Published decisions
760
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
760
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
63.4%
482 upheld decisions
Page summary
760 published decisions involving Loans 2 Go Limited, with product mix, upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
760
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
63.4%
482 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
760
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
63.4%
482 upheld decisions
Leading product
Consumer Credit
666 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Affordability Assessment Failure
384 tagged decisions
Loans 2 Go Limited appears in 760 published decisions in this corpus. 63.4% 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 666 decisions and an upheld rate of 64.9%.
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 15 published decisions with an upheld rate of 26.7%.
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
My final decision is that I’m not upholding this complaint about Loans 2 Go Limited trading as Loans 2 Go. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr M to accept or reject my decision before 19 May 2026.
View source decisionWhile it’ll likely come as a disappointment to Ms Z, I won’t be upholding her complaint against Loans 2 Go Limited for the reasons explained above. However, if Loans 2 Go hasn’t already, it should refund the interest charged on loan four as it has previously offered to do.
View source decisionMy decision is that I uphold Mr R’s complaint and direct Loans 2 Go Limited to settle as follows: Add up the total repayments Mr R has made to each loan and deduct these from the total amount of money he received. a) If this results in Mr R having paid more than they received, any overpayments should be refunded along with time weighted Bank of England base rate plus 1% simple interest per year (calculated from t...
View source decisionI do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss M to accept or reject my decision before 14 May 2026.
View source decisionMy decision is that I uphold Miss B’s complaint and direct Loan 2 Go Limited to settle as follows: Add up the total repayments Miss B has made and deduct these from the total amount of money received. a) If this results in Miss B having paid more than she received, any overpayments should be refunded along with time weighted Bank of England base rate plus 1% simple interest per year (calculated from the date the ...
View source decision