DRN-6309175

The complaint Mr O complains that Interactive Brokers (U.K.) Limited (‘IBUK’) placed restrictions on his dealing account that prevented him from trading. Mr O would now like IBUK to pay him £16,000 for the notional losses he states he’s suffered by their actions. What happened Mr O opened an IBUK trading account on 27 April 2021 and his account was established through an introducing broker that I shall call ‘Firm T’. When applying for his IBUK account, Mr O declared that he had an estimated net worth of $149,001 – $169,000 and he also declared that he had “Extensive” knowledge of stock trading with five years of experience, and “Good” knowledge of options and margin trading with two years of experience. On 14 December 2022, IBUK’s compliance department sent Mr O a message via their Client Portal, in connection with a regulatory-required periodic review of customer accounts they were undertaking. IBUK’s compliance department asked Mr O to provide the following information to support the net worth declared on his account: (i) documentation concerning details of his interest/dividend income; (ii) proof of employment income; (iii) documentation to verify market trading profits from any non-Interactive Brokers account; and (iv) an updated copy of a valid passport, identity card or driver’s licence. Shortly after, Mr O responded, expressing dissatisfaction with the requests, and threatening to transfer his holdings to a different broker if IBUK continued to require the supporting information. On 15 December 2022, IBUK’s compliance department responded, apologising for the inconvenience, but making clear that such documents were required so they could fulfil their regulatory obligations. On 23 December 2022, IBUK’s compliance department sent an email and message through the Client Portal to Mr O’s broker, ‘Firm T’, titled “Important Message Regarding Account”, which informed Firm T of the prior documentation request made to Mr O and warned that “if you do not respond within five (5) business days, we may place restrictions on your account”.

-- 1 of 10 --

On 3 January 2023, IBUK sent a follow-up email and message through the Client Portal to Firm T, titled “Urgent Message Regarding Account”, which warned that “this is our final attempt to collect information” regarding the account and “if you do not respond within five (5) business days, we may place restrictions on your account”. Having received no response, on 18 April 2023, Mr O’s account was placed in “Closing Only” mode by IBUK’s compliance department which restricted Mr O from opening any new positions in his account. However, Mr O remained free to close any open positions in his account and withdraw, deposit and/or transfer funds within the account. A notification concerning the restriction was sent to Firm T via email and through the Client Portal at that time, which stated “Your IBKR account has been placed in Closing Only trading status. This means you may reduce or close positions, but you may not establish or add new positions. This status has been placed on your account because the IBKR Compliance Department has been unable to reach you”. At the time of the restriction, Mr O’s account had a Net Asset Value of $8,492.80, comprised of $55.68 in cash and $8,437.12 in shares. No trading or cashiering activity occurred in the account between 18 April 2023 and 19 August 2025. The account remained restricted in “Closing Only” mode throughout this entire time because Mr O had not provided any of the requested documents and information. On 19 August 2025, Mr O deposited AU$3,900 into his IBUK account. Later that same day, he attempted to convert AU$3,956 into USD. However, the order was rejected because of the restrictions on his account. On 21 August 2025, Mr O submitted a statement reflecting a cash dividend that he had received on 26 March 2025 but provided no additional documents or information. The same day, Mr O stated that he would be filing a complaint with the relevant regulatory and legal authorities. On 24 August 2025, Mr O again attempted to convert AUD in his account to USD and this was again rejected due to the restrictions placed on his account. And, on 29 August 2025, IBUK informed Mr O that they had made the decision to terminate their relationship with him and close his account. An email was also sent to Mr O that same day, titled “Account U*******5 to be Closed,” which provided “Following our review of your account, we regret to inform you that we have determined to terminate IBKR’s relationship with you. This letter serves to inform you that Interactive Brokers will be closing your account U*******5 on the last business day of November 2025”. On 24 September 2025, Mr O submitted a limit order to sell all 13,183 shares he held in the account, which was executed by IBUK as instructed at a transaction price of $0.19 per share, resulting in proceeds of $2,504.77 but realising a loss on the position of $12,763.34. On 2 October 2025, Mr O withdrew $6,444.45 from the account, leaving the account with a total Net Asset Value of $10.00. Shortly afterwards, Mr O decided to formally complain to IBUK. In summary, he said while his account was restricted, he’d missed opportunities to open new positions and been forced to close positions at a loss due to the account cancellation. To put things right, Mr O wanted IBUK to pay him at least £16,000. After reviewing Mr O’s complaint, IBUK concluded they were satisfied they’d done nothing wrong. They also said, in summary, that they had appropriately restricted his account because in entering into the IBUK Customer Agreement, Mr O had expressly agreed that IBUK would have the authority to suspend or freeze the account or any privileges of the account if he failed to provide them with the information that they had asked for.

