Published decisions
348
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Firm analysis
A public analysis page covering published Financial Ombudsman decisions involving Lendable Ltd, including outcome context, product mix, complaint themes, and representative cases.
Published decisions
348
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
32.2%
112 upheld decisions
Page summary
348 published decisions involving Lendable Ltd, with product mix, upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
348
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
32.2%
112 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 17 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
348
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
32.2%
112 upheld decisions
Leading product
Consumer Credit
282 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Affordability Assessment Failure
81 tagged decisions
Lendable Ltd appears in 348 published decisions in this corpus. 32.2% 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 282 decisions and an upheld rate of 36.5%.
Lendable Ltd's decision trail runs from 2018 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, Lendable Ltd appeared in 19 published decisions with an upheld rate of 31.6%.
Affordability Assessment Failure is the strongest complaint-theme signal tied to Lendable Ltd 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 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 Miss H’s complaint. I require Lendable Ltd trading as Autolend to carry out the directions outlined above.
View source decisionMy final decision is that I’m not upholding Mr H’s complaint about Lendable Ltd. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr H to accept or reject my decision before 14 April 2026.
View source decisionI am not upholding Mrs S’s complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs S to accept or reject my decision before 14 April 2026.
View source decisionMy final decision is that 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 14 April 2026.
View source decisionMy final decision is that I uphold Ms B’s complaint and instruct Lendable Ltd trading as Zable to settle the complaint as I’ve set out above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Ms B to accept or reject my decision before 14 April 2026.
View source decision