Published decisions
80,231
Product-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Product analysis
A public view of how Payment protection insurance (PPI) performs in the published Financial Ombudsman decisions dataset, including volume, outcome mix, firm exposure, and recurring complaint themes.
Page summary
80,231 published FOS decisions in Payment protection insurance (PPI), with upheld-rate context, firm exposure, complaint themes, advisory patterns, and representative cases.
Published decisions
80,231
Product-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
31.0%
24,868 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 21 Sept 2021
Published decisions
80,231
Product-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
31.0%
24,868 upheld decisions
Leading firm
Bank of Scotland Plc
14,267 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Affordability Assessment Failure
8,729 tagged decisions
80,231 published decisions in this corpus sit within Payment protection insurance (PPI). 31.0% of those decisions were upheld, which makes this a useful public category page for spotting where complaint outcomes have tended to land.
Bank of Scotland Plc is the single biggest firm exposure inside Payment protection insurance (PPI) in the published decision set. Affordability Assessment Failure is the leading complaint theme in the same category.
Payment protection insurance (PPI) has a multi-year decision trail in the corpus, which makes it possible to compare recent complaint pressure against earlier years rather than relying on a single snapshot.
In 2021, Payment protection insurance (PPI) recorded 2,868 published decisions with an upheld rate of 10.3%.
affordability assessment failure, non-disclosure or misrepresentation, communication failure, and others are the strongest complaint-theme signals in Payment protection insurance (PPI). For public analysis, those tags are the closest durable “type” layer available in the dataset.
The existing advisor model also points to recurring handling implications for Payment protection insurance (PPI), including review consumer credit act 1974 precedent (appears in 5.2% of cases), review disp precedent (appears in 5.1% of cases), and others.
Representative cases
5 examples shown
Mrs S says she was mis-sold a payment protection insurance (“PPI”) policy. I can’t consider this complaint against the policy seller directly because the sale took place before it, or its predecessor-in-title, was regulated by the then Financial Services Authority (FSA) for insurance inter... (8 pages)
View source decisionMr H says he was mis-sold a payment protection insurance (“PPI”) policy. I can’t consider this complaint against the policy seller directly because the sale took place before it, or its predecessor-in-title, was regulated by the then Financial Services Authority (FSA) for insurance interme... (8 pages)
View source decisionThis complaint is about a mortgage payment protection insurance (PPI) policy taken out in 2009. Mr S says Bank of Scotland plc mis-sold him PPI. background The background and circumstances leading up to this complaint, which includes Mr S’s circumstances at the time of the sale as well as ... (4 pages)
View source decisionThis complaint is about a credit card payment protection insurance (PPI) policy taken out in 1999. Mr D says The Royal Bank of Scotland plc mis-sold him PPI. background The background and circumstances leading up to this complaint, which includes Mr D’s circumstances at the time of the sal... (5 pages)
View source decisionThis complaint is about a credit card payment protection insurance (PPI) policy taken out in 2002. Mrs G says Bank of Scotland plc (“BoS”) mis-sold her PPI. background The background and circumstances leading up to this complaint, which includes Mrs G’s circumstances at the time of the sal... (5 pages)
View source decision