Published decisions
443
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
443
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
54.2%
240 upheld decisions
Page summary
443 published decisions involving Startline Motor Finance Limited, with product mix, upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
443
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
54.2%
240 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 21 Apr 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
443
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
54.2%
240 upheld decisions
Leading product
Consumer Credit
340 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Affordability Assessment Failure
47 tagged decisions
Startline Motor Finance Limited appears in 443 published decisions in this corpus. 54.2% 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 340 decisions and an upheld rate of 52.6%.
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 18 published decisions with an upheld rate of 22.2%.
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
My final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Ms H to accept or reject my decision before 19 May 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons given above, it’s my final decision not to uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss L to accept or reject my decision before 15 May 2026.
View source decisionMy final decision is that I uphold this complaint. I instruct STARTLINE MOTOR FINANCE LIMITED to put things right by doing the following: • end the finance agreement ensuring Mr L is not liable for monthly rentals after the point of collection (it should refund them any overpayment for these if applicable); • take the car back (if that has not been done already) without charging for collection; • Reimburse Mr L’s...
View source decisionI don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss A to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026.
View source decisionMy final decision is that I don’t uphold the complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss K to accept or reject my decision before 21 April 2026.
View source decision