Published decisions
334
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Firm analysis
A public analysis page covering published Financial Ombudsman decisions involving Evergreen Finance London Limited, including outcome context, product mix, complaint themes, and representative cases.
Published decisions
334
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
63.5%
212 upheld decisions
Page summary
334 published decisions involving Evergreen Finance London Limited, with product mix, upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
334
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
63.5%
212 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 04 Aug 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
334
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
63.5%
212 upheld decisions
Leading product
Consumer Credit
333 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Affordability Assessment Failure
90 tagged decisions
Evergreen Finance London Limited appears in 334 published decisions in this corpus. 63.5% 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.
Consumer Credit is the firm’s clearest product exposure in the published decisions, with 333 decisions and an upheld rate of 63.7%.
Evergreen Finance London Limited's decision trail runs from 2020 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, Evergreen Finance London Limited appeared in 10 published decisions with an upheld rate of 20.0%.
Affordability Assessment Failure is the strongest complaint-theme signal tied to Evergreen Finance London Limited 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, Conc, 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’m not upholding Miss H’s complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss H to accept or reject my decision before 1 September 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons I’ve outlined above, I do not uphold Mr R’s complaint about Evergreen Finance London Limited trading as MoneyBoat. co.
View source decisionFor the reasons I’ve explained above, I’m not upholding Mr W’s complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr W to accept or reject my decision before 15 May 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons I’ve outlined above, I do not uphold Mr E’s complaint about Evergreen Finance London Limited trading as MoneyBoat. co.
View source decisionMy final decision is that I do not uphold the complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss B to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026.
View source decision