Published decisions
1,449
Decision volume in this firm-product slice
Firm + product analysis
A curated public analysis of Shawbrook Bank Limited's published Financial Ombudsman decisions in Consumer Credit, including outcome context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
1,449
Decision volume in this firm-product slice
Upheld rate
21.7%
314 upheld decisions
Page summary
1,449 published FOS decisions involving Shawbrook Bank Limited in Consumer Credit, with upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
1,449
Decision volume in this firm-product slice
Upheld rate
21.7%
314 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
1,449
Decision volume in this firm-product slice
Upheld rate
21.7%
314 upheld decisions
Latest active year
2026
134 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Non-disclosure Or Misrepresentation
563 tagged decisions
Shawbrook Bank Limited appears in 1,449 published decisions in Consumer Credit across this corpus. 21.7% of those decisions were upheld, making this one of the strongest public firm-product slices available for search and research.
The latest year represented in this slice is 2026, with 134 published decisions and an upheld rate of 3.7%.
Shawbrook Bank Limited has a multi-year published decision trail in Consumer Credit, which makes it possible to judge whether complaint exposure has been persistent or concentrated into a smaller set of years.
Consumer Credit remains a meaningful part of Shawbrook Bank Limited's published complaint exposure, but this page isolates just that one product line instead of blending it with the firm's wider footprint.
Non-disclosure Or Misrepresentation is the clearest complaint-theme signal in this firm-product slice, which helps explain what tends to drive published ombudsman decisions here.
The product advisory layer also points to recurring handling implications, including review consumer credit act 1974 precedent (appears in 12.9% of cases), review section 75 cca precedent (appears in 8.6% of cases), review section 140a cca precedent (appears in 5.1% of cases), and others.
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