Published decisions
1,408
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Firm analysis
A public analysis page covering published Financial Ombudsman decisions involving Black Horse Limited, including outcome context, product mix, complaint themes, and representative cases.
Published decisions
1,408
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
30.1%
424 upheld decisions
Page summary
1,408 published decisions involving Black Horse Limited, with product mix, upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
1,408
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
30.1%
424 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 07 Jul 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
1,408
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
30.1%
424 upheld decisions
Leading product
Banking and credit
586 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Affordability Assessment Failure
132 tagged decisions
Black Horse Limited appears in 1,408 published decisions in this corpus. 30.1% 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.
Banking and credit is the firm’s clearest product exposure in the published decisions, with 586 decisions and an upheld rate of 29.0%.
Black Horse Limited'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, Black Horse Limited appeared in 23 published decisions with an upheld rate of 34.8%.
Affordability Assessment Failure is the strongest complaint-theme signal tied to Black Horse Limited in the published decisions. In this corpus, those themes are the most stable public proxy for complaint “type”.
Consumer Credit Act 1974, Section 140a Cca, Conc, 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 explained, I don’t uphold Miss L’s complaint about Black Horse Limited. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss L to accept or reject my decision before 4 August 2026.
View source decisionMy final decision is that I’m not upholding this complaint about Black Horse Limited. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr K to accept or reject my decision before 3 August 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons set out above, I’ve decided to uphold Mr P’s complaint. To put things right, Black Horse Limited must: - End the finance agreement ensuring Mr P is not liable for monthly rentals after the point of collection (Black Horse should refund him any overpayment if applicable); - Take the car back (if that has not been done already) without charging for collection; - Refund the deposit (£2,500); - Refund...
View source decisionAlthough I acknowledge Why Mr W is unhappy with the vehicle he purchased, and I appreciate why, for the reasons I’ve explained, I don’t uphold Mr W’s complaint about Black Horse Limited. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr W to accept or reject my decision before 29 July 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons set out above, I don’t uphold Mr S’ complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr S to accept or reject my decision before 23 July 2026.
View source decision