Firm + product analysis

esure Insurance Limited in Insurance

A curated public analysis of esure Insurance Limited's published Financial Ombudsman decisions in Insurance, including outcome context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.

Page summary

1,090 published FOS decisions involving esure Insurance Limited in Insurance, with upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.

Published decisions

1,090

Decision volume in this firm-product slice

Upheld rate

51.7%

564 upheld decisions

Latest published decision 02 Feb 2026

Published decisions

1,090

Decision volume in this firm-product slice

Upheld rate

51.7%

564 upheld decisions

Latest active year

2026

3 decisions

Leading complaint theme

Delay In Claim Handling

48 tagged decisions

esure Insurance Limited in Insurance

esure Insurance Limited appears in 1,090 published decisions in Insurance across this corpus. 51.7% of those decisions were upheld, making this one of the strongest public firm-product slices available for search and research.

The latest year represented in this slice is 2026, with 3 published decisions and an upheld rate of 33.3%.

  • Leading complaint theme: Delay In Claim Handling
  • Leading precedent signal: Disp
  • Advisor risk signal for Insurance: medium

How the slice behaves over time

esure Insurance Limited has a multi-year published decision trail in Insurance, which makes it possible to judge whether complaint exposure has been persistent or concentrated into a smaller set of years.

Insurance remains a meaningful part of esure Insurance Limited's published complaint exposure, but this page isolates just that one product line instead of blending it with the firm's wider footprint.

  • 2026: 3 decisions, 33.3% upheld
  • 2025: 200 decisions, 52.0% upheld
  • 2024: 261 decisions, 69.3% upheld
  • 2023: 203 decisions, 60.6% upheld
  • 2022: 147 decisions, 46.3% upheld

Themes, precedent context, and handling implications

Delay In Claim Handling is the clearest complaint-theme signal in this firm-product slice, which helps explain what tends to drive published ombudsman decisions here.

The product advisory layer also points to recurring handling implications, including review consumer credit act 1974 precedent (appears in 1.3% of cases), review section 140a cca precedent (appears in 1.1% of cases), review disp precedent (appears in 0.3% of cases), and others.

  • Second complaint theme: Communication Failure

Representative cases

Recent published decisions in this slice

5 examples shown

DRN-600512002 Feb 2026Not upheld

esure Insurance Limited · Insurance

For 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 B to accept or reject my decision before 2 March 2026.

View source decision
DRN-603903002 Feb 2026Not upheld

esure Insurance Limited · Insurance

For the reasons I’ve explained, my final decision is that I don’t uphold this complaint. I don’t direct esure Insurance Limited trading as Sheilas' Wheels to do any more in response to this complaint.

View source decision
DRN-591047629 Jan 2026Upheld

esure Insurance Limited · Insurance

For the reasons given above, my final decision is that I uphold this complaint. I require esure Insurance Limited to carry out the redress set out above.

View source decision
DRN-584665024 Dec 2025Upheld

esure Insurance Limited · Insurance

DRN-5846650 The complaint Mr M complained about delays in esure Insurance Limited’s (“esure”) handling of his claim and the impact this has had on him, under his motor insurance policy. What happened Mr M was involved in a collision when driving in October 2024. He said the third party ... (3 pages)

View source decision
DRN-600513124 Dec 2025Not upheld

esure Insurance Limited · Insurance

DRN-6005131 The complaint Mr F complained about the settlement esure Insurance Limited (“esure”) offered following damage caused to his garage and a wall, under his home buildings insurance policy. What happened A car collided with a wall and garage at the rear of Mr F’s home causing da... (3 pages)

View source decision