Not upheld: account restrictions and risk warnings; proportionality of firm intervention complaint against Trading 212 UK Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Ms A complained about restrictions T212 placed on her investment accounts and warning messages sent regarding her account usage. Following significant deposit and trading activity in March-April 2025 relative to her stated financial position (£0-£10,000 income, £0-£500 savings), T212 imposed an indefinite restriction that lasted until August 2025. After the restriction was lifted, Ms A rebalanced her portfolio in tranches to avoid slippage, prompting further warning messages from T212. Ms A argued the restrictions and warnings were disproportionate and unreasonable. The ombudsman found that T212's concerns were reasonable given the deposits and losses relative to Ms A's financial position, that the firm took proportionate escalating steps before imposing the indefinite restriction, and that the later warning messages were justified given her trading activity was disproportionate to her declared moderate risk tolerance. The complaint was not upheld and no compensation was awarded.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that T212's automated monitoring system was reasonable and that the firm applied its contractual terms fairly. The significant deposits relative to Ms A's stated financial position (£0-£10,000 income, £0-£500 savings) and the running loss of nearly £2,500 in March 2025 provided reasonable grounds for concern about potential financial harm. T212 took proportionate steps by first sending warning emails, then imposing progressively longer trading breaks before the indefinite restriction. Regarding the August 2025 communications, the ombudsman found T212 was reasonably clear that the restriction itself was for five days while the review would take longer, and T212 attempted to correct Ms A's misunderstanding. For the October 2025 warnings, although Ms A's trading strategy (tranches to avoid slippage) was understandable, it was disproportionate to her declared moderate risk tolerance and financial position, justifying T212's intervention through warning messages rather than restrictions. The ombudsman acknowledged the stress caused but could only award compensation if a failing by T212 was established, which was not found.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website