DRN-6242064

The complaint Mr S has a share dealing account with Halifax Share Dealing Limited trading as Bank of Scotland Share Dealing (“Halifax”). His complaint relates to the sale of shares in June 2025. Mr S placed an order to sell, and the shares were sold at a much lower price than he expected. What happened Mr S has a share dealing account with Halifax. Some of his shares are held in an Individual Savings Account (“ISA”) wrapper and some are not. Mr S has had the account for around ten years. During that time Mr S has bought and sold shares without encountering the problem about which he now complains. In 2025 Mr S held shares in a company (“the Company”) which is listed on the NASDAQ exchange in the United States. Although the shares are still listed, trading in the shares has been halted since September 2025. According to the authorities in the US the Company’s shares were subject to a sophisticated ‘dump and pump’ fraud scheme to defraud investors in the Company’s shares and two men have been charged with fraud offences. During the first half of 2025 the Company’s share price increased from around $0.75 per share to a high of almost $9.40 on 26 June 2025. Then on that day the share price fell rapidly and closed at $0.55 per share. Mr S was watching the Company’s share price on 26 June 2025 and noticed a sharp fall. Mr S says he requested a “sell indication” from Halifax and it offered a price which Mr S says he accepted – placing orders to sell both lots of shares - which would have left him with a small loss. Mr S cannot recall the precise price displayed but recalls he was expecting about £5.80 per share which equates to around $8 per share at that time. However, Mr S placed his order at a time when trading in the shares was halted by NASDAQ. Trading was halted several times that day because of extreme trading volatility. Halifax says that any price it was showing at the time was indicative only. Mr S’s orders to sell are timed at 19:29 and 19:30 British Summer Time (“BST”). This was 14:29 and 14:30 Eastern Time (“ET”) in the US. On 26 June 2025 trading was halted a 13:39 ET and did not resume until 15:04 ET (20:04 BST). Halifax’s records show the sale orders were placed on its system by Mr S at 19:29 and 19:30 BST which was during that trading halt. When trading resumed the order was executed by

-- 1 of 5 --

Halifax’s agent at 15:04 ET/20:04 BST at a price of just over $0.99 which raised around £2,000 rather than the £22,000 Mr S expected. Mr S complained to Halifax. It said the sales orders were placed during the trading halt and that the shares were sold in line with its order execution policy and that there had been no errors on its part. Further emails were exchanged but Halifax did not change its position, and Mr S referred his complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service in July 2025. Mr S considers that he accepted the price on the screen when he placed his sell order and it should be honoured. Mr S says he did not agree to a lower price and that if Halifax had told him that trading was halted he would have cancelled his order or at least reassessed. The complaint was considered by one of our investigators. He did not think the complaint should be upheld. He made a number of points including the following: • The service provided by Halifax is an execution only service and Halifax does not give advice. • Mr S’s order was an “at best” order which means Mr S asked Halifax to sell the shares at the best price available not at the specific price shown which was only an indicative price. • The sale order was given when trading was halted, and it was executed as soon as trading resumed. • The price of the shares dropped when trading resumed. As Mr S’s order was an “at best” order rather than a “limit order” the shares were sold at the then lower price in accordance with Mr S’s instructions. • Although this has been an upsetting experience for Mr S, Halifax has acted in a way that is consistent with its role as an execution only broker. Mr S does not agree with the investigator. Mr S has made a number of points in response including the following: • He was not warned that the price displayed was only indicative, or that trading had been halted when he placed his order. There was nothing to indicate the price shown was stale. • The order process gave the clear impression his order would be executed straight away with the screen showing a clear financial outcome from the proposed trade and with a prominent “Deal Now” button on a countdown screen. This made him think the trade would either execute immediately or not proceed at all. • Halifax did not come back to him to check that he still wanted to sell at that much lower price. • If Halifax had provided clearer information to him he most likely would not have sold. • The shares were sold at a price he did not agree to, and he had no control over events. Halifax acted on his behalf but not in his best interest. • The term “at best” was not highlighted or explained to him at the point he made his decision and only appeared later on the post-execution sell statement issued by Halifax. • The term “at best” was not made clear on any customer facing screen so he did not have that information to understand and weigh the risks associated with it.

