Published decisions
375
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Firm analysis
A public analysis page covering published Financial Ombudsman decisions involving Coventry Building Society, including outcome context, product mix, complaint themes, and representative cases.
Published decisions
375
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
11.5%
43 upheld decisions
Page summary
375 published decisions involving Coventry Building Society, with product mix, upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
375
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
11.5%
43 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 17 Apr 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
375
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
11.5%
43 upheld decisions
Leading product
Payment protection insurance (PPI)
169 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Affordability Assessment Failure
34 tagged decisions
Coventry Building Society appears in 375 published decisions in this corpus. 11.5% 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 169 decisions and an upheld rate of 13.6%.
Coventry Building Society'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, Coventry Building Society appeared in 3 published decisions with an upheld rate of 0.0%.
Affordability Assessment Failure is the strongest complaint-theme signal tied to Coventry Building Society in the published decisions. In this corpus, those themes are the most stable public proxy for complaint “type”.
Consumer Credit Act 1974, Disp, Icobs, 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
My final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I am required to ask Ms H and Mr S to accept or reject my decision before 18 May 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons given above, my final decision is that I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr C to accept or reject my decision before 30 April 2026.
View source decisionI am not upholding this complaint for the reasons set out above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask the estate of Mrs S to accept or reject my decision before 27 April 2026.
View source decisionDRN-5908395 The complaint Mrs C complains that Coventry Building Society (CBS) advised her to put her savings in an inappropriate account in 2023. As a result, she has to pay tax on the interest she received when she wasn’t expecting to have to do so. What happened Mrs C is a longstand... (2 pages)
View source decisionDRN-5952497 The complaint Mr S complains about Coventry Building Society’s (CBS) administration of his savings accounts. What happened Mr S had a “Four Access Saver” savings account with CBS. He wanted to transfer money from it online to an account with another provider but was unable t... (2 pages)
View source decision