Published decisions
439
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
439
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
36.5%
160 upheld decisions
Page summary
439 published decisions involving Zopa Bank Limited, with product mix, upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
439
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
36.5%
160 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 07 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
439
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
36.5%
160 upheld decisions
Leading product
Consumer Credit
299 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Affordability Assessment Failure
85 tagged decisions
Zopa Bank Limited appears in 439 published decisions in this corpus. 36.5% 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 299 decisions and an upheld rate of 41.8%.
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 35 published decisions with an upheld rate of 17.1%.
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, Conc, 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
It follows that I’m not upholding this complaint as I don’t think Zopa Bank Limited lent to Miss R irresponsibly or unfairly. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss R to accept or reject my decision before 4 August 2026.
View source decisionI uphold Miss W’s complaint against Zopa Bank Limited for the reasons explained above and direct Zopa to: • Add up the total repayments Miss W made towards this loan and deduct these from the total amount of money she received. • If this results in Miss W having paid more than she received, any overpayment should be refunded along with simple interest using a time-weighted average of the Bank of England base rate...
View source decisionFor the reasons explained, I uphold Miss F’s complaint about Zopa Bank Limited. I require Zopa Bank Limited to take the steps detailed in “Putting things right” above.
View source decisionFor the reasons I’ve already set out I’m not upholding Miss C’s complaint. It follows I don’t require Zopa Bank Limited to take any further action Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss C to accept or reject my decision before 24 July 2026.
View source decisionZopa Bank Limited has already made an offer to pay £75 to settle the complaint and I think this offer is fair in all the circumstances. So Zopa Bank Limited should pay Mr L £75 for distress and inconvenience (only if they haven’t done so already).
View source decision