Firm + product analysis

Clydesdale Bank Plc in Banking and Payments

A curated public analysis of Clydesdale Bank Plc's published Financial Ombudsman decisions in Banking and Payments, including outcome context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.

Page summary

1,313 published FOS decisions involving Clydesdale Bank Plc in Banking and Payments, with upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.

Published decisions

1,313

Decision volume in this firm-product slice

Upheld rate

30.1%

395 upheld decisions

Latest published decision 02 Feb 2026

Published decisions

1,313

Decision volume in this firm-product slice

Upheld rate

30.1%

395 upheld decisions

Latest active year

2026

5 decisions

Leading complaint theme

Fraud Or Scam Concern

178 tagged decisions

Clydesdale Bank Plc in Banking and Payments

Clydesdale Bank Plc appears in 1,313 published decisions in Banking and Payments across this corpus. 30.1% of those decisions were upheld, making this one of the strongest public firm-product slices available for search and research.

The latest year represented in this slice is 2026, with 5 published decisions and an upheld rate of 40.0%.

  • Leading complaint theme: Fraud Or Scam Concern
  • Leading precedent signal: Consumer Credit Act 1974
  • Advisor risk signal for Banking and Payments: low

How the slice behaves over time

Clydesdale Bank Plc has a multi-year published decision trail in Banking and Payments, which makes it possible to judge whether complaint exposure has been persistent or concentrated into a smaller set of years.

Banking and Payments remains a meaningful part of Clydesdale Bank Plc's published complaint exposure, but this page isolates just that one product line instead of blending it with the firm's wider footprint.

  • 2026: 5 decisions, 40.0% upheld
  • 2025: 354 decisions, 25.1% upheld
  • 2024: 270 decisions, 40.4% upheld
  • 2023: 279 decisions, 36.2% upheld
  • 2022: 187 decisions, 27.8% upheld

Themes, precedent context, and handling implications

Fraud Or Scam Concern is the clearest complaint-theme signal in this firm-product slice, which helps explain what tends to drive published ombudsman decisions here.

The product advisory layer also points to recurring handling implications, including review consumer credit act 1974 precedent (appears in 2.6% of cases), review section 75 cca precedent (appears in 1.9% of cases), review section 140a cca precedent (appears in 0.4% of cases), and others.

  • Second complaint theme: Delay In Claim Handling

Representative cases

Recent published decisions in this slice

5 examples shown

DRN-609794502 Feb 2026Not upheld

Clydesdale Bank Plc · Banking and Payments

For the reasons I’ve explained, I’m not upholding Mr I’s complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr I to accept or reject my decision before 2 March 2026.

View source decision
DRN-566634730 Jan 2026Not upheld

Clydesdale Bank Plc · Banking and Payments

My final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss A to accept or reject my decision before 27 February 2026.

View source decision
DRN-581994830 Jan 2026Upheld

Clydesdale Bank Plc · Banking and Payments

My final decision is that I’m upholding this complaint and require Clydesdale Bank Plc trading as Virgin Money to pay Mr W £250 in compensation. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr W to accept or reject my decision before 27 February 2026.

View source decision
DRN-592243430 Jan 2026Not upheld

Clydesdale Bank Plc · Banking and Payments

My decision is that I do not uphold the complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr W to accept or reject my decision before 27 February 2026.

View source decision
DRN-602264830 Jan 2026Upheld

Clydesdale Bank Plc · Banking and Payments

I uphold this complaint. Clydesdale Bank Plc trading as Virgin Money should put things right as set out above.

View source decision