Not upheld: Platform malfunction / Technical issue claim complaint against Trading 212 UK Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr D claimed that his crude oil CFD positions were closed after a platform freeze, resulting in losses of approximately £71,000, and sought a refund. Trading 212 disputed this, providing system records showing the positions were closed from Mr D's phone within seconds, followed by cancellation of pending orders. The ombudsman, applying the balance of probability standard, found the detailed and coherent system records more persuasive than Mr D's account, noting that the sequence of closures before cancellations was inconsistent with his stated intention and that a platform freeze would typically interrupt rather than allow rapid successive actions. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the balance of probability test and found the system records to be detailed, time-specific, and coherent. The sequence of events (position closures followed by order cancellations) was inconsistent with Mr D's account that he intended to cancel orders first. The ombudsman noted that a platform freeze would more likely interrupt or delay actions rather than allow multiple successful actions to complete within seconds. The data showed no inconsistencies, missing data, or contradictions that would suggest tampering or unreliability. The ombudsman acknowledged Mr D's consistent account but found the objective evidence more persuasive.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website