Published decisions
874
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Firm analysis
A public analysis page covering published Financial Ombudsman decisions involving Starling Bank Limited, including outcome context, product mix, complaint themes, and representative cases.
Published decisions
874
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
26.5%
232 upheld decisions
Page summary
874 published decisions involving Starling Bank Limited, with product mix, upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
874
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
26.5%
232 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 21 Aug 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
874
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
26.5%
232 upheld decisions
Leading product
Banking and Payments
850 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Fraud Or Scam Concern
423 tagged decisions
Starling Bank Limited appears in 874 published decisions in this corpus. 26.5% 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.
Banking and Payments is the firm’s clearest product exposure in the published decisions, with 850 decisions and an upheld rate of 26.8%.
Starling Bank 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, Starling Bank Limited appeared in 67 published decisions with an upheld rate of 16.4%.
Fraud Or Scam Concern is the strongest complaint-theme signal tied to Starling Bank Limited in the published decisions. In this corpus, those themes are the most stable public proxy for complaint “type”.
Payment Services Regulations, Disp, Section 75 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
My final decision is that this isn’t a complaint we can uphold. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs P to accept or reject my decision before 18 September 2026.
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 R to accept or reject my decision before 19 September 2026.
View source decisionI 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 18 September 2026.
View source decisionI uphold Mr O’s complaint. Starling Bank Limited should now pay the redress outlined above.
View source decisionMy final decision is that I uphold this complaint against Starling Bank Limited on the basis explained above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask P to accept or reject my decision before 14 September 2026.
View source decision