Published decisions
2,440
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Firm analysis
A public analysis page covering published Financial Ombudsman decisions involving Allianz Insurance Plc, including outcome context, product mix, complaint themes, and representative cases.
Published decisions
2,440
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
20.2%
492 upheld decisions
Page summary
2,440 published decisions involving Allianz Insurance Plc, with product mix, upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
2,440
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
20.2%
492 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 31 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
2,440
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
20.2%
492 upheld decisions
Leading product
Payment protection insurance (PPI)
992 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Delay In Claim Handling
212 tagged decisions
Allianz Insurance Plc appears in 2,440 published decisions in this corpus. 20.2% 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.
Payment protection insurance (PPI) is the firm’s clearest product exposure in the published decisions, with 992 decisions and an upheld rate of 8.1%.
Allianz Insurance Plc'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, Allianz Insurance Plc appeared in 7 published decisions with an upheld rate of 14.3%.
Delay In Claim Handling is the strongest complaint-theme signal tied to Allianz Insurance Plc in the published decisions. In this corpus, those themes are the most stable public proxy for complaint “type”.
Disp, Icobs, Consumer Credit Act 1974, and others 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
My final decision is I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss J to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons set out above, I don’t uphold Ms N’s complaint against Allianz Insurance Plc. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss N to accept or reject my decision before 14 April 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons I have set out above, my final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr P and Mrs P to accept or reject my decision before 17 March 2026.
View source decisionMy final decision is that I uphold this complaint. I require Allianz Insurance Plc pay Mr B: • £2,750 (less the policy excess) to settle the claim (plus 20% VAT should Mr B provide a valid receipt) • £250 compensation – for distress and inconvenience (Allianz had previously offered this, so it just needs to fulfill this offer).
View source decisionI do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask M to accept or reject my decision before 9 March 2026.
View source decision