific questions about the price of maintaining positions, distinct from whether a market move triggered a correctly executed close-out.[5]

The two records cannot be joined into a causal finding. The FCA surveyed firms in May, before the FOS quarter, and published its findings after that quarter ended. Its use of the CFD label also includes spread betting and rolling spot FX, which do not map exactly onto the FOS product row. The survey provides a line of enquiry about charges; it does not show that fees caused any of the 51 additional referrals.[1][2][5]

The wider complaints picture has different drivers

The Ombudsman received approximately 57,000 new complaints across financial products during July–September 2026, compared with roughly 46,300 a year earlier. Its publications explain that broad movements are influenced by other categories, including motor finance commission, changes in professional-representative activity and complaint-handling arrangements. A surge in general FOS referrals therefore cannot be assumed to describe CFD brokerage specifically. The product-specific line is the appropriate starting point.[1][2]

Likewise, comparing overall uphold rates with the CFD-specific 15% is problematic. The total case mix includes banking, insurance, consumer credit, investments and pensions. Different kinds of cases, legal issues and stages of resolution can change the aggregate rate. A CFD broker's procedural quality should not be benchmarked to the broad financial-services average without controlling for those differences. The value of the Ombudsman's dataset is the ability to separate product families and reporting periods.[1]

The Ombudsman is a UK dispute-resolution body and is not a worldwide catalogue of retail CFD complaints. A foreign broker without relevant UK jurisdiction or an offshore customer's dispute may not be represented at all. Nor does this series cover every complaint first made to the Financial Conduct Authority or to a broker's own support team. The count of formal FOS referrals can change when customers become more aware of the process or when firms resolve different proportions of cases internally.[3]

Which broker and which client?

A company's marketing brand may be shared by several legal entities under different jurisdictions. A client in the United Kingdom may contract with one entity, while a customer in another market contracts with an affiliate. FOS eligibility depends on the applicable jurisdiction, complainant and financial activity; it cannot automatically be extended to all global customers of a brand. No broker should be named as responsible for the aggregate rise without a separate evidential link to its own cases and legal entity.[1][3]

This is a particularly important protection against unjustified reputation damage. The 112 new referrals concern an entire reported product line, not 112 violations at one firm. A small number of highly publicised customer disputes could change the apparent count, or increases could be spread broadly among providers. The quarterly table does not identify the distribution. The correct response is to seek company-level complaints records and compare them with regulated customer populations—not to nominate a suspected offender from an industry total.[1]

For a trader with a dispute, relevant records include the exact contracting company, account statements, order confirmations, instrument terms, price records and timestamps, together with the original complaint and the firm’s response. The Ombudsman can use those materials to reconstruct the event and assess the applicable terms. Preserving them is more useful for an individual case than treating the quarterly 84% increase as evidence that the broker caused a particular trading loss.[3][4]

What further investigation should establish

The decisive next questions are whether the new CFD referrals cluster at particular firms; whether stop-loss, margin-closeout and withdrawal disputes changed proportionately; whether trading volumes or active client accounts expanded in the same period; and whether final upheld outcomes eventually follow the additional cases. The Ombudsman publishes other firm-level and product-level material, but a valid comparison would need to reconcile reporting dates and legal entities rather than simply splice unrelated tables together.[1][2]

The established result is a rise from 61 to 112 CFD referrals across comparable quarters, alongside falling share-dealing and slightly lower spread-betting counts. It is a change in the independent dispute-resolution caseload. Explaining whether it reflects more activity, different complaint handling or a recurring service problem requires firm-level and outcome evidence. The current data identify where to examine that question without identifying a culpable broker or a customer-risk rate.[1][2][3]

Report an error or submit an update