Published decisions
1,666
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Firm analysis
A public analysis page covering published Financial Ombudsman decisions involving Clydesdale Financial Services Limited, including outcome context, product mix, complaint themes, and representative cases.
Page summary
1,666 published decisions involving Clydesdale Financial Services Limited, with product mix, upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
1,666
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
21.3%
354 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 02 Feb 2026
Published decisions
1,666
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
21.3%
354 upheld decisions
Leading product
Banking and credit
896 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Non-disclosure Or Misrepresentation
274 tagged decisions
Clydesdale Financial Services Limited appears in 1,666 published decisions in this corpus. 21.3% 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 896 decisions and an upheld rate of 24.4%.
Clydesdale Financial Services 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, Clydesdale Financial Services Limited appeared in 8 published decisions with an upheld rate of 0.0%.
Non-disclosure Or Misrepresentation is the strongest complaint-theme signal tied to Clydesdale Financial Services Limited 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, Section 140a 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 outlined above, I’m not upholding this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr M to accept or reject my decision before 2 March 2026.
View source decisionFor the above reasons I’ve decided not to uphold Mr H’s complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr H to accept or reject my decision before 2 March 2026.
View source decisionFor the above reasons, I’ve decided not to uphold Mr T’s complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr T to accept or reject my decision before 2 March 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons set out above, I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss P to accept or reject my decision before 2 March 2026.
View source decisionI do not uphold Mr K’s complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr K to accept or reject my decision before 2 March 2026.
View source decision