Published decisions
341
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Firm analysis
A public analysis page covering published Financial Ombudsman decisions involving Equifax Limited, including outcome context, product mix, complaint themes, and representative cases.
Published decisions
341
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
34.9%
119 upheld decisions
Page summary
341 published decisions involving Equifax Limited, with product mix, upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
341
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
34.9%
119 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 10 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
341
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
34.9%
119 upheld decisions
Leading product
Consumer Credit
183 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Fraud Or Scam Concern
43 tagged decisions
Equifax Limited appears in 341 published decisions in this corpus. 34.9% 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 183 decisions and an upheld rate of 39.3%.
Equifax 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, Equifax Limited appeared in 1 published decisions with an upheld rate of 0.0%.
Fraud Or Scam Concern is the strongest complaint-theme signal tied to Equifax Limited in the published decisions. In this corpus, those themes are the most stable public proxy for complaint “type”.
Consumer Credit Act 1974 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 explained above, I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr M to accept or reject my decision before 10 March 2026.
View source decisionDRN-5970719 The complaint Mr H complains about how Equifax Limited handled a dispute he raised with it concerning information on his credit file What happened Mr H contacted Equifax after he received notification from a third-party company, I’ll refer to as S, that an account with a ban... (4 pages)
View source decisionDRN-5842578 The complaint Mr H complains Equifax Limited was reporting incorrect information on his credit file. What happened In June 2025 Mr H contacted Equifax as he noticed an account with a company I’ll refer to as T and a third-party name on his credit file he didn’t recognise. He... (3 pages)
View source decisionDRN-5988955 The complaint Mr B complains Equifax Limited incorrectly added information to his credit report for someone else. What happened I issued a provisional decision setting out what’d happened, and what I thought about that. I’ve copied the relevant elements of this below, and th... (3 pages)
View source decisionDRN-5816104 The complaint Mr M complains Equifax Limited was reporting incorrect information on his credit file and made errors when he contacted it about this. What happened In June 2025 Mr M contacted Equifax as he noticed an account with a company I’ll refer to as T, was reporting a ... (3 pages)
View source decision