A falling uphold rate on rising volume
Across the 773 published Financial Ombudsman decisions in Veste's motor finance commission (DCA) dataset, the uphold rate has moved from 3.1% in the prior 90-day window to 0.0% in the most recent one, a fall of 3.1 percentage points, according to Veste's period-on-period comparison. That drop has happened at the same time as a large increase in the number of decisions being published: the current 90-day window contains 159 decisions, up from 32 in the prior window, a rise of 127 decisions, or 396.9%. Both windows meet Veste's minimum sample threshold of 30 decisions, so this is not simply a case of a handful of cases skewing a tiny sample.
Veste's uphold rate is calculated as (fully upheld decisions plus half of partially upheld decisions) divided by total decisions. On that basis, the current window's rate of 0.0% means that, in the most recent 90 days, no decision recorded as either fully or partially upheld appears in the data for this claim type over that window. The prior window's rate of 3.1% reflects a small number of upheld or partially upheld outcomes among 32 decisions.
The numbers behind the headline claim type
Across the full history of the motor finance commission (DCA) claim type, Veste has recorded 773 decisions in total: 15 fully upheld, 447 partially upheld and 311 not upheld, giving an overall uphold rate of 30.9%. The first decision in this dataset was published on 14 May 2013 and the most recent on 29 May 2026.
That 30.9% all-time rate sits above the wider corpus baseline. Across all 400,177 decisions with an outcome in Veste's full database, the overall uphold rate is 28.8%. So, taken across its entire history, this claim type has upheld complaints at a broadly similar, marginally higher, rate than the average Financial Ombudsman decision. The recent 90-day figures, however, sit well below both that historical average for the claim type and the corpus-wide baseline, which is the basis for describing the latest window as unusual rather than typical.
What the monthly series shows
Veste's monthly series for this claim type spans 17 months, from July 2024 to May 2026. For most of that period, monthly volumes were low, often in single figures: one decision in July 2024, one in September 2024, one in October 2024, one in February 2025. The pattern changes markedly from late 2025 onwards. September 2025 saw eight decisions, all not upheld. January 2026 saw 11 decisions, again all not upheld. February 2026 produced 15 decisions with one upheld, an uphold rate of 6.7% for that month. March 2026 was the largest single month in the series, with 105 decisions, none upheld or partially upheld, for a monthly uphold rate of 0.0%. April 2026 recorded 29 decisions and May 2026 recorded 28, in both cases with no upheld or partially upheld outcomes shown in the monthly breakdown.
The scale of March 2026 alone, 105 decisions in a single month against a total of 773 across the whole 2013-2026 dataset, indicates that the recent surge in volume is doing much of the work in pulling the overall picture towards a lower uphold rate. A large batch of same-outcome decisions published in a short period will mechanically move any short-window average, regardless of whether it signals a shift in Ombudsman approach or simply reflects a backlog of similar cases being cleared together.
The longer run: year on year
Veste's year-on-year breakdown shows a downward drift in the uphold rate over recent years, alongside rising volume. In 2022, 30 decisions were recorded with an uphold rate of 26.7%, meeting the minimum sample threshold. In 2023, volume held at 30 decisions but the uphold rate fell to 5.0%. In 2024, only eight decisions were recorded, with an uphold rate of 6.2%, a sample too small to meet Veste's minimum threshold for characterising a year's performance. In 2025, 23 decisions were recorded, again below the minimum sample, with an uphold rate of 4.3%. By 2026, volume has risen to 188 decisions, comfortably meeting the minimum sample threshold, with an uphold rate of 0.5%.
The 2024 and 2025 figures should be treated cautiously because they fall below Veste's minimum sample size of 30 decisions, so no firm conclusion should be drawn from those two years in isolation. What the data does support is a consistent direction across the years that do meet the minimum sample: 2022 at 26.7%, 2023 at 5.0%, and 2026 at 0.5%. Read together with the 90-day period comparison, this points to a sustained decline in the proportion of these decisions being upheld even as far more of them are being published.
Firm mix: subsidiaries, not parent groups
Veste records firms by the exact business name printed on each decision, so related entities within the same banking group are not combined. That matters here because several names in the top-firm table for this claim type belong to well-known banking groups but are counted separately.
Among firms meeting Veste's minimum sample of 30 decisions for this claim type, Lloyds Bank PLC accounts for 90 decisions, with none fully upheld, 84 partially upheld and 6 not upheld, an uphold rate of 46.7%. Bank of Scotland Plc, a separate entity in this data, accounts for 58 decisions: 1 fully upheld, 46 partially upheld and 11 not upheld, an uphold rate of 41.4%. MBNA Limited has 56 decisions, all 56 partially upheld and none fully upheld or not upheld, giving an uphold rate of 50.0%. Capital One (Europe) plc has 49 decisions, with 48 partially upheld, 1 not upheld and none fully upheld, an uphold rate of 49.0%. Barclays Bank UK PLC has 31 decisions, 30 partially upheld and 1 not upheld, an uphold rate of 48.4%.
