Not upheld: Unfair application of trading restrictions and failure to intervene earlier with stronger safeguards complaint against Trading 212 UK Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr A complained that Trading 212 unfairly applied trading restrictions to his CFD account in March 2025, preventing him from trading and causing him to miss opportunities. Mr A had opened the account in 2023 after completing an appropriateness assessment and subsequently engaged in frequent speculative CFD trading with substantial losses and repeated deposits. During 2024, Trading 212 conducted enhanced monitoring and affordability reviews, demonstrating heightened concern about the account activity. The ombudsman found that while Trading 212 could reasonably have considered stronger interventions during 2024, the firm's initial appropriateness assessment was adequate and any earlier temporary restrictions would likely have been followed by resumed trading. Given Mr A's demonstrated continued appetite for speculative trading despite losses, the ombudsman concluded that earlier interventions would not probably have prevented the losses Mr A later incurred and that the 2025 restrictions were fair and reasonable.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman accepted that Trading 212's initial appropriateness assessment was adequate and that the firm could reasonably have considered stronger interventions during 2024 based on the pattern of trading activity. However, the ombudsman concluded that the realistic form of intervention would have been progressively stronger warnings, cooling-off measures or temporary trading breaks rather than permanent prohibition. Critically, the ombudsman found that Mr A's complaint about the 2025 restrictions—stating they prevented him from trading and caused him to miss opportunities—indicated he wished to continue trading despite losses. Therefore, the ombudsman concluded that earlier temporary interventions would likely have been followed by resumed trading activity, and would not probably have prevented the losses Mr A later incurred. The ombudsman also found the 2025 restrictions themselves to be fair and reasonable given the pattern of account activity.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website