Tagged decisions
12,163
Published decisions carrying this complaint-theme tag
Complaint theme analysis
A public analysis page for the complaint theme non-disclosure or misrepresentation, built from the root-cause tagging layer across published Financial Ombudsman decisions.
Tagged decisions
12,163
Published decisions carrying this complaint-theme tag
Upheld rate
19.8%
2,408 upheld decisions
Page summary
12,163 published decisions tagged non-disclosure or misrepresentation, with upheld-rate context, product concentration, firm exposure, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Tagged decisions
12,163
Published decisions carrying this complaint-theme tag
Upheld rate
19.8%
2,408 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 25 Aug 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.
Tagged decisions
12,163
Published decisions carrying this complaint-theme tag
Upheld rate
19.8%
2,408 upheld decisions
Leading product
Payment protection insurance (PPI)
4,314 decisions
Leading firm
AXA France IARD
2,023 decisions
12,163 published decisions in the corpus carry the complaint-theme tag non-disclosure or misrepresentation. 19.8% 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 AXA France IARD is the firm that appears most often alongside it in published decisions.
Non-disclosure Or Misrepresentation 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, non-disclosure or misrepresentation appeared in 938 published decisions with an upheld rate of 11.8%.
Payment protection insurance (PPI), Banking and credit, Insurance, 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, Disp, Icobs, and others are the most visible precedent signals tied to this complaint theme.
Representative cases
5 examples shown
My final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs S to accept or reject my decision before 22 September 2026.
View source decisionMy final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr B to accept or reject my decision before 22 September 2026.
View source decisionWhilst I understand why Mrs N may be disappointed with her agreement type, I’m not persuaded JBR have acted incorrectly or unfairly and so I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs N to accept or reject my decision before 22 September 2026.
View source decisionI do not uphold Mr F’s complaint against Mitsubishi HC Capital UK PLC trading as Novuna Personal Finance. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr F to accept or reject my decision before 22 September 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons given, I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr E to accept or reject my decision before 22 September 2026.
View source decision