Published decisions
518
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Firm analysis
A public analysis page covering published Financial Ombudsman decisions involving MotoNovo Finance Limited, including outcome context, product mix, complaint themes, and representative cases.
Published decisions
518
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
49.8%
258 upheld decisions
Page summary
518 published decisions involving MotoNovo Finance Limited, with product mix, upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
518
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
49.8%
258 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 06 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
518
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
49.8%
258 upheld decisions
Leading product
Consumer Credit
513 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Affordability Assessment Failure
32 tagged decisions
MotoNovo Finance Limited appears in 518 published decisions in this corpus. 49.8% 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 513 decisions and an upheld rate of 49.7%.
MotoNovo Finance Limited's decision trail runs from 2017 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, MotoNovo Finance Limited appeared in 12 published decisions with an upheld rate of 25.0%.
Affordability Assessment Failure is the strongest complaint-theme signal tied to MotoNovo Finance 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 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 do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr C to accept or reject my decision before 3 August 2026.
View source decisionMotoNovo Finance Limited have already made an offer to settle the complaint, and I’m satisfied this offer is fair in the circumstances. So, my decision is that MotoNovo Finance Limited must: • Pay Mr I £760.
View source decisionWhilst I acknowledge why Mr S has complained, my final decision is that I do not uphold Mr S’ complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr S to accept or reject my decision before 27 July 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons above, I uphold this complaint. MotoNovo Finance Limited must: • Pay Mr M £4,150 to reflect the reduction in price he received when part-exchanging the car in May 2025.
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 Mrs K to accept or reject my decision before 18 May 2026.
View source decision