-- 2 of 10 --

Mr O was unhappy with IBUK’s response, so he referred his complaint to this service. In summary, he said that he was unhappy IBUK had taken the action they had. He also said that they had accepted funds into a restricted account which didn’t seem fair. Mr O also felt that IBUK had been inconsistent with their compliance demands and denied him fair access to his own money. In addition, Mr O stated that he’d been forced into crystallising losses on his account by being forced to sell his shares at an inopportune time and that he had lost a number of opportunities to invest in the market at a critical time. The complaint was then considered by one of our Investigators. She concluded that IBUK hadn’t treated Mr O unfairly. She also said, in summary: • IBUK are entitled to ask for appropriate documentation to verify their customers’ identity and source of wealth and are required to complete this under UK due diligence law. • As these documents were not provided, their terms and conditions allow them to register an ‘Event of Default’ and restrict the account. Although Mr O did provide documents to them in 2024, these were not sufficient for them to remove the restrictions and ultimately the decision was made to terminate the business relationship with Mr O on 29 August 2025, for the account to close on the last business day of November 2025. • IBUK had worked within their terms and conditions and were therefore not liable for any losses Mr O had suffered. Mr O, however, disagreed with our Investigator’s findings. In summary, he said: “I. Prejudiced and incomplete assessment -- contract used as a complete shield The provisional view rests almost entirely on clause 25(A)(xxii) and the general risk disclaimer in clause 18. This approach treats the contract as an absolute defence and fails to engage with IBUK’s overriding statutory duties under: a) FCA Consumer Duty (Principle 12) – to act in good faith, avoid foreseeable harm, and support customers in achieving their objectives; b) Principle 6 (Treat Customers Fairly); and c) the FOS “fair and reasonable” test (DISP 3.6.1R). This is a prejudiced assessment that considers only one side of the factual matrix. II. Retaliatory timing and punitive escalation (2025 regulator complaints to sudden liquidation deadline) The provisional view omits the critical sequence: the hard “liquidate by end-November 2025” deadline was imposed immediately after my regulatory complaints. This timing raises a clear inference of disproportionate and retaliatory conduct that falls squarely within the Consumer Duty prohibition on foreseeable harm (see attached Annex A, Exhibit B and C in the attached document, Annex.pdf). III. The deposit trap -- active facilitation by IBUK with no warning (the central factual and fairness error) The provisional view states (quoting the IBUK website):

-- 3 of 10 --

“The closing only restriction has no effect on your ability to deposit, withdraw, or transfer any funds within the account. This is why when you made a deposit to the account on 19 August 2025, it was accepted.” This statement is factually incorrect as applied to my account and directly contradicts the Consumer Duty obligation of clear disclosure at the point of deposit. On 19 August 2025 IBUK actively generated the wire instructions, processed and credited AUD 3,955.68, and provided no warning whatsoever (either in the deposit flow or at the moment the instructions were created) that the account was in closing-only status and that core functions would be blocked. I attached screenshots of the deposit confirmation and the wire instructions generated by IBUK. In reality: a) I could not convert AUD to USD which was a necessary step for me to transfer my cash balance to my only other broker, TastyTrade, which is USD-only US broker); b) I could not transfer internally to my other IBKR account (only ~AUD 55 cash was movable before the new deposit); c) I could not ACAT/transfer the assets or cash to the new account I opened; d) the only practical exit left was forced liquidation at a loss before the sudden November 2025 hard deadline. These restrictions were raised in my original complaint and supporting evidence, yet the provisional view does not address them at all (see attached Annex A, Exhibit D and E in the attached document, Annex.pdf). This is not a theoretical inconsistency; it is a foreseeable trap: IBUK accepted fresh funds into an account it knew was effectively unusable for the customer’s intended purpose, without any disclosure before or at the critical moment of generating wire instructions or deposit. This is precisely the type of commercial prejudice the Consumer Duty was designed to prevent. At the very least, the attempted wire transfer should have been rejected by IBUK due to account status being only for liquidation/closure. IV. Defective notice and reliance on the introducing broker The provisional view accepts that critical notices were routed only to TradeStation and treats this as sufficient. For consequences as severe as forced liquidation under a hard deadline, it was reasonable for IBUK to use all available channels -- registered email, phone number, and any other contact methods on file -- not merely messages buried in the portal. I request production of all direct communications sent by IBUK to my registered email and phone number between December 2022 and August 2025, together with any records of attempted phone contact. V. The 2022 SOW request is irrelevant (IBUK’s own 2025 conduct superseded it and created a compliance pathway that was then abruptly terminated) I acknowledge that IBUK made an initial source-of-wealth request in December 2022 which I did not see at the time (I rarely opened the account and received no emails). However, that 2022 request became irrelevant in light of IBUK’s subsequent conduct in 2025.

