Published decisions
422
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Firm analysis
A public analysis page covering published Financial Ombudsman decisions involving AIB Group (UK) Plc, including outcome context, product mix, complaint themes, and representative cases.
Published decisions
422
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
28.2%
119 upheld decisions
Page summary
422 published decisions involving AIB Group (UK) Plc, with product mix, upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
422
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
28.2%
119 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 05 Mar 2026
How to use this page
The top-line cards show scale and outcome context. The ranked view and representative decisions show where the slice is concentrated and what the published decision set actually looks like.
Published decisions
422
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
28.2%
119 upheld decisions
Leading product
Payment protection insurance (PPI)
238 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Affordability Assessment Failure
32 tagged decisions
AIB Group (UK) Plc appears in 422 published decisions in this corpus. 28.2% of those decisions were upheld, which gives a public view of how often complaints involving this firm ended in a fully upheld outcome in the final published set.
Payment protection insurance (PPI) is the firm’s clearest product exposure in the published decisions, with 238 decisions and an upheld rate of 35.7%.
AIB Group (UK) Plc's decision trail runs from 2013 to 2026. That range gives enough public history to see whether complaint exposure has been broad-based or concentrated into certain years.
In the latest year represented here, AIB Group (UK) Plc appeared in 1 published decisions with an upheld rate of 100.0%.
Affordability Assessment Failure is the strongest complaint-theme signal tied to AIB Group (UK) Plc in the published decisions. In this corpus, those themes are the most stable public proxy for complaint “type”.
Consumer Credit Act 1974, Section 75 Cca, Disp, and others are the most visible precedent signals in the firm’s published decisions. That gives extra context on the rules and fairness arguments appearing most often around the firm.
Representative cases
5 examples shown
For the reasons given above, I uphold this complaint in part. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr G to accept or reject my decision before 2 April 2026.
View source decisionDRN-6002206 The complaint Mr L, initially via a representative, has complained that AIB Group (UK) Plc trading as Allied Irish Bank (GB) (“AIB”) failed to refund the money he lost as part of an investment What happened The details of this complaint are well known to both parties, so I ... (3 pages)
View source decisionDRN-5221522 The complaint Mr H complains that AIB Group (UK) Plc (“AIB”) didn’t do enough to protect him when he fell victim to a scam. What happened I’m not going to cover all the points raised in detail. The view of 4 December 2024 covered the details of Mr H’s testimony regarding th... (2 pages)
View source decisionDRN-5324342 The complaint Mrs F complains that AIB Group (UK) Plc (AIB) mistakenly sent a large payment to her daughter’s account, instead of to her account with another bank. Mrs F said her daughter received £750 compensation from AIB and she felt a similar sum should be offered to her... (3 pages)
View source decisionDRN-4473768 The complaint Mr W complains that AIB Group (UK) Plc (AIB) won’t refund money he lost in an investment scam. What happened What Mr W says: Mr W was cold called by someone who said she was a broker, and she recommended investing in US oil and gas using an investment firm in S... (6 pages)
View source decision