Published decisions
6,699
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Firm analysis
A public analysis page covering published Financial Ombudsman decisions involving Capital One (Europe) plc, including outcome context, product mix, complaint themes, and representative cases.
Published decisions
6,699
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
39.0%
2,609 upheld decisions
Page summary
6,699 published decisions involving Capital One (Europe) plc, with product mix, upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
6,699
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
39.0%
2,609 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 17 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
6,699
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
39.0%
2,609 upheld decisions
Leading product
Payment protection insurance (PPI)
5,126 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Affordability Assessment Failure
431 tagged decisions
Capital One (Europe) plc appears in 6,699 published decisions in this corpus. 39.0% 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 5,126 decisions and an upheld rate of 46.0%.
Capital One (Europe) 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, Capital One (Europe) plc appeared in 10 published decisions with an upheld rate of 20.0%.
Affordability Assessment Failure is the strongest complaint-theme signal tied to Capital One (Europe) plc 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, Section 75 Cca, 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 don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr S to accept or reject my decision before 14 April 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons given above I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss R to accept or reject my decision before 2 April 2026.
View source decisionI don’t uphold Mr L’s complaint against Capital One (Europe) plc. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr L to accept or reject my decision before 2 April 2026.
View source decisionMy final decision is that I’m not upholding Miss C’s complaint about Capital One. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss C to accept or reject my decision before 1 April 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons given above, I uphold this complaint in part. To put things right Capital One (Europe) plc should pay Mr N £150.
View source decision