Published decisions
843
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
843
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
29.4%
248 upheld decisions
Page summary
843 published decisions involving Acromas Insurance Company Limited, with product mix, upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
843
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
29.4%
248 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 29 Jun 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
843
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
29.4%
248 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 843 published decisions in this corpus. 29.4% 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 6 published decisions with an upheld rate of 33.3%.
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 uphold Mr F’s complaint. Acromas Insurance Company Limited must: • pay Mr F £800 in compensation for his trouble and upset; • reimburse Mr F for his car hire costs between 25 September 2025 and the date the car was repatriated to the garage in England; and • add to that payment simple interest based on the time-weighted Bank of England base rate plus one percentage point - calculat...
View source decisionFor the reasons given above, my final decision is that I uphold this complaint. I require Acromas Insurance Company Limited to carry out the redress set out above.
View source decisionFor 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 decision