Against that group of firms, MONEYBARN NO.1 LIMITED stands out for a markedly different pattern: 85 decisions, all 85 not upheld, giving an uphold rate of 0.0%. That is the largest single-firm decision count in the supplied top-firm table and the only one at zero. It is worth restating that this reflects published Ombudsman decisions naming that business, not a wider judgement on the firm's conduct or the volume or outcome of all complaints made to it, since published decisions are not the same population as total complaints received.
The presence of a firm with 85 decisions and a 0.0% uphold rate inside a claim type whose overall recent uphold rate has also fallen to 0.0% suggests that firm-level volume is contributing to the aggregate figure, though the monthly totals show the overall increase in decisions extends well beyond any single firm, given that 105 decisions were published in March 2026 alone.
What individual decisions illustrate
Four recent decisions in the supplied data, all published in the days immediately before this article, illustrate the reasoning now being applied in this claim type following the Supreme Court's judgment in Hopcraft, Johnson & Wrench.
In a decision dated 29 May 2026 involving Black Horse Limited (DRN-6354646), a complainant queried whether a commission arrangement had influenced the interest rate on a PCP agreement. Black Horse produced internal records showing no commission was paid during the relevant period, and the Ombudsman found the documentary evidence credible; the complaint was not upheld.
In a decision dated 28 May 2026 involving FCE Bank Plc, trading as Ford Credit (DRN-6356415), a complainant argued that non-disclosure of a £205.35 commission on a hire purchase agreement for a car costing £11,734.54 prevented an informed choice. The Ombudsman accepted that undisclosed commission can create an unfair relationship under Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 in principle, but found that the exceptionally low 0.9% APR and minimal total credit cost of £205.70 meant the complainant would likely have proceeded regardless; the complaint was not upheld.
In a decision also dated 28 May 2026 involving Oodle Financial Services Limited (DRN-6380536), a complainant challenged non-disclosure of a £1,485.00 commission on a £16,500 hire-purchase car agreement. Applying the three-part test from Hopcraft, Johnson & Wrench, the Ombudsman found the commission was fixed rather than discretionary, represented 9% of the loan and 20% of total credit cost, and involved no commercial tie between broker and lender; the complaint was not upheld.
A fourth decision, also dated 28 May 2026, involved Moneybarn No.1 Limited (DRN-6331759), where a complainant queried a £600 undisclosed commission on a conditional sale agreement carrying an APR of approximately 40%. The Ombudsman again applied the Hopcraft test, finding the commission was not discretionary and represented only 4% of the amount borrowed and cost of credit, with no commercial tie between broker and lender; the complaint was not upheld.
These four cases cannot establish a trend on their own, but they are consistent with the direction shown in the aggregate figures: decisions turning on whether commission arrangements were discretionary, high relative to credit cost, or linked to a commercial tie, with several recent outcomes finding against complainants on those specific tests.
Context among related claim types
Within Veste's related claim and product categories, motor finance commission (DCA) sits between very different outcomes. PPI complaints, drawn from 458 decisions, have an uphold rate of 47.8%. Motor finance (PCP/HP) complaints more broadly, from 193 decisions, have an uphold rate of just 0.8%. Personal loan complaints, from 43 decisions, have an uphold rate of 0.0%. Other regulated product complaints, from 33 decisions, have an uphold rate of 19.7%. The motor finance commission (DCA) claim type's all-time uphold rate of 30.9% is considerably higher than the closely related motor finance (PCP/HP) category's 0.8%, which may reflect differences in how these two categories have been decided and reported historically, though the supplied data does not explain the mechanism behind that gap.
What the data does and does not show
The data shows a clear fall in the uphold rate for this claim type over the most recent 90-day window compared with the prior one, alongside a large rise in decision volume, and a consistent downward drift across the years that meet the minimum sample size. It shows that one firm, Moneybarn No.1 Limited, accounts for a substantial share of decisions with a uphold rate of zero, and that a single month, March 2026, accounts for a large share of total volume.
What the data does not show is why the uphold rate has fallen. Veste's evidence does not include Ombudsman policy statements, FCA guidance changes, or firm-level process changes, so no causal explanation can be drawn from the figures alone. The four illustrative decisions above show the specific legal test now being applied in several recent cases, but the supplied data does not permit a claim that this test explains the entire shift in the aggregate uphold rate.
It is also worth noting that 2024 and 2025 volumes for this claim type were small, 8 and 23 decisions respectively, both below Veste's minimum sample threshold of 30, so year-on-year comparisons involving those two years carry more statistical noise than the 2022, 2023 and 2026 comparisons, which meet the threshold.
The practical implication
For anyone tracking motor finance commission complaints through the Ombudsman, the headline figure to watch is less the 3.1 percentage point fall in isolation and more the scale of volume behind it: 159 decisions in the current 90-day window against 773 across the entire multi-year history of this claim type. A claim type that has historically produced a handful of decisions a month is now producing dozens, and in March 2026, over a hundred in a single month. Any future change in the uphold rate is likely to be driven as much by which batches of cases are published and when as by any single ruling.