-- 4 of 10 --

On 25 August 2025 IBUK actively solicited new SOW documents, rejected my latest income- tax return, and specifically instructed me to provide audited financial statements or invoices plus the bank statement reflecting invoice amounts (see attached Annex A, Exhibit A in the attached document, Annex.pdf). They even provided a direct “Click Here to Upload Documents” link, clearly indicating they were still treating the account as potentially salvageable and giving me a concrete compliance path. I promptly compiled and uploaded my latest income-tax return . Four days later, on 29 August 2025 -- immediately after I placed on record that I had initiated formal complaints with multiple regulators -- IBUK suddenly decided to terminate the client relationship and imposed the hard November 2025 closure deadline. (see attached Annex A, Exhibit B and C in the attached document, Annex.pdf) This sequence is inconsistent and prejudicial. IBUK cannot claim the account had been “closing only” since 2022, then actively solicit further SOW documents with specific upload instructions in 2025, reject them after customer complied, and four days later -- upon learning of regulator complaints -- abruptly terminate with a hard account closure deadline. Their own actions in August 2025 gave me reasonable expectation that the account remained functional and that compliance remained possible. The sudden reversal after my regulator complaints is disproportionate, bad-faith conduct that breaches the Consumer Duty obligation to act in good faith and avoid foreseeable harm. This is not a case of a customer ignoring a long-standing request; it is a case of IBUK resetting the compliance clock in 2025, facilitating wiring instructions for a new deposit, soliciting SOW documents, then weaponizing the process once regulator complaints were filed. This conduct is a clear breach of the Consumer Duty obligation to act in good faith and avoid foreseeable harm. VI. Causation of the realised loss (£6,281.03 + distress) My loss is not framed as “IBUK caused the market to move.” My harm is the forced liquidation created by IBUK’s restrictions (November 2025 hard deadline) and termination decision, which removed normal options (including orderly transfer in or out, and/or normal account functioning). This is a causation issue and not addressed adequately by quoting general trading-risk clauses. I wouldn't have crystallized those losses if IBUK did not restrict and trapped my assets that I could have transferred internally (to my other IBKR account), or externally (through selling of assets and conversion of AUD balance to USD to facilitate cash balance transfer to my only broker TastyTrade who only handles USD currency. VI. Remedy sought I continue to seek £16,000-20.000 (forced realised loss, wire/conversion fees, distress and inconvenience). VII. Closing I respectfully request that it be assessed impartially and that the relevant facts be carefully and thoroughly considered, without any undue haste or procedural shortcuts taken merely to dispose of the case.” In addition, Mr O also said: 1. “Deposit trap and active facilitation IBUK actively generated wire instructions and accepted AUD 3,955.68 on 19 August 2025 without any warning that the account was closing-only or that core functions (AUD→USD conversion and meaningful

