Published decisions
369
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
369
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
31.4%
116 upheld decisions
Page summary
369 published decisions involving Lendable Ltd, with product mix, upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
369
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
31.4%
116 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 28 Jul 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
369
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
31.4%
116 upheld decisions
Leading product
Consumer Credit
293 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Affordability Assessment Failure
91 tagged decisions
Lendable Ltd appears in 369 published decisions in this corpus. 31.4% 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 293 decisions and an upheld rate of 36.2%.
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 40 published decisions with an upheld rate of 25.0%.
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, 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 given, my final decision is not to uphold Mrs G’s complaint against Lendable Ltd, trading as Zable. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs G to accept or reject my decision before 25 August 2026.
View source decisionMy final decision is that I’m not upholding Miss G’s complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss G to accept or reject my decision before 24 August 2026.
View source decisionMy final decision is that I don’t uphold Miss R’s complaint against Lendable Ltd trading as Autolend. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss R to accept or reject my decision before 18 August 2026.
View source decisionSo my decision is that I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr O to accept or reject my decision before 17 August 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 H to accept or reject my decision before 17 August 2026.
View source decision