Upheld: poor service / inconsistent information / incorrect advice complaint against Trading 212 UK Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr A complained that T212 provided inconsistent and contradictory explanations regarding a referral incentive scheme. After referring a friend, Mr A expected to receive shares but his ISA account had reached its annual limit. T212 initially gave incorrect three-day timescale advice, then advised Mr A to withdraw £120 from his ISA to make room for the shares. Mr A was confused because T212 had previously allocated shares to his maxed-out ISA earlier in the same financial year without requiring withdrawal. The Ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding T212 caused avoidable confusion through inconsistent handling and inappropriate advice, but determined that £100 compensation was fair as T212 had offered reasonable alternatives and handled the complaint appropriately overall, with no material financial loss resulting.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The Ombudsman found that T212 caused avoidable confusion through two key failures: (1) the earlier automatic allocation of shares to a maxed-out ISA account set an incorrect precedent that Mr A reasonably expected to be repeated, and (2) the standard three-day timescale advice was incorrect and inappropriate for Mr A's specific circumstances. However, the Ombudsman balanced this against T212's reasonable service elements: offering a GIA alternative early in the process and responding to the formal complaint within FCA guidelines. The Ombudsman concluded that while poor service occurred, T212 genuinely tried to resolve the matter, no material financial loss resulted as reasonable alternatives were offered, and the complaint handling was reasonable overall. Therefore, £100 was deemed fair compensation for the distress and confusion caused.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website