Published decisions
371
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
371
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
31.5%
117 upheld decisions
Page summary
371 published decisions involving Lendable Ltd, with product mix, upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
371
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
31.5%
117 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 04 Aug 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
371
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
31.5%
117 upheld decisions
Leading product
Consumer Credit
294 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Affordability Assessment Failure
92 tagged decisions
Lendable Ltd appears in 371 published decisions in this corpus. 31.5% 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 294 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 42 published decisions with an upheld rate of 26.2%.
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
My final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint against Lendable Limited t\a Zable for the reasons set out above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs T to accept or reject my decision before 1 September 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons I’ve given above, I uphold this complaint in part and tell Lendable Ltd, trading as Autolend to remove the bumper damage charge from Mr E’s account and recalculate the outstanding balance using the corrected mileage figure for the deduction for use, while retaining the charge for the bonnet damage. Any balance outstanding after those adjustments should be communicated clearly to Mr E.
View source decisionFor 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 decision