Published decisions
429
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Firm analysis
A public analysis page covering published Financial Ombudsman decisions involving Oodle Financial Services Limited, including outcome context, product mix, complaint themes, and representative cases.
Published decisions
429
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
39.2%
168 upheld decisions
Page summary
429 published decisions involving Oodle Financial Services Limited, with product mix, upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
429
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
39.2%
168 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 28 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
429
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
39.2%
168 upheld decisions
Leading product
Consumer Credit
403 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Affordability Assessment Failure
78 tagged decisions
Oodle Financial Services Limited appears in 429 published decisions in this corpus. 39.2% 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 403 decisions and an upheld rate of 38.0%.
Oodle Financial Services Limited's decision trail runs from 2018 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, Oodle Financial Services Limited appeared in 20 published decisions with an upheld rate of 20.0%.
Affordability Assessment Failure is the strongest complaint-theme signal tied to Oodle Financial Services 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
For the reasons explained, I don’t uphold Mr W’s complaint about Oodle Financial Services Limited. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr W to accept or reject my decision before 25 August 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons above, I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr S to accept or reject my decision before 24 August 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons I’ve explained, I uphold this complaint and I instruct Oodle Financial Services Limited to put things right by doing the following: • End the agreement ensuring Mr B is not liable for monthly rentals after the agreement ends (it should refund any overpayment for these if applicable). • Refund Mr B’s advance payment towards the agreement of £1,500.
View source decisionFor the reasons explained, I uphold Mrs N’s complaint and instruct Oodle Financial Services Limited to do the following: • End the agreement with nothing further to pay in relation to the monthly payments and collect the vehicle at no cost to Mrs N if applicable. • Refund Mrs N all monthly payments made under the agreement to the date of settlement.
View source decisionFor the reasons above, I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr N to accept or reject my decision before 18 August 2026.
View source decision