-- 2 of 5 --

• Any generic “at best” warning earlier in the process should not be allowed to override the later contradictory signals shown on the screen. Reliance on the screen was reasonable. • Halifax did not provide the information he needed to make an informed decision at the point of execution. One of Halifax’s competitors does, for example, display a visible banner when a stock is halted, prevents customers from placing new orders during the halt and does not present actionable prices or give an immediate execution option. Customers are informed that execution will only occur once trading resumes and that prices may change. This shows alternative approaches are feasible for an execution only broker and consistent with reasonable customer expectations. • Halifax is under a regulatory obligation to communicate in a way that is fair, clear and not misleading. It is points of fairness rather than terms and conditions that are central to the complaint. • He has been treated unfairly by Halifax and it should compensate him on the basis of the share price it displayed when he placed his sale order. • The lack of communication and loss of control has caused significant distress and anxiety. 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. When deciding what is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances I am required to take into account relevant law and regulations; regulators' rules, guidance and standards; codes of practice; and (where appropriate) what I consider to have been good industry practice at the relevant time. Retail investors can choose to buy and sell shares on an advised basis or on a non-advised (or execution only) basis. Mr S has an execution only account with Halifax. It is subject to the FCA’s rules when providing that service, but the rules apply in a way that is consistent with that agreed type of service. Share prices vary and can move quickly. Because of this Halifax offers different types of order. “At best” orders are orders to deal at the best price available at the time the order is executed. And such orders are supposed to be executed as soon as possible – which is usually almost instantly. Halifax also provides something it calls “Trade Plan” orders. This includes “limit orders” where an order is given to trade at a specific price with the intention that the trade is executed when the market price meets the price specified in the order. In this case Mr S placed an “at best” order to sell his shares, and his previous experience has been that such orders have been executed straight away. That was not however the case on 26 June 2025 because there was a halt on trading in the Company’s shares at NASDAQ. As soon as trading resumed at 20:04 the trade was executed. Halifax says the price was the best available price. The price obtained was $0.99. This was considerably lower than the screen price of around $8 when Mr S placed his order.

-- 3 of 5 --

Mr S argues Halifax should compensate him on the basis of the price he placed his sale order at as a matter of fairness either because that is what was agreed or because that would be an appropriate remedy for the unfair treatment he says he has received. Mr S’s share dealing account does not mean he is buying shares from or selling shares to Halifax. Halifax is an intermediary in the share buying and selling process not the other party to Mr S’s deals. So when Mr S wants to sell his shares and Halifax displays a price on its screen, that is ordinarily the price at which Mr S can sell, but it is not Halifax making a deal with him to buy from him at that price. Nor is Halifax guaranteeing to be able to sell at that price – though that will often be the price obtained. Mr S’s order was placed by clicking on a button that said “deal now” but he did not have an agreement with Halifax that it would buy his shares at that price, his deal with Halifax was that it would sell them as soon as possible at the best price available. And as Halifax executed the trade as soon as trading resumed it did what it was instructed to do. It was not possible for it to trade any earlier and/or to trade at the $8 price. Mr S says that other brokers provide more information than Halifax provided to him and that he did not have the information he needed to make an informed decision. And Mr S thinks Halifax should have double checked with him given the large price fall. I accept that Halifax could have provided more information – as at least one of its competitors does. But two firms can do things differently and that does not necessarily mean one is acting fairly and the other is not. It is important to consider things in context in order to decide whether Halifax treated Mr S unfairly. And that means within the context of the existing relationship between Mr S and Halifax and the type of service they agreed to. Buying and selling shares can be a fast paced, dynamic activity. Halifax’s service is an execution only service. This means Mr S is responsible for his own trading decisions. Although there is a general obligation on a regulated firm to act in its client’s best interests that does not mean changing the nature of the agreed service. Limit orders are available if the client wants to have some control over the price at which shares are sold. And if a limit is not specified Halifax will deal “at best” without double checking, which is normal for this type of service. The client is expected to understand the orders they make and they ordinarily would not expect any delay, and the real risk of further price slippage, while their trading instructions are double checked. Mr S has held and used his account for a number of years. There was therefore no reason for Halifax to think Mr S did not understand what he was doing, or for me to require Halifax to treat Mr S differently. It should be kept in mind that the price of the Company’s shares continued to fall after Mr S’s trade and closed at $0.55. And according to data on the NASDAQ website the price per share has not gone above that price since (bearing in mind a stock split in August 2025). Also, trading in the shares has been halted since September 2025. All this means that if Mr S had waited to give his order until after the trade halt that ended at 20:04 (or if Halifax had double checked with him to see if he still wanted to trade) he probably would have received less for his shares or would have been left holding shares worth less than he sold them for and can no longer sell. But if Mr S had wanted to hold on to the shares in the hope of an upturn, he could have bought the shares back at a lower price with the sale proceeds before dealing was halted in September 2025.

-- 4 of 5 --

It is, of course, unfortunate that Mr S has lost a significant amount of money but in the circumstances I do not consider that Halifax has treated Mr S unfairly or that I can fairly and reasonably make any award in Mr S’s favour. My final decision For the reasons given above, I do not uphold Mr S’s complaint Halifax Share Dealing Limited. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr S to accept or reject my decision before 21 May 2026. Philip Roberts Ombudsman

-- 5 of 5 --