Trading 212 UK Limited · DRN-5863418

The complaint Mr C complains that Trading 212 UK Limited liquidated his Contracts for Difference positions causing him significant financial losses. What happened Mr C held a Contract for Difference (CFD) trading account with Trading 212 UK Limited (T212). On 7 April 2025, Mr C’s account margin fell below the required amount and T212 proceeded to close two separate Rheinmetall positions. Mr C says the decision to close two separate CFD positions directly contradicts T212’s own published Help Centre guidance. It says they will automatically start closing positions if the margin level falls below 25%. It also says the system will close these positions in order of when they were opened until the margin exceeds 25%. As such, Mr C says he was misled to believe and expect his positions to be closed in sequence beginning with the oldest open position first, but this didn’t happen. As a result, he suffered a loss of £2224.18. His key area of disagreement is that T2121 gave guidance stating there would be a sequential closure process and it is unfair and unreasonable to then default to a contract term that allows for a different action without acknowledging the conflict and reliance placed by the customer. He said he suffered subsequent financial loss of £913.36 on 9 April 2025, due to stress and impaired judgment as a direct consequence of the closure of his two Rheinmetall positions. He said the situation has caused him stress and anxiety. T212 issued a final response letter on 9 April 2025 and didn’t uphold his complaint. They said they issued a margin call notice when the margin fell below 45%. They are not required to send any further notification after this, and it is the client’s responsibility to deposit funds in the account to prevent liquidation. Unhappy with this outcome, Mr C brought his complaint to this service. The investigator here considered the merits of the complaint and didn’t uphold it. Mr C provided further information but upon consideration she said this didn’t change the outcome of the complaint. As Mr C didn’t agree with the investigator, this came to me for a decision. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. My role at this service is to resolve individual disputes between businesses and consumers. It is not my role to tell a business how it should operate or question its policies. That is the role of the regulator the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). My role is to consider whether T212 have been fair and reasonable in their dealings with Mr C with the relevant rules and regulations in mind.

-- 1 of 3 --

I haven’t commented on each point Mr C makes and have focused on the issues that I think are key to the complaint, but I would like to reassure him that I have considered all the points and evidence provided. Having done so, I have come to the same conclusion as the investigator and for broadly the same reasons. I will explain further. In reaching my decision, I first considered the guidance that Mr C referred to. I note that this guidance has since been updated, although the content he viewed at the time is not in dispute. However, it is important to recognise that this guidance is general information and cannot reasonably be expected to cover every possible scenario. The full Terms and Conditions which Mr C signed up to when he opened his account set out specific provisions that apply to situations such as this. Clause 8.5 of this clearly outlines that positions can be closed one by one or simultaneously. The Help Centre guidance doesn’t override the Terms and Conditions of the account. Having considered this, I’m satisfied T212 acted in accordance with those terms when closing Mr C’s positions simultaneously. Therefore, I can’t fairly conclude that T212 acted incorrectly in this instance. Mr C says the sequential process is crucial because if T212 had followed their own published guidelines, the second position wouldn’t have closed when it did. The closure of the first position could potentially free up sufficient margin to satisfy the requirements and prevent closure of newer positions and allowed time for market recovery or for him to manage the position differently to prevent the second position being closed such as adding additional funds. Mr C has provided detailed explanations in support of his position, but I am not persuaded the outcome would have been any different. With the benefit of hindsight, Mr C feels he could have acted differently, however, the evidence indicates he had sufficient opportunity to fund his account following the margin call notification issued to him on 19 March 2025. His positions were not closed until 7 April 2025, yet he did not add funds to his account until approximately an hour after the positions had already been closed. While I acknowledge Mr C’s comments that he was actively managing his account, and could have mitigated his losses, I have also reviewed his previous trading patterns in similar circumstances. These suggest that he would have been unlikely to have funded his account in response to the margin call. T212 have provided evidence of previous instances when Mr C received a margin call notification but did not add funds to his account, resulting in his positions being liquidated. This is consistent with what occurred in this case. Even if Mr C had attempted to fund the account earlier that day, there is no guarantee the funds would have reached the account in time, particularly given the volatility of Rheinmetall on that day. As such, I can’t say with any certainty that the outcome would have been any different. I understand that my decision will be disappointing to Mr C, particularly as he has said he relied on the information in the Help Centre guidance and that situation has had a significant impact on him. However, the Terms and Conditions remain binding for the duration Mr C holds an account with T212 and I haven’t seen anything to suggest T212 have failed to act in accordance with those terms, or contrary to any regulatory requirements. Ultimately, the responsibility for maintaining the margin rests with Mr C. He failed to meet the margin requirements and didn’t act on the margin call notification. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that it was fair and reasonable for T212 to close Mr C’s positions in the way that they did.

-- 2 of 3 --

My final decision For the reasons given above, I do not uphold this complaint against Trading 212 UK Limited. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr C to accept or reject my decision before 20 April 2026. Naima Abdul-Rasool Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --