How this article was researched

Primary regulator documents answer one reader decision. Aggregate evidence, proposals and original checklists are separated from personal outcomes; no provider ranking or approval prediction.

Commercial status: There are no affiliate links in this edition. No provider paid for inclusion or approved the copy.

The FCA published its latest complaints data on 22 October 2026. The observation period is January to June, not October. That distinction matters before you use the release to compare a firm or decide what it says about your own complaint.

The dataset is useful context. It is not a league table of personal outcomes. Start with four labels: period, population, denominator and firm size. If one is missing, pause the comparison.

Read the period before the headline

The FCA reports 1.85 million complaints received in H1 2026, 6.3% more than H2 2025. It says 1,003,011 complaints were upheld, equal to 54.8% of closed complaints, and reports £240 million in redress. [C1] These measures do not share one denominator.

Complaints received counts incoming cases during the six months. The upheld percentage uses closed complaints. Redress is a total value across covered outcomes. Dividing £240 million by the received count would create an invented average that may mix different timing, products and remedies.

The FCA’s displayed upheld shares, 54.8% for H1 and 55.5% for H2, differ by 0.7 percentage points at the displayed precision. The regulator describes a decrease of 0.8 points. Treat these as published rounded figures and leave the exact change unresolved unless the underlying counts support it. The useful starting number here is the H1 share of closed complaints.

The aggregate has a consumer-credit boundary

The FCA says the aggregate page does not include complaints reported by firms authorised only for consumer credit activities. It also says Financial Ombudsman Service data measures complaints referred to the Ombudsman, while FCA data covers complaints reported to firms. [C2] Those populations should not be merged as if they were the same queue.

This boundary is material for Credit Over Debt readers. A total labelled financial-services complaints is not a complete count of every complaint about every consumer-credit-only firm. Firm-level data can include separately published information, but availability and publication thresholds still matter.

Large firms need context, not a raw ranking

A firm with more customers or accounts may record more complaints. The FCA recommends considering customer-base size, product count, resolution speed, upheld proportion and redress. Use context data where available. A high count alone does not prove poor handling, and a low count alone does not prove a good product.

Build a small comparison table with firm name, exact legal entity, product group, reporting period, complaints measure and context denominator. Add an evidence link for each row. Do not compare a group total with a subsidiary, or a current-account rate with a credit-card count.

An upheld rate is not your probability

A complaint is upheld when the firm agrees fully or partly that something went wrong. Your outcome depends on your facts, product, evidence and applicable process. The 54.8% aggregate does not make one complaint more or less valid, and it should not be marketed as a likely payout.

Redress can include compensation or another remedy such as correcting a record. The total does not establish a standard cash award. Keep the remedy you ask for tied to the problem you can evidence.

Use your own evidence file for the actual complaint

The FCA’s consumer guidance says to contact the firm, explain what happened and when, ask it to put matters right, and keep a record. In general, firms provide a written outcome within eight weeks, with different timing for certain payment-service and e-money complaints. An Ombudsman route may be available after a final response or missed deadline. [C3]

Write a dated timeline. Attach the agreement, statement, message or decision relevant to each event. State the correction or remedy you want. Aggregate statistics can explain why an issue deserves attention, but they cannot replace the evidence about what happened to you.

Separate three decisions

Use complaints data to ask whether further research is warranted. Use current product terms to choose a provider. Use your own records to prepare a complaint. Combining all three into one score creates false precision.

If you compare two firms, run a boundary check: same period, same product, same measure, similar denominator and exact legal entity. If those conditions fail, describe the figures side by side with the limitation instead of declaring a winner.

Keep one page of notes

Record H1 2026 beside the figures, not merely the 22 October publication date. Note that consumer-credit-only firms are excluded from the aggregate. Save the firm-level source you actually used. Keep any Ombudsman figure in a separate section because it starts from referred complaints.

Your final action is to complete the missing label in the comparison. If the denominator or legal entity remains unclear, do not rank the firm. For the practical next step, Prepare a credit-report dispute; Check debt-advice red flags; Read market conditions carefully. Continue with the consumer-rights guides.

From comparison to calculation

Check the terms in the offer you actually receive.

Credit Over Debt’s Offer X-Ray compares the amount financed, fees, payment schedule and modeled cost using the figures you enter.

Open the free toolkit

Primary sources and product pages

Product details last checked Nov 5, 2026; next scheduled review Dec 3, 2026. This UK-focused guide is educational information, not individualized financial, legal or tax advice. Product terms, offers and eligibility can change.