Not upheld: Mortgage administration / arrears handling complaint against Trading 212 UK Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr Z complained that Trading 212 should not have allowed him to trade CFDs, resulting in losses of approximately £9,000-£17,000. He claimed a third party controlled his trading and that he lacked understanding of CFDs. Trading 212 had conducted an appropriateness test based on Mr Z's declarations of income, savings, and trading experience, and found no evidence of unauthorised account access. The ombudsman found Trading 212 was entitled to rely on Mr Z's test responses as they were not manifestly inaccurate or implausible, and the firm provided appropriate risk warnings. The ombudsman rejected the complaint, finding no basis to hold Trading 212 accountable for Mr Z's trading losses.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Trading 212 was entitled to rely on Mr Z's responses to the appropriateness test under FCA rules, as the information provided was not manifestly inaccurate, out of date, or incomplete. The information was not self-evidently implausible or problematic. Trading 212 provided appropriate risk warnings and terms and conditions. There was no evidence that Trading 212 should have restricted or closed the account before Mr Z's complaint, as he provided no specific details or evidence of communicating difficulties to Trading 212 prior to his complaint. The ombudsman found Mr Z's testimony conflicting and not persuasive regarding the circumstances of account opening and use. Trading 212 was not obligated to conduct additional affordability checks, enhanced due diligence, or source-of-funds enquiries beyond the appropriateness test. The Consumer Duty did not require automatic protection from all harm, and consumers remain responsible for their own decisions.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website