Published decisions
465
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Firm analysis
A public analysis page covering published Financial Ombudsman decisions involving Startline Motor Finance Limited, including outcome context, product mix, complaint themes, and representative cases.
Published decisions
465
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
54.0%
251 upheld decisions
Page summary
465 published decisions involving Startline Motor Finance Limited, with product mix, upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
465
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
54.0%
251 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 15 Sept 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
465
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
54.0%
251 upheld decisions
Leading product
Consumer Credit
362 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Affordability Assessment Failure
53 tagged decisions
Startline Motor Finance Limited appears in 465 published decisions in this corpus. 54.0% 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 362 decisions and an upheld rate of 52.5%.
Startline Motor Finance Limited's decision trail runs from 2015 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, Startline Motor Finance Limited appeared in 40 published decisions with an upheld rate of 37.5%.
Affordability Assessment Failure is the strongest complaint-theme signal tied to Startline Motor Finance 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 given above, I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr W to accept or reject my decision before 13 October 2026.
View source decisionMy final decision is that I uphold Mr G’s complaint and require STARTLINE MOTOR FINANCE LIMITED to take the following action: 1. End the hire purchase agreement ensuring Mr G is not liable for any further monthly payments (it should refund any overpayment for these if applicable).
View source decisionFor the reasons I’ve explained above, my decision is that I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr Q to accept or reject my decision before 9 October 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons I have explained, I uphold Mr B’s complaint. To put things right Startline Motor Finance Limited must: • End Mr B’s hire purchase agreement with nothing further to pay.
View source decisionMy final decision is that I don’t uphold Miss W’s complaint about Startline Motor Finance Limited. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss W to accept or reject my decision before 1 October 2026.
View source decision