-- 5 of 10 --

internal/external transfers) were blocked. The statement that “closing-only has no effect on deposit, withdraw, or transfer” is factually incorrect as applied to my account. Screenshots showing the FX block, internal transfer limit (~AUD 55 only), and ACAT restriction are attached. This created a foreseeable trap in breach of the Consumer Duty. 2. SOW process inconsistency and retaliatory termination On 25 August 2025 IBUK rejected my latest income-tax return and specifically directed me to upload audited statements/invoices via their “Click Here to Upload Documents” link. Four days later, on 29 August 2025 — immediately after I recorded that I had filed regulator complaints — IBUK terminated the relationship and imposed the hard November 2025 closure deadline. This sequence renders the 2022 SOW request irrelevant and demonstrates bad-faith conduct. IBUK cannot solicit compliance in 2025, then weaponise the process upon learning of regulator complaints. 3. Defective notice For consequences as severe as forced liquidation under a deadline, reasonable notice required direct contact via registered email and phone, not merely portal messages routed to an introducing broker.” Our Investigator was not persuaded to change her view as she didn’t believe Mr O had presented any new arguments she’d not already considered or responded to. Unhappy with that outcome, Mr O then asked the Investigator to pass the case to an Ombudsman for a decision. After carefully considering what both parties had to say on the complaint, I explained that I had decided to issue a provisional decision as whilst I was minded to not uphold Mr O’s complaint, I had added wider reasoning to that of our Investigator and addressed the comments that he made in response to her initial view. This window aimed to give both parties the opportunity to provide any further comments before I reached my final decision. What I said in my provisional decision: I have summarised this complaint in less detail than Mr O has done and I’ve done so using my own words. The purpose of my decision isn’t to address every single point raised by all of the parties involved. If there’s something I’ve not mentioned, it isn’t because I’ve ignored it - I haven’t. I’m satisfied that I don’t need to comment on every individual argument to be able to reach what I think is the right outcome. No discourtesy is intended by this; our rules allow me to do this and it simply reflects the informal nature of our service as a free alternative to the courts. My role is to consider the evidence presented by Mr O and IBUK in order to reach what I think is an independent, fair and reasonable decision based on the facts of the case. In deciding what’s fair and reasonable, I must consider the relevant law, regulation and best industry practice. Where there’s conflicting information about what happened and gaps in what we know, my role is to weigh up the evidence we do have, but it is for me to decide, based on the available information that I've been given, what's more likely than not to have happened. And, having done so, I’m minded to not uphold Mr O’s complaint - I’ll explain why below. I think it’s important to start by explaining the background to why IBUK asked Mr O to provide them with additional information, well after the account had opened. All regulated financial services firms, including IBUK, are obligated to ensure that the records they hold about their customers’ backgrounds and circumstances are up to date. They’re required to do this at the start of the relationship and on an ongoing basis and it’s often referred to as ‘know your customer’, or ‘KYC’. Those checks are designed for a number of reasons, not least to help prevent money laundering and fraud. Without an updated customer record,

-- 6 of 10 --

IBUK aren’t able to maintain compliance with their legal and regulatory requirements. And, any failure on IBUK’s part to ensure their KYC and AML records are up to date could result in serious consequences for them such as significant financial penalties or in a worst-case scenario, loss of licence. Importantly, the rules that provide the foundation for KYC and AML checks are updated regularly so it doesn’t necessarily follow that just because a firm didn’t ask for a particular piece of information when the account was originally opened (or that they only asked for very basic information on the issue), that they then can’t ask the consumer to provide wider clarification on the issue later on. So, whilst Mr O may be of the view that his circumstances since opening the account in April 2021 hadn’t changed, it doesn’t matter. The rules covering fighting financial crime are broad and updated regularly and IBUK are well within their rights to request reasonable information from their consumers as and when either those external rules or their own policies alter or as part of their ongoing cyclical checking, the latter of which I believe is what happened here, to ensure the accounts being managed on their platform fall within their risk appetite. I really do appreciate that from Mr O’s perspective, having held the account for nearly 20 months without issue may make the request feel unnecessary. However, the length of a customer’s relationship with a firm doesn’t remove or reduce that firm’s regulatory obligations. These obligations apply throughout the entire life of the account, not just at the point it was opened. So even long-standing, low-risk customers can be asked to provide updated verification if new information, regulatory changes or risk triggers arise. The regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), who oversee firms such as IBUK, have been very clear in their expectations around the efforts and emphasis that businesses must place on ensuring that they undertake sufficiently detailed and robust fighting financial crime checks on the accounts that they hold. And, a cursory internet search provides wide evidence of the sanctions that the FCA is prepared to take against such firms that fail to demonstrate adequate controls are in place within their business. When Mr O elected to become a customer of IBUK, he had to agree to their terms and conditions which govern the relationship between both parties. Those terms are regularly updated and are also readily available online. I’ve looked closely at those terms and conditions, they explain that if a customer fails to provide the information that IBUK have asked for, the account will be treated as though it’s in default. In (25 A xxii) it states: “Customer fails to provide to IB UK, upon request, any information or documentation requested by IB UK for purposes of verifying the identity of Customer”. And, put simply, because Mr O didn’t provide the information to IBUK that they’d asked for in their message to him on 14 December 2022, it created an ‘Event of Default’ on the account. This meant, in my opinion, that IBUK were well within their rights to place the restrictions on Mr O’s account. Mr O’s signature on the terms and conditions when he opened the account confirms he was made aware of the above potential action if failure to provide relevant documents occurred. I therefore consider that IBUK acted fairly in both their request for documentation and the subsequent account restrictions that were placed on it. In addition to their December 2022 message to Mr O, IBUK also sent follow-up messages to his broker, Firm T on multiple occasions setting out the consequences of failing to provide the requested information. IBUK’s Notice and Acknowledgement of Clearing Arrangement, that Mr O signed on 23 April 2021 states that “Introducing Broker is responsible for providing all customer and technical support regarding your account and is therefore authorised to view all information regarding your account”. And, Section 4b also states “Introducing broker will be responsible for:- Providing all customer service and technical support and responding

