Published decisions
922
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Firm analysis
A public analysis page covering published Financial Ombudsman decisions involving Marks & Spencer Financial Services plc, including outcome context, product mix, complaint themes, and representative cases.
Page summary
922 published decisions involving Marks & Spencer Financial Services plc, with product mix, upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
922
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
31.4%
290 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 17 Dec 2025
Published decisions
922
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
31.4%
290 upheld decisions
Leading product
Payment protection insurance (PPI)
323 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Affordability Assessment Failure
67 tagged decisions
Marks & Spencer Financial Services plc appears in 922 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.
Payment protection insurance (PPI) is the firm’s clearest product exposure in the published decisions, with 323 decisions and an upheld rate of 49.9%.
Marks & Spencer Financial Services plc's decision trail runs from 2013 to 2025. 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, Marks & Spencer Financial Services plc appeared in 59 published decisions with an upheld rate of 15.3%.
Affordability Assessment Failure is the strongest complaint-theme signal tied to Marks & Spencer Financial Services plc in the published decisions. In this corpus, those themes are the most stable public proxy for complaint “type”.
Consumer Credit Act 1974, Section 75 Cca, Section 140a Cca, 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
DRN-5995366 The complaint Mr A complains that Marks and Spencer Financial Services Plc trading as M&S Bank took two payments within a short space of time when he asked to change his loan payment date. What happened Mr A holds a loan with M&S Bank. On 5 September 2025 Mr A contac... (2 pages)
View source decisionDRN-5831252 Complaint Miss H has complained that Marks & Spencer Financial Services Plc (trading as “M&S Bank”) irresponsibly provided a credit card and limit increase to her. She says that the credit card was unaffordable and created ongoing difficulty. Background In July 2017... (6 pages)
View source decisionDRN-5903590 The complaint Mrs B complains that Marks and Spencer Financial Services Plc (M&S) marked her account as settled in December 2024 but later reported the account as unpaid. What happened Mrs B holds a credit account with M&S. In 2020 she entered into a Debt Management ... (2 pages)
View source decisionDRN-5901114 The complaint Mr A has complained about how Marks & Spencer Financial Services Plc trading as M&S Bank (M&S Bank) handled his request for a refund for two separate transactions. What happened In September 2024, Mr A made two payments to a travel agent, I’ll call ... (4 pages)
View source decisionDRN-5746535 THE COMPLAINT Mrs B complains that Marks & Spencer Financial Services Plc (“M&S”) will not reimburse her money she says she lost when she fell victim to a scam. Mrs B is represented in this matter. However, where appropriate, I will refer to Mrs B solely in this de... (3 pages)
View source decision