Published decisions
28,003
2020 decision volume in the public corpus
Year analysis
Detailed public analysis of the 2020 published Financial Ombudsman decision set, including complaint volume, outcome mix, product concentration, firm exposure, and recurring complaint themes.
Page summary
28,003 published FOS decisions in 2020, including upheld-rate context, top firms, top products, recurring complaint themes, and representative cases.
Published decisions
28,003
2020 decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
32.3%
9,044 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 31 Dec 2020
Published decisions
28,003
2020 decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
32.3%
9,044 upheld decisions
Leading product
Insurance
26.1% of annual decisions
Leading firm
Bank of Scotland Plc
1,527 published decisions
28,003 published ombudsman decisions landed in 2020. 32.3% of those decisions were upheld, while 67.7% were not upheld. That makes 2020 a meaningful benchmark year for understanding where complaint pressure and adjudication risk sat across the corpus.
Insurance was the heaviest product area, accounting for 7,311 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 Insurance, Banking and credit, Banking and Payments, and others, which together represented the centre of complaint activity in the published decisions for 2020.
Insurance alone contributed 26.1% of all decisions published in 2020, which makes it the clearest lens for understanding how complaint pressure expressed itself that year.
Bank of Scotland Plc, Barclays Bank UK PLC, Lloyds Bank PLC, and others were the most visible firms in the published decisions for 2020. 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, non-disclosure or misrepresentation, affordability assessment failure, 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
DRN-1716961 The complaint Mr F complains that American Express Services Europe Limited (AESEL) rejected a claim he made to them under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (“section 75”). What happened The details of this complaint are well known to both parties, so I won’t repeat the... (2 pages)
View source decisionDRN-1742644 The complaint Mr B complains about the way National Westminster Bank Plc handled his claim for a refund of a credit card payment when his holiday was cancelled. What happened In September 2019 Mr B booked a package holiday through a travel agent, H. The holiday was to be suppli... (2 pages)
View source decisionDRN-1749069 The complaint Mr P is unhappy about The National Farmers' Union Mutual Insurance Society Limited declining his claim under his commercial business insurance policy. What happened A piece of equipment caught fire at Mr P’s business premises. This had to be put out with a fi... (2 pages)
View source decisionDRN-1890535 The complaint Miss K has complained that National Westminster Bank (NatWest) didn’t treat her fairly when her partner passed away. She has said that it continued to charge her monthly fees for a packaged bank account, called a Select Platinum account, and was wrong to do so. Mi... (2 pages)
View source decisionDRN-1908438 The complaint The estate of Mr Y (“the estate”) complains that Farsight Financial Limited (“Farsight”) was paid adviser fees but didn’t provide any service or advice to Mr Y in exchange for this. The estate also complains about the adequacy of Farsight’s handling of this compla... (3 pages)
View source decision