Published decisions
392
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Firm analysis
A public analysis page covering published Financial Ombudsman decisions involving Ikano Bank AB (publ), including outcome context, product mix, complaint themes, and representative cases.
Published decisions
392
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
49.0%
192 upheld decisions
Page summary
392 published decisions involving Ikano Bank AB (publ), with product mix, upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
392
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
49.0%
192 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
392
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
49.0%
192 upheld decisions
Leading product
Consumer Credit
349 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Non-disclosure Or Misrepresentation
92 tagged decisions
Ikano Bank AB (publ) appears in 392 published decisions in this corpus. 49.0% 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 349 decisions and an upheld rate of 49.9%.
Ikano Bank AB (publ)'s decision trail runs from 2014 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, Ikano Bank AB (publ) appeared in 2 published decisions with an upheld rate of 100.0%.
Non-disclosure Or Misrepresentation is the strongest complaint-theme signal tied to Ikano Bank AB (publ) 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 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 uphold this complaint, and I require Ikano Bank AB (publ) to pay Mr J £400 for the distress and inconvenience it caused to him. It appears that Ikano Bank AB (publ) has already arranged for the default to be removed from Mr J’s credit file.
View source decisionI uphold Mrs P’s complaint and require Ikano Bank AB (publ) to put things right for her as set out above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs P to accept or reject my decision before 2 April 2026.
View source decisionDRN-5813551 The complaint Miss W complains Ikano Bank AB (publ) (Ikano) failed to carry out appropriate financial checks before it approved a store card account for her. What happened Miss W says Ikano approved a store card account for her in April 2019 with a credit limit of £200, alth... (3 pages)
View source decisionDRN-5838485 The complaint Mr A has complained about the way Ikano Bank AB (publ) (“Ikano”) handled an application he’d made for a credit agreement. What happened The circumstances of the complaint are well known to the parties so I’m not going to go over everything again in detail. But ... (4 pages)
View source decisionDRN-5824336 The complaint Mrs S complains about the outcome of a claim she made to Ikano Bank AB (publ) (“Ikano”) about a sofa purchase. What happened In April 2022, Mrs S took out a fixed sum loan agreement with Ikano to pay for sofas that she’d ordered with a supplier I’ll call ‘D’. T... (3 pages)
View source decision