Published decisions
3,848
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Firm analysis
A public analysis page covering published Financial Ombudsman decisions involving MBNA Limited, including outcome context, product mix, complaint themes, and representative cases.
Published decisions
3,848
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
29.5%
1,134 upheld decisions
Page summary
3,848 published decisions involving MBNA Limited, with product mix, upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
3,848
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
29.5%
1,134 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 25 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
3,848
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
29.5%
1,134 upheld decisions
Leading product
Payment protection insurance (PPI)
2,157 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Delay In Claim Handling
371 tagged decisions
MBNA Limited appears in 3,848 published decisions in this corpus. 29.5% 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.
Payment protection insurance (PPI) is the firm’s clearest product exposure in the published decisions, with 2,157 decisions and an upheld rate of 40.0%.
MBNA 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, MBNA Limited appeared in 28 published decisions with an upheld rate of 14.3%.
Delay In Claim Handling is the strongest complaint-theme signal tied to MBNA Limited 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
My final decision is that I don’t uphold Mr K’s complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr K to accept or reject my decision before 22 September 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 D to accept or reject my decision before 22 September 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons set out above, I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask X to accept or reject my decision before 18 September 2026.
View source decisionMy decision is that I uphold Mrs M’s complaint and direct MBNA Limited to settle by recording Mrs M’s credit card as being closed in default from the date her DAS was approved. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs M to accept or reject my decision before 18 September 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons mentioned above, my final decision is not to uphold this complaint against MBNA Limited. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr W to accept or reject my decision before 8 September 2026.
View source decision