Tagged decisions
22,973
Published decisions carrying this complaint-theme tag
Complaint theme analysis
A public analysis page for the complaint theme affordability assessment failure, built from the root-cause tagging layer across published Financial Ombudsman decisions.
Page summary
22,973 published decisions tagged affordability assessment failure, with upheld-rate context, product concentration, firm exposure, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Tagged decisions
22,973
Published decisions carrying this complaint-theme tag
Upheld rate
29.6%
6,793 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 02 Feb 2026
Tagged decisions
22,973
Published decisions carrying this complaint-theme tag
Upheld rate
29.6%
6,793 upheld decisions
Leading product
Payment protection insurance (PPI)
8,729 decisions
Leading firm
Bank of Scotland Plc
2,743 decisions
22,973 published decisions in the corpus carry the complaint-theme tag affordability assessment failure. 29.6% of those decisions were upheld, which makes this one of the most useful public “type” slices available in the dataset.
Payment protection insurance (PPI) is the product line most often associated with this theme, while Bank of Scotland Plc is the firm that appears most often alongside it in published decisions.
Affordability Assessment Failure has enough history in the published decisions to show how complaint pressure has evolved across multiple years, rather than appearing as a one-off issue cluster.
In 2026, affordability assessment failure appeared in 97 published decisions with an upheld rate of 11.3%.
Payment protection insurance (PPI), Banking and credit, Consumer Credit, and others are the product areas most associated with this theme in published decisions. That helps explain where this complaint type is most likely to appear in the ombudsman corpus.
Consumer Credit Act 1974, Conc, Section 140a Cca, and others are the most visible precedent signals tied to this complaint theme.
Representative cases
5 examples shown
For the reasons outlined above, I’m not upholding this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr M to accept or reject my decision before 2 March 2026.
View source decisionIt’s my final decision that I don’t uphold this complaint against Oakbrook Finance Limited, for the reasons explained above Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr J to accept or reject my decision before 2 March 2026. David Barker Ombudsman
View source decisionFor the reasons set out above, I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs I to accept or reject my decision before 2 March 2026.
View source decisionAs outlined above, it’s my final decision that I don’t uphold this complaint against Bamboo Limited. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss C to accept or reject my decision before 2 March 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons I’ve explained, I’m not upholding this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs A to accept or reject my decision before 2 March 2026.
View source decision