-- 7 of 10 --

to Client complaints, inquiries and requests” so it seems to me that Firm T had the responsibility to share these with Mr O. But in any event, I’m satisfied that Mr O knew full well what was required of him to satisfy IBUK’s compliance check because shortly after IBUK’s initial request in December 2022, Mr O responded, expressing dissatisfaction with what he’d been asked to provide. And despite that dissatisfaction, IBUK’s compliance team responded explaining that the documentation was still necessary. As IBUK didn’t receive the evidence that they’d asked for, I’m of the opinion that they were well within their rights (according to their terms and conditions) when they placed the account into ‘closing only’ on 18 April 2023. Having seen IBUK’s website, it sets out the details the types of restrictions that could be applied and what this practically means for the consumer. This can be found on IBUK’s website under the following section: Settings > Account Settings > Client Settings > Trading Restrictions > Liquidation/Closing- only. Having looked at the nature of the information that IBUK requested from Mr O in December 2022, I can’t reasonably conclude that it was either excessive or intrusive. For example, IBUK needed evidence of Mr O’s stated earned income; that’s because they needed to demonstrate the volume and size of transactions he was undertaking on their platform matched his claimed financial circumstances. And, with the advent of financial crime significantly on the rise, a copy of his passport demonstrates that he is who he says he is. But, to be very clear, I’m in no way suggesting that Mr O is or ever was engaged in any inappropriate financial conduct. IBUK simply needed to be able to demonstrate to the regulator, if asked, that they have the evidence on record of the exhaustive checks that they’ve undertaken. Mr O has commented that he believes IBUK shouldn’t have relied solely on their online portal to contact him about his account. He states that in light of the impending closure, they should have either telephoned him, posted a letter or texted him and that’s because, he says, he rarely logged into his IBUK portal. However, from what I’ve seen of IBUK’s offering, they’re a predominantly online provider so I don’t think it’s untypical that they would contact him digitally. But, in any event, as I’ve already explained, IBUK contacted Firm T on multiple occasions flagging the impending actions that they were proposing to take if the necessary documentation wasn’t provided. Whilst Mr O states that he lost the opportunity to invest his monies as a consequence of IBUK moving his account to Closing-only, he was still free to invest with any other broker or platform that he so wished in the interim. Importantly, I’m not persuaded that IBUK put any mechanism in place that prevented Mr O from either trading or transferring his open positions from them to another provider. I therefore can’t hold IBUK accountable for any notional lost investment growth that he claims he would’ve benefited from. Mr O explained that he’s unhappy that IBUK allowed him to deposit funds into his account. However, from what I’ve seen, the closing only restriction doesn’t restrict the consumer’s ability to deposit, withdraw or transfer any funds within the account; which explains why when on 19 August 2025 Mr O made a deposit, it was accepted. And in any event, I think IBUK’s message to Mr O on 18 April 2023 that explained “Your IBKR account has been placed in Closing Only trading status. This means you may reduce or close positions, but you may not establish or add new positions. This status has been placed on your account because the IBKR Compliance Department has been unable to reach you” was sufficiently clear. Mr O alleges that IBUK created a “deposit trap” by accepting funds while the account remained restricted. However, I don’t agree that accepting a deposit amounted to a breach of duty or created any actionable unfairness. From what I’ve seen, a “closing-only” status

