Published decisions
3,829
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
3,829
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
29.5%
1,131 upheld decisions
Page summary
3,829 published decisions involving MBNA Limited, with product mix, upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
3,829
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
29.5%
1,131 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 17 Mar 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
3,829
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
29.5%
1,131 upheld decisions
Leading product
Payment protection insurance (PPI)
2,157 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Delay In Claim Handling
362 tagged decisions
MBNA Limited appears in 3,829 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 9 published decisions with an upheld rate of 11.1%.
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
For the reasons I’ve outlined, I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Ms O to accept or reject my decision before 14 April 2026.
View source decisionI do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr O to accept or reject my decision before 3 April 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons I’ve explained, I’m not upholding Mr H’s complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr H to accept or reject my decision before 10 March 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons I’ve explained, I’m not upholding Mrs P’s complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs P to accept or reject my decision before 9 March 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons I’ve explained, I’m not upholding Mrs M’s complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs M to accept or reject my decision before 9 March 2026.
View source decision