Published decisions
432
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
432
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
36.6%
158 upheld decisions
Page summary
432 published decisions involving Zopa Bank Limited, with product mix, upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
432
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
36.6%
158 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 20 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
432
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
36.6%
158 upheld decisions
Leading product
Consumer Credit
295 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Affordability Assessment Failure
83 tagged decisions
Zopa Bank Limited appears in 432 published decisions in this corpus. 36.6% 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 295 decisions and an upheld rate of 41.7%.
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 28 published decisions with an upheld rate of 14.3%.
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’m 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 18 May 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons I’ve explained, my final decision is that I do not uphold Mrs M complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs M to accept or reject my decision before 15 May 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 Mrs M to accept or reject my decision before 14 May 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons given, my final decision is to instruct Zopa Bank Limited to remove the marker from Mr A’s record with CIFAS. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr A to accept or reject my decision before 14 May 2026.
View source decisionMy final decision is that I’m not upholding Mr T’s complaint about Zopa Bank Limited. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr T to accept or reject my decision before 14 May 2026.
View source decision