Published decisions
2,126
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Firm analysis
A public analysis page covering published Financial Ombudsman decisions involving Yorkshire Building Society, including outcome context, product mix, complaint themes, and representative cases.
Published decisions
2,126
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
30.7%
652 upheld decisions
Page summary
2,126 published decisions involving Yorkshire Building Society, with product mix, upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
2,126
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
30.7%
652 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
2,126
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
30.7%
652 upheld decisions
Leading product
Payment protection insurance (PPI)
1,323 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Affordability Assessment Failure
218 tagged decisions
Yorkshire Building Society appears in 2,126 published decisions in this corpus. 30.7% 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 1,323 decisions and an upheld rate of 34.9%.
Yorkshire 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, Yorkshire Building Society appeared in 6 published decisions with an upheld rate of 50.0%.
Affordability Assessment Failure is the strongest complaint-theme signal tied to Yorkshire Building Society in the published decisions. In this corpus, those themes are the most stable public proxy for complaint “type”.
Consumer Credit Act 1974, Disp, Icobs, 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 complaint should fairly be resolved by Yorkshire Building Society trading as Chelsea Building Society taking the following action: • pay Ms M a total of £350 compensation; and • ensure all future written communication is issued in size 16 font, unless and until Ms M requests otherwise. I make no other order or award.
View source decisionMy final decision is that I’m upholding this complaint along the lines I’ve set out above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs C and Mrs H to accept or reject my decision before 15 May 2026.
View source decisionMy final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr and Mrs B to accept or reject my decision before 29 April 2026.
View source decisionMy final decision is that I don’t require Yorkshire Building Society to do anything further, beyond waiving the ERC and the payment of £350 it has made to Ms H and Mrs B. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs B and Ms H to accept or reject my decision before 9 March 2026.
View source decisionYBS has already made an offer to pay £200 to settle the complaint and I think this offer is fair in all the circumstances. So my decision is that Yorkshire Building Society should pay £200.
View source decision