Published decisions
3,644
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Firm analysis
A public analysis page covering published Financial Ombudsman decisions involving Financial Insurance Company Limited, including outcome context, product mix, complaint themes, and representative cases.
Page summary
3,644 published decisions involving Financial Insurance Company Limited, with product mix, upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
3,644
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
24.2%
883 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 20 Apr 2020
Published decisions
3,644
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
24.2%
883 upheld decisions
Leading product
Payment protection insurance (PPI)
3,610 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Affordability Assessment Failure
319 tagged decisions
Financial Insurance Company Limited appears in 3,644 published decisions in this corpus. 24.2% 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 3,610 decisions and an upheld rate of 24.1%.
Financial Insurance Company Limited's decision trail runs from 2013 to 2020. 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, Financial Insurance Company Limited appeared in 7 published decisions with an upheld rate of 42.9%.
Affordability Assessment Failure is the strongest complaint-theme signal tied to Financial Insurance Company Limited in the published decisions. In this corpus, those themes are the most stable public proxy for complaint “type”.
Consumer Credit Act 1974, Disp, Icobs, 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
DRN-1584025 ComplaintMrs G, who is represented by a third party, says she was mis-sold payment protection insurance (PPI) with a store card. She says the PPI was added to the store card without her knowledge. Mrs G has suggested that she bought the PPI in June 2000 but from the information... (2 pages)
View source decisionDRN-1231855 The complaintMrs J says Financial Insurance Company Limited (FICL) mis-sold her a payment protection insurance (PPI) policy. What happenedThis complaint is about a PPI policy taken out in connection with a store card in 2000. Our adjudicator recommended the complaint should be ... (2 pages)
View source decisionDRN-1248458 The complaintMr R says Financial Insurance Company Limited (FICL) mis-sold him a payment protection insurance (PPI) policy. What happenedMr R bought the policy in 1997 at the same time as taking out a store card. Our adjudicator didn’t uphold the complaint. Mr R disagreed with ... (2 pages)
View source decisionDRN-1250908 The complaintMr W says Financial Insurance Company Limited (FICL) mis-sold him a payment protection insurance (PPI) policy. What happenedMr W bought the policy in 1997 at the same time as taking out a store card. Our adjudicator didn’t uphold the complaint. Mr W disagreed with ... (2 pages)
View source decisionDRN-1151619 ComplaintMr B complains that he was mis-sold a payment protection insurance (PPI) policy. Although the policy was sold by another business, Financial Insurance Company Limited (FICL) have accepted responsibility for the sale and by extension this complaint. So I’ve only referre... (3 pages)
View source decision