Published decisions
495
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Firm analysis
A public analysis page covering published Financial Ombudsman decisions involving Skipton Building Society, including outcome context, product mix, complaint themes, and representative cases.
Published decisions
495
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
30.1%
149 upheld decisions
Page summary
495 published decisions involving Skipton Building Society, with product mix, upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
495
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
30.1%
149 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 23 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
495
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
30.1%
149 upheld decisions
Leading product
Payment protection insurance (PPI)
183 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Delay In Claim Handling
44 tagged decisions
Skipton Building Society appears in 495 published decisions in this corpus. 30.1% 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.
Payment protection insurance (PPI) is the firm’s clearest product exposure in the published decisions, with 183 decisions and an upheld rate of 32.2%.
Skipton Building Society'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, Skipton Building Society appeared in 7 published decisions with an upheld rate of 14.3%.
Delay In Claim Handling is the strongest complaint-theme signal tied to Skipton Building Society in the published decisions. In this corpus, those themes are the most stable public proxy for complaint “type”.
Cobs 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
Skipton Building Society has already made a fair and reasonable offer to settle this complaint. As such, my final decision is that Skipton Building Society should reimburse the cost Mr and Mrs M incurred in splitting the property title and it should also pay them £500 compensation in full and final settlement of this complaint.
View source decisionMy decision is that Skipton Building Society should pay £300 (in total) to Mr and Mrs C. It can deduct any amounts already paid.
View source decisionMy final decision is that I don’t uphold Mr S’s complaint about Skipton Building Society. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr S to accept or reject my decision before 4 August 2026.
View source decisionI do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr B to accept or reject my decision before 24 July 2026.
View source decisionSkipton has already made a fair and reasonable offer to resolve Ms B’s complaint and I do not recommend it does anything further. To the extent that it hasn’t already done so, I require it to pay Ms B the sum of £262.
View source decision