Tagged decisions
4,975
Published decisions carrying this complaint-theme tag
Complaint theme analysis
A public analysis page for the complaint theme communication failure, built from the root-cause tagging layer across published Financial Ombudsman decisions.
Page summary
4,975 published decisions tagged communication failure, with upheld-rate context, product concentration, firm exposure, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Tagged decisions
4,975
Published decisions carrying this complaint-theme tag
Upheld rate
24.5%
1,217 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 02 Feb 2026
Tagged decisions
4,975
Published decisions carrying this complaint-theme tag
Upheld rate
24.5%
1,217 upheld decisions
Leading product
Payment protection insurance (PPI)
2,059 decisions
Leading firm
Bank of Scotland Plc
470 decisions
4,975 published decisions in the corpus carry the complaint-theme tag communication failure. 24.5% 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.
Communication 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, communication failure appeared in 14 published decisions with an upheld rate of 35.7%.
Payment protection insurance (PPI), Banking and credit, Insurance (excluding PPI), 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.
Disp, Consumer Credit Act 1974, Icobs, and others are the most visible precedent signals tied to this complaint theme.
Representative cases
5 examples shown
For the reasons explained above, my final decision is that I uphold this complaint. Revolut Ltd needs to put things right as set out above.
View source decisionFor the reasons I have given I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr P to accept or reject my decision before 2 March 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons I’ve explained, my final decision is that I don’t uphold this complaint. I don’t direct esure Insurance Limited trading as Sheilas' Wheels to do any more in response to this complaint.
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 S and Mr S to accept or reject my decision before 2 March 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons set out above, I uphold this complaint. To put things right Advantage Insurance Company Limited should pay Ms W a total of £300 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
View source decision