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

Decision detail

Summary

Mr H, a UK resident planning to relocate to Germany, opened a Trading 212 investment account in May 2025 after general inquiries about using it abroad. In November 2025, when asking detailed questions about German tax reporting requirements, he discovered the platform could not provide the specific data needed for German tax compliance, particularly regarding the 'interest on cash' feature's daily taxable events. Mr H transferred his ISA to another provider and complained that Trading 212 had misled him about the account's portability and breached the FCA's Consumer Duty by omitting material information about cross-border reporting limitations. The ombudsman found no material misrepresentation, noting that Mr H's specific German tax requirements were not articulated until November, and that Trading 212 was not required to proactively identify all potential consequences of international relocation or provide jurisdiction-specific tax reporting services. The complaint was not upheld beyond the £30 goodwill payment already offered.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman distinguished between Mr H's general inquiries in May 2025 and his detailed, specific questions in November 2025. In May, Mr H did not articulate the specific German tax reporting requirements that later became central to his complaint. Trading 212 was not required to proactively identify and explain all potential consequences of international relocation, as these are highly fact-specific and dependent on individual circumstances, timing within tax years, and jurisdiction-specific requirements. The ombudsman found that Trading 212 did not represent they would provide German-specific tax reporting or cross-border tax-compliance services. The fact that Mr H later found another provider with better-suited functionality does not demonstrate that Trading 212 misrepresented its service or breached regulatory obligations. The decision to transfer was Mr H's choice based on preference for another provider's capabilities, not because Trading 212 required closure or prevented continued use.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website