Published decisions
1,803
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Firm analysis
A public analysis page covering published Financial Ombudsman decisions involving Shawbrook Bank Limited, including outcome context, product mix, complaint themes, and representative cases.
Published decisions
1,803
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
24.5%
442 upheld decisions
Page summary
1,803 published decisions involving Shawbrook Bank Limited, with product mix, upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
1,803
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
24.5%
442 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
1,803
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
24.5%
442 upheld decisions
Leading product
Consumer Credit
1,449 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Non-disclosure Or Misrepresentation
654 tagged decisions
Shawbrook Bank Limited appears in 1,803 published decisions in this corpus. 24.5% 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.
Consumer Credit is the firm’s clearest product exposure in the published decisions, with 1,449 decisions and an upheld rate of 21.7%.
Shawbrook Bank 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, Shawbrook Bank Limited appeared in 137 published decisions with an upheld rate of 3.6%.
Non-disclosure Or Misrepresentation is the strongest complaint-theme signal tied to Shawbrook Bank 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
I do not uphold Mrs and Mr S’s complaint. I do not require Shawbrook Bank Limited to do anything more.
View source decisionFor the reasons I’ve explained, I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr L and Mrs L to accept or reject my decision before 14 April 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 Mr M and Mrs M to accept or reject my decision before 14 April 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons set out above, I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs D to accept or reject my decision before 14 April 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons given, I don’t think it was unfair for Shawbrook Bank Limited to decline Mr C’s claim under section 75 of the CCA for any alleged breach of contract by the Supplier. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr C to accept or reject my decision before 14 April 2026.
View source decision