Published decisions
530
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Firm analysis
A public analysis page covering published Financial Ombudsman decisions involving Leeds Building Society, including outcome context, product mix, complaint themes, and representative cases.
Published decisions
530
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
27.7%
147 upheld decisions
Page summary
530 published decisions involving Leeds Building Society, with product mix, upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
530
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
27.7%
147 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 24 Mar 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
530
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
27.7%
147 upheld decisions
Leading product
Payment protection insurance (PPI)
263 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Affordability Assessment Failure
69 tagged decisions
Leeds Building Society appears in 530 published decisions in this corpus. 27.7% 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 263 decisions and an upheld rate of 35.7%.
Leeds 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, Leeds Building Society appeared in 1 published decisions with an upheld rate of 0.0%.
Affordability Assessment Failure is the strongest complaint-theme signal tied to Leeds Building Society in the published decisions. In this corpus, those themes are the most stable public proxy for complaint “type”.
Disp, Mcob, Consumer Credit Act 1974, 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 don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr H to accept or reject my decision before 21 April 2026.
View source decisionDRN-6031138 The complaint Mr O complains that Leeds Building Society (LBS) recorded a fraud marker about him with Cifas, a fraud prevention database, in connection with a mortgage application. What happened In 2024 Mr O applied through a broker for a mortgage with LBS. LBS made a mortga... (4 pages)
View source decisionDRN-5966953 The complaint Mr N complains that Leeds Building Society (‘LBS’) won’t refund money he says was lost as the result of a scam. What happened In 2019, Mr N found an investment online offered by a company I’ll refer to as S. The investment involved S purchasing and developing ... (3 pages)
View source decisionDRN-5943695 The complaint Mr M complains Leeds Building Society (LBS) miscalculated the interest on his savings account. Mr M said this was a breach of trust he placed in LBS, explaining it failed to detect the error for a period of time and wasn’t transparent about what had occurred. W... (2 pages)
View source decisionDRN-5739661 The complaint Miss B complains that Leeds Building Society didn’t allow her long enough to sell her property before it started possession action. What happened In November 2015 Miss B took a mortgage with Leeds Building Society (“LBS”) in joint names with her ex-partner (who... (5 pages)
View source decision