Published decisions
358
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
358
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
31.8%
114 upheld decisions
Page summary
358 published decisions involving Lendable Ltd, with product mix, upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
358
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
31.8%
114 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 21 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
358
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
31.8%
114 upheld decisions
Leading product
Consumer Credit
286 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Affordability Assessment Failure
84 tagged decisions
Lendable Ltd appears in 358 published decisions in this corpus. 31.8% 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 286 decisions and an upheld rate of 36.4%.
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 29 published decisions with an upheld rate of 27.6%.
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, 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 outlined above, I do not uphold Mr F’s complaint about Lendable Ltd. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr F to accept or reject my decision before 19 May 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 S to accept or reject my decision before 19 May 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons explained, I uphold Mr P’s complaint about Lendable Ltd trading as Autolend and they are to follow my directions above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask to accept or reject my decision before 19 May 2026.
View source decisionI do not uphold Mr L’s complaint against Lendable Ltd trading as Zable. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr L to accept or reject my decision before 19 May 2026.
View source decisionMy final decision is that I don’t uphold Mr P’s complaint about Lendable for the reasons I’ve set out. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr P to accept or reject my decision before 15 May 2026.
View source decision