-- 8 of 10 --

wouldn’t have prevented Mr O from withdrawing his cash. And, I’m not aware of any regulatory requirement for a firm to block deposits during such restrictions. IBUK allowing deposits, doesn’t mean that they have to accept or allow trading, FX conversion or asset transfers. From what I’ve seen, the trading restriction had been in place for around sixteen months prior to the deposit, and Mr O had been formally notified of its effect. So, I can’t fairly conclude that IBUK were unfair or mislead Mr O by processing the deposit, nor do I accept that this created a foreseeable harm for which IBUK are responsible. And, despite what Mr O states, I’m not persuaded that IBUK only invoked the Closing-only status on his account after he’d deposited his subsequent monies. I say that because IBUK had asked as far back as December 2022 (and provided repeated requests) for evidence of source of wealth and identity and the consequences of failing to provide that information were well documented in their terms and conditions, of which Mr O had a copy of. IBUK’s eventual decision to terminate the relationship is consistent with those terms, their long-standing warnings and with their regulatory obligation not to maintain accounts where KYC obligations cannot be met. The timing alone isn’t evidence of retaliation, and I’m satisfied the decision was based on compliance considerations rather than Mr O’s expressed intention to complain. Mr O explained that he believed IBUK’s original 2022 request had become irrelevant or superseded by their subsequent August 2025 request for further source-of-wealth information. I think it’s important to note here that it is quite common and not unreasonable for a firm to make repeated or updated requests where earlier information was incomplete, insufficient, or still outstanding. From what I’ve seen, IBUK’s August 2025 request made no reference to the account restrictions having been lifted or that compliance requirements had been satisfied; it was simply a further opportunity for Mr O to provide the documentation that they needed. The fact that Mr O supplied one document that was subsequently deemed insufficient doesn’t mean that IBUK were obliged to maintain the relationship or continue the remediation process. To that end, I’m satisfied that the 2022 and 2025 requests formed part of the same compliance assessment, and the account remained in default throughout. Mr O has questioned whether IBUK met the requirements of the regulator’s Consumer Duty in how they handled their information request and subsequent close out of his account. I’d like to reassure Mr O that in thinking about his complaint, I have considered all of the relevant law and regulations, regulator’s rules, guidance and standards and codes of practice, and what I consider to have been good industry practice at the time. This includes the Principles for Businesses (including Consumer Duty) and the Conduct of Business Sourcebook. But here, the detriment arose because Mr O chose not to provide the documentation requested and that’s despite clear warnings of the consequences. As I’ve already explained, IBUK are required by law to impose restrictions or terminate relationships when customers do not meet mandatory verification requirements, so a firm acting in accordance with their regulatory obligations doesn’t fall short of Consumer Duty standards simply because the customer experiences detriment that flows from their own non-engagement. I’ve thought about whether the losses that Mr O realised came about as a result of any error by IBUK. In my opinion, they didn’t. From what I’ve seen, the losses themselves resulted from market movements and Mr O’s decision to liquidate his positions when he did. Had Mr O provided IBUK with the information that they’d asked for, the events that then followed, wouldn’t have occurred. The restriction and subsequent closure of the account were the foreseeable and contractually allowed consequences of Mr O’s failure to provide the requested evidence, so I can’t reasonably conclude that the losses were caused by any breach or failing on IBUK’s part.

-- 9 of 10 --

Responses to my provisional decision: Neither party provided any comments or additional information following my provisional decision. 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. As I’ve not been provided with any new information that’s made me change my mind, it therefore follows that I’ve reached the same conclusion for the same reasons that I set out in my provisional decision above. My final decision I’m not upholding Mr O’s complaint and as such, I am not instructing Interactive Brokers (U.K.) Limited to take any further action. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr O to accept or reject my decision before 21 May 2026. Simon Fox Ombudsman

-- 10 of 10 --