Published decisions
841
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Firm analysis
A public analysis page covering published Financial Ombudsman decisions involving Acromas Insurance Company Limited, including outcome context, product mix, complaint themes, and representative cases.
Published decisions
841
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
29.3%
246 upheld decisions
Page summary
841 published decisions involving Acromas Insurance Company Limited, with product mix, upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
841
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
29.3%
246 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 16 Mar 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
841
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
29.3%
246 upheld decisions
Leading product
Insurance (excluding PPI)
532 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Delay In Claim Handling
136 tagged decisions
Acromas Insurance Company Limited appears in 841 published decisions in this corpus. 29.3% of those decisions were upheld, which gives a public view of how often complaints involving this firm ended in a fully upheld outcome in the final published set.
Insurance (excluding PPI) is the firm’s clearest product exposure in the published decisions, with 532 decisions and an upheld rate of 26.9%.
Acromas Insurance Company Limited's decision trail runs from 2013 to 2026. That range gives enough public history to see whether complaint exposure has been broad-based or concentrated into certain years.
In the latest year represented here, Acromas Insurance Company Limited appeared in 4 published decisions with an upheld rate of 0.0%.
Delay In Claim Handling is the strongest complaint-theme signal tied to Acromas Insurance Company Limited in the published decisions. In this corpus, those themes are the most stable public proxy for complaint “type”.
Fsma, Insurance Act 2015, Section 75 Cca are the most visible precedent signals in the firm’s published decisions. That gives extra context on the rules and fairness arguments appearing most often around the firm.
Representative cases
5 examples shown
For the reasons set out above I do not uphold this complaint Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr N to accept or reject my decision before 13 April 2026. Joe Scott Ombudsman
View source decisionMy final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr M to accept or reject my decision before 10 March 2026.
View source decisionMy final decision is that I do not require Acromas to take any further action and so I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Ms B to accept or reject my decision before 5 March 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons I have given I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr P to accept or reject my decision before 2 March 2026.
View source decisionDRN-6029076 The complaint Mrs C has complained that Acromas Insurance Company Limited has rejected her claim under her AA Parts and Garage (Breakdown Repair) Cover insurance policy. What happened Mrs C took out her policy with Acromas on 20 November 2024. On 12 December 2024 when Mrs ... (4 pages)
View source decision