Published decisions
421
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Firm analysis
A public analysis page covering published Financial Ombudsman decisions involving Zopa Bank Limited, including outcome context, product mix, complaint themes, and representative cases.
Published decisions
421
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
37.0%
156 upheld decisions
Page summary
421 published decisions involving Zopa Bank Limited, with product mix, upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
421
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
37.0%
156 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 06 Mar 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
421
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
37.0%
156 upheld decisions
Leading product
Consumer Credit
289 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Affordability Assessment Failure
76 tagged decisions
Zopa Bank Limited appears in 421 published decisions in this corpus. 37.0% 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 289 decisions and an upheld rate of 42.6%.
Zopa Bank Limited's decision trail runs from 2020 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, Zopa Bank Limited appeared in 17 published decisions with an upheld rate of 11.8%.
Affordability Assessment Failure is the strongest complaint-theme signal tied to Zopa Bank 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, 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
For the reasons I’ve explained, I uphold this complaint and I instruct Zopa Bank Limited to put things right by doing the following: • Cover the cost of repairs Miss H has paid for in relation to the car’s ECU and EML not operating as it should, if any. This should be paid to Miss H on production of evidence to Zopa to show that payment was made by her to a VAT registered garage.
View source decisionFor the reasons I’ve set out here and in my provisional decision, my final decision is that I uphold Mr C’s complaint about Zopa Bank Limited and I direct it to settle matters in the way I’ve set out above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr C to accept or reject my decision before 3 April 2026.
View source decisionI am not upholding this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr O to accept or reject my decision before 2 April 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 A to accept or reject my decision before 2 April 2026.
View source decisionI am not upholding Mr G’s complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr G to accept or reject my decision before 2 April 2026.
View source decision