Not upheld: corporate action processing delay / failure to enable timely trading complaint against Trading 212 UK Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr S complained that Trading 212 delayed processing a corporate action by failing to make new shares available for trading until 3 October 2025, one day after other platforms had made them available and one day after the old shares ceased trading. Mr S had intended to sell his shares at $11 on 2 October 2025 but was unable to do so due to the delay. The share price rose significantly during 2 October 2025, peaking at $39, causing Mr S stress and anxiety as he watched the price rise while unable to sell. However, when Mr S eventually sold his shares on 3 October 2025, he obtained $18.55 per share, resulting in a net financial gain of approximately $1500 compared to his intended selling price. The ombudsman did not uphold the complaint because Mr S benefited financially from the delay rather than suffering a loss, and determined that no award for stress was warranted given the substantial financial benefit received.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman acknowledged that the one-day delay in making shares available for trading was not obviously successful or timely processing of a corporate action, particularly as other platforms had made the shares available from the start of trading on 2 October 2025. However, the ombudsman concluded that even if Trading 212 was at fault, Mr S benefited financially from the delay rather than suffering a loss. Mr S's inability to sell at his intended price of $11 on 2 October 2025 meant he was able to sell at $18.55 on 3 October 2025, resulting in a net gain of approximately $1500. While the ombudsman accepted that Mr S experienced stress and anxiety during the period when he could not sell while witnessing the share price rise, the ombudsman determined that a modest award for anxiety would not be fair given the substantial financial benefit Mr S ultimately received from the circumstances he complained of.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website