Published decisions
1,835
Decision volume in this year-product slice
Year + product analysis
A curated public analysis of Consumer Credit in 2026, combining annual and product-level signals from the published Financial Ombudsman decision corpus.
Published decisions
1,835
Decision volume in this year-product slice
Upheld rate
22.1%
405 upheld decisions
Page summary
1,835 published FOS decisions in Consumer Credit during 2026, with upheld-rate context, firm concentration, complaint themes, and representative cases.
Published decisions
1,835
Decision volume in this year-product slice
Upheld rate
22.1%
405 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.
Published decisions
1,835
Decision volume in this year-product slice
Upheld rate
22.1%
405 upheld decisions
Leading firm
Shawbrook Bank Limited
193 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Affordability Assessment Failure
900 tagged decisions
1,835 published decisions in the corpus sit in Consumer Credit for 2026. 22.1% of those decisions were upheld, which makes this a strong public cross-section for understanding how one product behaved in one specific year.
Shawbrook Bank Limited is the most visible firm inside this year-product slice, with 193 published decisions.
Shawbrook Bank Limited, Mitsubishi HC Capital UK Plc, MONEYBARN NO.1 LIMITED, and others are the firms most often associated with Consumer Credit complaints in 2026. This gives a much tighter public view than the standalone year or product pages alone.
affordability assessment failure, non-disclosure or misrepresentation, delay in claim handling, and others are the strongest complaint-theme signals in this year-product combination.
The advisory layer for Consumer Credit points to recurring handling implications here, including review consumer credit act 1974 precedent (appears in 12.9% of cases), review section 75 cca precedent (appears in 8.6% of cases), review section 140a cca precedent (appears in 5.1% 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
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 decisionFor the reasons I’ve explained, I don’t uphold this complaint. So, I don’t require Oodle Financial Services Limited to do anything more here.
View source decisionFor the reasons explained, I don’t uphold Mr G’s complaint about BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES (GB) LIMITED. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr G to accept or reject my decision before 22 September 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons I’ve explained, I don’t uphold this complaint. So, I don’t require Volkswagen Financial Services (UK) Limited to do anything more here.
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 decision