Not upheld: Investment mis-selling complaint against Trading 212 UK Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr I opened a CFD trading account with Trading 212 in April 2025, initially declaring expected annual turnover of less than £5,000. He subsequently deposited approximately £20,000 (£10,000 in June and £10,000 in August), resulting in significant losses from margin calls and losing trades, leaving him with only £5,000. He complained that Trading 212 should have intervened when his deposits far exceeded his initial expectations and that he had lost his life savings. The ombudsman found the account opening was appropriate based on Mr I's declared income (£25,000-£50,000), savings (£20,000-£30,000), CFD experience, knowledge questionnaire results, and stated low impact of losses. The ombudsman concluded that while Mr I's deposit intentions changed, his actual deposits remained within his declared financial resources, and Trading 212 had no obligation to prevent losses in inherently high-risk CFD trading absent evidence of unaffordability or vulnerability.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Mr I's initial account opening was appropriate based on his declared income, savings, experience, knowledge, and stated low impact of losses. While his deposits exceeded his initially anticipated turnover, they remained within his declared savings and income figures, which the ombudsman agreed were the appropriate measures of affordability. CFD trading is inherently high-risk, and Trading 212 had no obligation to prevent losses or intervene absent evidence that Mr I was risking more than he could afford or signs of vulnerability. The fact that Mr I's intentions about deposit amounts changed over time did not create an obligation for Trading 212 to prevent him from depositing funds he had declared access to.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website