Published decisions
1,518
Decision volume in this year-product slice
Year + product analysis
A curated public analysis of Investments in 2022, combining annual and product-level signals from the published Financial Ombudsman decision corpus.
Published decisions
1,518
Decision volume in this year-product slice
Upheld rate
30.4%
461 upheld decisions
Page summary
1,518 published FOS decisions in Investments during 2022, with upheld-rate context, firm concentration, complaint themes, and representative cases.
Published decisions
1,518
Decision volume in this year-product slice
Upheld rate
30.4%
461 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 30 Dec 2022
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.
Published decisions
1,518
Decision volume in this year-product slice
Upheld rate
30.4%
461 upheld decisions
Leading firm
Aviva Life & Pensions UK Limited
115 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Delay In Claim Handling
194 tagged decisions
1,518 published decisions in the corpus sit in Investments for 2022. 30.4% of those decisions were upheld, which makes this a strong public cross-section for understanding how one product behaved in one specific year.
Aviva Life & Pensions UK Limited is the most visible firm inside this year-product slice, with 115 published decisions.
Aviva Life & Pensions UK Limited, Barclays Bank UK PLC, Halifax Share Dealing Limited, and others are the firms most often associated with Investments complaints in 2022. This gives a much tighter public view than the standalone year or product pages alone.
delay in claim handling, non-disclosure or misrepresentation, communication failure, and others are the strongest complaint-theme signals in this year-product combination.
The advisory layer for Investments points to recurring handling implications here, including review cobs precedent (appears in 0.4% of cases), review prin precedent (appears in 0.2% of cases), review disp precedent (appears in 0.2% of cases), and others.
There is no strong “what loses” signal exposed for this product at the current advisory granularity.
Representative cases
5 examples shown
DRN-3799714 The complaint Mrs R complains to Gallium Fund Solutions Limited (“Gallium”) about her investment into a five year bond issued by Basset & Gold Plc (“B&G Plc”) which she thought would be covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. What happened The B&G Pl... (23 pages)
View source decisionDRN-3443487 The complaint Miss E complains that Funding Circle Ltd failed to carry out enough due diligence to ensure a company she lent to was creditworthy. She says that, because of this, Funding Circle incorrectly allocated her a loan. What happened Miss E held a crowdfunding account on... (4 pages)
View source decisionDRN-3661759 The complaint Mr B complains that eToro (UK) Ltd allowed him to open a CFD trading account without sufficient checks and to continue trading despite large losses and signs he had a gambling problem. What happened Mr B opened his trading account with eToro in February 2021. He c... (2 pages)
View source decisionDRN-3766188 The complaint Mr R complains that Freetrade Limited provided misleading pricing information and failed to meet its best execution obligations for some trades on his account. What happened On Friday 6 March 2020 Mr R purchased 302 shares in iShares Gold Producers ETF through his... (3 pages)
View source decisionDRN-3875289 The complaint Mr L’s complaint, made through his representative, concerns his Contracts for Difference (CFD) trading account held with a business that I’ll refer to as B. The complaint is against Accendo Markets Limited (Accendo) who introduced Mr L to B. In brief, Mr L feels t... (3 pages)
View source decision