Published decisions
392
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Firm analysis
A public analysis page covering published Financial Ombudsman decisions involving Blue Motor Finance Ltd, including outcome context, product mix, complaint themes, and representative cases.
Published decisions
392
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
57.1%
224 upheld decisions
Page summary
392 published decisions involving Blue Motor Finance Ltd, with product mix, upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
392
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
57.1%
224 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 09 Feb 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
392
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
57.1%
224 upheld decisions
Leading product
Consumer Credit
290 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Affordability Assessment Failure
35 tagged decisions
Blue Motor Finance Ltd appears in 392 published decisions in this corpus. 57.1% 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.
Consumer Credit is the firm’s clearest product exposure in the published decisions, with 290 decisions and an upheld rate of 53.8%.
Blue Motor Finance Ltd's decision trail runs from 2017 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, Blue Motor Finance Ltd appeared in 2 published decisions with an upheld rate of 0.0%.
Affordability Assessment Failure is the strongest complaint-theme signal tied to Blue Motor Finance Ltd 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 I’ve explained, I’m not upholding 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 9 March 2026.
View source decisionMy final decision is that I’m not upholding Mr J’s complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr J to accept or reject my decision before 9 March 2026.
View source decisionDRN-5987487 The complaint Mr Y has complained about the sale of his car at auction by Blue Motor Finance Ltd (‘BMF’), and the service he’s received. Mr Y’s been represented in bringing his complaint. I’ll call his representative, Ms X. What happened Mr Y entered into a car finance agree... (2 pages)
View source decisionDRN-6029082 The complaint Miss M complains about the quality of a car she acquired under a hire purchase agreement with Blue Motor Finance Ltd trading as Blue Motor Finance (BMF). When I refer to what Miss M and/or BMF have said or did, it should also be taken to include things said or... (6 pages)
View source decisionDRN-5839835 The complaint Mr Y complains about the quality of a car he acquired under a hire purchase agreement with Blue Motor Finance Ltd trading as Blue Motor Finance (BMF). When I refer to what Mr Y and/or BMF have said or did, it should also be taken to include things said or done... (4 pages)
View source decision