The Financial Ombudsman Service upheld two separate complaints against Trading 212 UK Limited over delays moving client Individual Savings Accounts, in decisions issued with acceptance deadlines of 23 October 2025 and 27 December 2025 respectively. Both cases involved the same underlying pattern: a client requested an ISA transfer, Trading 212 failed to communicate a requirement clearly or promptly enough, and the transfer exceeded the 30 calendar day standard HMRC sets for ISA moves between providers.
In the first case, referenced DRN 5475951, a complainant identified as Mr S submitted a transfer request on 11 June 2024 seeking to move holdings to another provider without liquidating them first. Trading 212 did not inform him until 8 July 2024 that the receiving firm could only accept cash, not in kind holdings, forcing a late liquidation that pushed final settlement to 17 July 2024, six days past the HMRC deadline. The ombudsman rejected the specific claim that Trading 212 should have processed an in kind transfer, since the receiving firm itself confirmed it could not accept one, but upheld the broader complaint that the delay in communicating that requirement caused avoidable harm, ordering 150 pounds compensation plus financial redress calculated against a notional earlier investment date with eight percent annual interest if not settled within 28 days.
A Second Case With the Same Pattern
In the second case, referenced DRN 5981917, a complainant also identified as Mr S submitted a transfer request on 13 December 2024. Trading 212 sent an email on 24 December asking how to handle an asset type the platform did not support, but the complainant said he never received it. The ombudsman accepted Trading 212 had in fact sent the message, yet found the firm should have followed up proactively once a significant period passed without a reply, rather than leaving the transfer stalled. That complaint was upheld in full, with 100 pounds ordered for distress and inconvenience.
Is Trading 212 Regulated
Trading 212 UK Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, and its parent group operates additional regulated entities across the European Union. Both ombudsman decisions concern operational handling of ISA transfers rather than any question about the firm underlying licensing status. Trading 212 carries an overall Trustpilot rating of 4.6 out of 5 across more than 102,000 reviews, a strong figure that puts these two upheld complaints in proportion: they are not evidence of systemic client fund risk, but they are official, independently adjudicated findings that the firm ISA transfer process has, in at least two documented and separately dated instances, fallen short of the standard clients are entitled to expect.
Industry Implication
ISA transfer complaints are common across the retail investment platform sector generally, since the 30 day HMRC standard depends on coordination between two separate firms, not one. What distinguishes these two cases is that both were independently upheld by the statutory ombudsman rather than settled privately or dismissed, and both trace to the same root failure: Trading 212 identifying a problem with a transfer but not communicating it to the client clearly or quickly enough to keep the process on schedule. A pattern repeating across two separately dated cases within roughly six months of each other is worth a platform reviewing its own escalation procedures over, regardless of how small each individual compensation figure is.
BestForex.io View
Two upheld ombudsman complaints against a platform serving over 100,000 reviewed customers is not, by any reasonable measure, evidence of a broker in crisis, and Trading 212 strong overall review record should be read alongside these findings, not erased by them. What is worth flagging is the specific mechanism behind both cases: not a fee dispute, not a platform outage, but a communication gap during a multi party ISA transfer that the firm itself could have closed with a proactive follow up. The ombudsman found that failure twice, months apart, involving two different clients. That is a small enough sample that it should be simple for Trading 212 to fix at the process level, and worth watching whether a third case surfaces before it does.
About Trading 212
Trading 212 is a United Kingdom headquartered retail investment and CFD trading platform, operating through Trading 212 UK Limited and additional regulated entities across Europe. The firm offers commission free stock and ETF investing alongside CFD trading on forex and other instruments, and has built a large retail user base with a Stocks and Shares ISA and Cash ISA product line. Trading 212 is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority in the United Kingdom.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Trading 212 regulated.
Yes. Trading 212 UK Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, and the wider group holds additional regulatory authorisations across the European Union.
Has the Financial Ombudsman upheld complaints against Trading 212.
Yes. Two separate complaints over delayed ISA transfers, referenced DRN 5475951 and DRN 5981917, were both upheld with compensation orders of 150 pounds and 100 pounds respectively, in decisions issued in late 2025.
What were the Trading 212 ISA complaints about.
Both cases involved clients whose ISA transfers exceeded the 30 calendar day HMRC standard after Trading 212 did not communicate a processing requirement clearly or quickly enough, leading the ombudsman to find the firm should have followed up proactively rather than letting the transfer stall.