A sharp move, but not the first of its kind
The uphold rate for CA Auto Finance UK Ltd fell by 22.6 percentage points between the prior 90-day window and the most recent one, according to published Financial Ombudsman decisions analysed by Veste. In the prior window, 47 decisions were recorded with an uphold rate of 61.7%. In the current window, that fell to 32 decisions with an uphold rate of 39.1%. The total number of decisions also dropped by 15, a fall of 31.9%.
On the surface, this looks like a meaningful shift: fewer complaints reaching a published decision, and a lower proportion decided in the complainant's favour. Both windows meet Veste's minimum sample threshold of 30 decisions, so the comparison is not resting on a handful of cases either side. But the longer monthly series covering the 24 months from July 2024 to June 2026 shows that swings of this size are not unusual for this firm, and the picture requires more care than a single before-and-after comparison allows.
The headline numbers
Across the full period Veste holds data for, CA Auto Finance UK Ltd has featured in 226 published decisions, running from 23 August 2023 to 10 June 2026. Of these, 117 were upheld, 14 were partially upheld and 95 were not upheld, giving an overall uphold rate of 54.9%. That sits well above the corpus-wide baseline uphold rate of 28.8% calculated across 401,815 decisions, though the composition of a single firm's caseload, dominated here by motor finance quality disputes, will differ from the corpus as a whole.
The uphold-rate definition used throughout is (upheld plus half of partially upheld) divided by total decisions, which is why a case recorded as partially upheld still contributes to the overall rate without being treated identically to a full uphold.
What the year-on-year figures show
Looking at annual totals gives a longer perspective than the 90-day window alone. In 2023, only 3 decisions were recorded, too small a sample to characterise reliably, and Veste's data flags this year as not meeting the minimum sample size. In 2024, the firm featured in 32 decisions with an uphold rate of 48.4%. That rose in 2025 to 119 decisions and an uphold rate of 59.2%, the highest annual rate in the series that meets the minimum sample. So far in 2026, with 72 decisions recorded, the uphold rate stands at 51.4%.
This year-on-year pattern is worth holding alongside the 90-day comparison. The current 90-day uphold rate of 39.1% is below every annual figure recorded since 2024, including the 2026 year-to-date figure of 51.4%. That gap suggests the most recent quarter has pulled the annual average down somewhat, rather than the annual average simply reflecting a rate the firm has been running at consistently.
The monthly series: volatility is the norm here
The monthly breakdown, covering 24 months from July 2024 to June 2026, shows just how much this firm's uphold rate has moved around even before the latest window. In July 2024, on a sample of just 2 decisions, the rate was 50%. August 2024, with a single decision, produced a 100% uphold rate. These very small monthly samples mean individual months can swing to extremes on the outcome of just one or two cases.
Even as volumes grew, the swings continued. March 2025 saw 8 decisions with an uphold rate of 75%. May 2025 recorded 7 decisions at 85.7%. October 2025, with 8 decisions, produced an uphold rate of just 12.5%, the lowest in the entire monthly series, before recovering to 66.7% in November 2025 on 6 decisions. December 2025 saw 16 decisions and a rate of 43.8%. February 2026 was the highest-volume month in the series, with 20 decisions and an uphold rate of 60%. Then May 2026 recorded 11 decisions at 22.7%, and the most recent month, June 2026, shows 5 decisions with a rate of 40%.
This monthly volatility matters for interpreting the 90-day comparison. October 2025's 12.5% uphold rate on 8 decisions is not far off the swings seen elsewhere in the series, including upward swings such as May 2025's 85.7%. A firm with month-to-month samples this small will produce headline rates that jump around considerably, and the current 90-day window captures a period that includes some of the lower months, including May 2026's 22.7%.
What might be driving the pattern
The case examples published within the current window, all four drawn from June 2026 decisions, illustrate the range of outcomes rather than proving a trend. Three of the four were not upheld. In one, a car bought for £6,598 developed a timing chain fault seven months into ownership; the ombudsman found the vehicle was not of unsatisfactory quality given its age, mileage, price and lack of recent servicing, and that the complainant had reasonable opportunity to check the service history before entering the agreement. In a second, a timing chain fault was attributed by an independent engineer to low engine oil and wear and tear after supply rather than a pre-existing defect, and the ombudsman also rejected a related misrepresentation claim about warranty length. In a third, a wet belt failure occurred after almost three years of ownership and 17,000 further miles; the ombudsman found no evidence the fault existed at the point of supply, citing a clean pre-supply health check and a passed MOT a week before failure.
The fourth example was upheld. A near-new car developed persistent electrical and mechanical faults from April 2024 onwards, confirmed by a garage and an independent inspection, and the ombudsman found the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality due to a lack of durability. The remedy included accepting rejection of the car, a refund of the £29,695 deposit, refund of rental payments for periods when the car could not be used, reimbursement of the independent report's cost, interest, and £300 compensation for distress and inconvenience.
These four decisions cannot on their own explain a shift across 32 decisions in a 90-day window, but they do show the kind of dispute that recurs in this firm's caseload: whether a fault existed at the point of supply or developed afterwards through wear, and whether a vehicle's age, mileage and price bear on what counts as satisfactory quality. The ombudsman's reasoning across these cases turns heavily on evidence such as independent engineer reports, pre-supply health checks and MOT history, rather than on any single fixed rule.
Related complaint categories
Across the wider corpus, two related categories give some context for the type of disputes involved in car finance complaints generally. Goods and services complaints under Section 75 recorded 155 decisions with an uphold rate of 62.6%, and irresponsible lending complaints recorded 31 decisions with an uphold rate of 56.5%. Both figures relate to complaint categories across the corpus rather than to CA Auto Finance UK Ltd specifically, but they indicate that uphold rates above 50% are not unusual in adjacent categories of motor and lending-related disputes.
What the data does not show
The fall in decision volume, from 47 to 32 across the two 90-day windows, is itself worth noting alongside the rate change. A lower volume of published decisions could reflect fewer complaints referred to the ombudsman, fewer cases reaching a final decision in that window, or simply timing in when decisions are published, since the Financial Ombudsman publishes in arrears and the windows here are anchored to the newest decision date in the corpus rather than to the calendar. Veste's data does not indicate which of these explanations, if any, applies.
It is also worth restating that these figures cover published Ombudsman decisions only, which is a different population from all complaints made to the firm. Many complaints are resolved before reaching a published decision, and this dataset cannot speak to that wider caseload. Firms are also counted by the exact business name recorded on each decision, so any related entities within the same corporate group, if they exist, would appear as separate records rather than being combined here.
The bottom line
The 22.6 percentage point fall in CA Auto Finance UK Ltd's uphold rate between the prior and current 90-day windows is a real movement in the published data, and both windows meet the minimum sample size Veste applies. But the 24-month monthly series shows this firm's uphold rate has moved by large amounts before, including a 12.5% low in October 2025 followed by recovery, and an 85.7% high in May 2025. Set against that backdrop, the latest window looks less like a step change and more like the continuation of a pattern in which small monthly and quarterly samples produce considerable swings. The annual figures, where samples are larger, show a steadier range: 48.4% in 2024, 59.2% in 2025, and 51.4% so far in 2026. Readers should treat the most recent quarter as one data point in a volatile series, not as proof of a shift in how the firm's cases are being decided.