Published decisions
417
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
417
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
39.8%
166 upheld decisions
Page summary
417 published decisions involving Oodle Financial Services Limited, with product mix, upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
417
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
39.8%
166 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 17 Apr 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
417
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
39.8%
166 upheld decisions
Leading product
Consumer Credit
391 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Affordability Assessment Failure
75 tagged decisions
Oodle Financial Services Limited appears in 417 published decisions in this corpus. 39.8% 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 391 decisions and an upheld rate of 38.6%.
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 8 published decisions with an upheld rate of 25.0%.
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 I’ve explained above, I’m not upholding Mr M’s complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr M to accept or reject my decision before 15 May 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons I’ve explained, I uphold Mr C’s complaint. Oodle Financial Services Limited should put things right by doing what I’ve said above.
View source decisionMy final decision is that I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr Y to accept or reject my decision before 29 April 2026.
View source decisionI am not upholding this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr T to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026.
View source decisionI uphold this complaint against Oodle Financial Services Limited. In order to put things right they must follow the redress as outlined above.
View source decision