Published decisions
766
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Firm analysis
A public analysis page covering published Financial Ombudsman decisions involving Loans 2 Go Limited, including outcome context, product mix, complaint themes, and representative cases.
Published decisions
766
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
63.2%
484 upheld decisions
Page summary
766 published decisions involving Loans 2 Go Limited, with product mix, upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
766
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
63.2%
484 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 07 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
766
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
63.2%
484 upheld decisions
Leading product
Consumer Credit
672 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Affordability Assessment Failure
388 tagged decisions
Loans 2 Go Limited appears in 766 published decisions in this corpus. 63.2% 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 672 decisions and an upheld rate of 64.6%.
Loans 2 Go Limited'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, Loans 2 Go Limited appeared in 21 published decisions with an upheld rate of 28.6%.
Affordability Assessment Failure is the strongest complaint-theme signal tied to Loans 2 Go Limited 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 outlined above, my final decision is that I uphold this complaint, and Loans 2 Go Limited must put things right as set out above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr G to accept or reject my decision before 4 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 A to accept or reject my decision before 3 August 2026.
View source decisionMy final decision is that I’m not upholding Mr M’s complaint about Loans 2 Go Limited. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr M to accept or reject my decision before 27 July 2026.
View source decisionMy final decision is that I uphold this complaint in part and find that Loans 2 Go should pay Miss O £250. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss O to accept or reject my decision before 27 July 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 Miss R to accept or reject my decision before 24 July 2026.
View source decision