Published decisions
448
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
448
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
54.0%
242 upheld decisions
Page summary
448 published decisions involving Startline Motor Finance Limited, with product mix, upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
448
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
54.0%
242 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 28 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
448
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
54.0%
242 upheld decisions
Leading product
Consumer Credit
345 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Affordability Assessment Failure
48 tagged decisions
Startline Motor Finance Limited appears in 448 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 345 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 23 published decisions with an upheld rate of 26.1%.
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 explained, I partly uphold Miss S’ complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss S to accept or reject my decision before 25 August 2026.
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 M to accept or reject my decision before 18 August 2026.
View source decisionMy final decision is that I’m not upholding Miss D’s complaint about Startline Motor Finance Limited. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss D to accept or reject my decision before 31 July 2026.
View source decisionMy final decision is that I don’t uphold Miss T’s complaint about STARTLINE MOTOR FINANCE LIMITED. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss T to accept or reject my decision before 23 July 2026.
View source decisionSTARTLINE MOTOR FINANCE LIMITED has made an offer to Mr R that is broadly fair. It should now action this, and as part of that, act on my comments regarding the deposit as appropriate.
View source decision