Published decisions
250
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Firm analysis
A public analysis page covering published Financial Ombudsman decisions involving Astrenska Insurance Limited, including outcome context, product mix, complaint themes, and representative cases.
Published decisions
250
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
44.4%
111 upheld decisions
Page summary
250 published decisions involving Astrenska Insurance Limited, with product mix, upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
250
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
44.4%
111 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 30 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
250
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
44.4%
111 upheld decisions
Leading product
Insurance
218 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Delay In Claim Handling
15 tagged decisions
Astrenska Insurance Limited appears in 250 published decisions in this corpus. 44.4% 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 is the firm’s clearest product exposure in the published decisions, with 218 decisions and an upheld rate of 44.0%.
Astrenska Insurance Limited's decision trail runs from 2014 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, Astrenska Insurance Limited appeared in 6 published decisions with an upheld rate of 50.0%.
Delay In Claim Handling is the strongest complaint-theme signal tied to Astrenska Insurance Limited in the published decisions. In this corpus, those themes are the most stable public proxy for complaint “type”.
Icobs 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
I uphold this complaint against Astrenska Insurance Limited and direct them to put things right in the way I’ve outlined above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr B to accept or reject my decision before 27 April 2026.
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 T to accept or reject my decision before 20 April 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons I’ve explained, my decision is that I uphold the complaint and require Astrenska Insurance Limited to pay total compensation of £512. 23.
View source decisionSo, for these reasons, it’s my final decision that I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr Y to accept or reject my decision before 6 March 2026.
View source decisionMy final decision is that I don’t uphold Mr and Mrs O’s complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr and Mrs O to accept or reject my decision before 4 March 2026.
View source decision