Published decisions
34,881
2016 decision volume in the public corpus
Year analysis
Detailed public analysis of the 2016 published Financial Ombudsman decision set, including complaint volume, outcome mix, product concentration, firm exposure, and recurring complaint themes.
Page summary
34,881 published FOS decisions in 2016, including upheld-rate context, top firms, top products, recurring complaint themes, and representative cases.
Published decisions
34,881
2016 decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
31.8%
11,087 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 30 Dec 2016
Published decisions
34,881
2016 decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
31.8%
11,087 upheld decisions
Leading product
Payment protection insurance (PPI)
38.1% of annual decisions
Leading firm
Bank of Scotland Plc
3,212 published decisions
34,881 published ombudsman decisions landed in 2016. 31.8% of those decisions were upheld, while 68.2% were not upheld. That makes 2016 a meaningful benchmark year for understanding where complaint pressure and adjudication risk sat across the corpus.
Payment protection insurance (PPI) was the heaviest product area, accounting for 13,292 decisions. Bank of Scotland Plc appeared most often at firm level. The most frequently tagged complaint theme was delay in claim handling.
The year was led by Payment protection insurance (PPI), Banking and credit, Insurance (excluding PPI), and others, which together represented the centre of complaint activity in the published decisions for 2016.
Payment protection insurance (PPI) alone contributed 38.1% of all decisions published in 2016, which makes it the clearest lens for understanding how complaint pressure expressed itself that year.
Bank of Scotland Plc, HSBC Bank plc, Barclays Bank Plc, and others were the most visible firms in the published decisions for 2016. That does not prove complaint prevalence in a consumer-market sense, but it does show which firms were most exposed in the final ombudsman decisions dataset.
Complaint-theme tagging pointed most strongly to delay in claim handling, affordability assessment failure, fraud or scam concern, and others. These themes are the most useful public proxy for “complaint type” in this corpus because the raw decisions are not stored with a dedicated complaint-type field.
Representative cases
5 examples shown
Mr and Mrs F complain they were mis-sold mortgage payment protection insurance (MPPI) by The Co-operative Bank Plc (“Co-operative”).backgroundMr and Mrs F re-mortgaged their house with Co-operative in 2008. They say they met with an adviser in a branch of Co-operative and ... (2 pages)
View source decisionMrs M complains that Active Securities Limited (trading as 247 Moneybox) gave her payday loans without making proper checks that they were affordable for her. She wants reimbursement of the interest and charges she paid, with interest, and her debt waived. backgroun... (2 pages)
View source decisionMr H says Lloyds Bank plc (Lloyds) mis-sold him a regular monthly premium payment protection insurance (PPI) policy. backgroundLloyds sold Mr H the PPI with a credit card in 1998. The PPI included unemployment, accident and sickness cover and cost around £0.79 for ev... (2 pages)
View source decisionMr and Mrs S complain that Nationwide Building Society (“Nationwide”) mis-sold them a mortgage payment protection insurance (MPPI) policy.backgroundMr and Mrs S took out a mortgage and MPPI policy with Nationwide in 2003. They say they were told they had to have the polic... (3 pages)
View source decisionMr M complains that WDFC UK Limited, trading as Wonga, gave him loans he couldn’t afford to repay. He asks that Wonga refunds interest and charges and pays compensation for the way it handled the situation when he couldn’t repay the loans.backgroundMr M took out 21 loa... (3 pages)
View source decision