Published decisions
375
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Firm analysis
A public analysis page covering published Financial Ombudsman decisions involving Haven Insurance Company Limited, including outcome context, product mix, complaint themes, and representative cases.
Published decisions
375
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
56.0%
210 upheld decisions
Page summary
375 published decisions involving Haven Insurance Company Limited, with product mix, upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
375
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
56.0%
210 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 15 Sept 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
375
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
56.0%
210 upheld decisions
Leading product
Insurance
333 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Delay In Claim Handling
26 tagged decisions
Haven Insurance Company Limited appears in 375 published decisions in this corpus. 56.0% 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 333 decisions and an upheld rate of 59.8%.
Haven Insurance Company Limited's decision trail runs from 2017 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, Haven Insurance Company Limited appeared in 18 published decisions with an upheld rate of 33.3%.
Delay In Claim Handling is the strongest complaint-theme signal tied to Haven Insurance Company Limited in the published decisions. In this corpus, those themes are the most stable public proxy for complaint “type”.
Disp, Insurance Act 2015 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. I require Haven Insurance Company Limited to pay Mr N £250 compensation.
View source decisionSo, for the reasons I have explained above, my final decision is that I uphold this complaint, and direct Haven Insurance Company Limited to (if it hasn’t done so already): • Pay Mr M £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience it caused. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr M to accept or reject my decision before 2 October 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons set out above, I don’t uphold Mr S’s complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr S to accept or reject my decision before 1 October 2026.
View source decisionIt follows, for the reasons outlined above, that I uphold this complaint. I require Haven Insurance Company Limited to • Remove any record of the cancellation from any internal and external databases, • Provide a letter of explanation to Mr W which he can provide to any future insurer if required, and • Pay £500 compensation to Mr W.
View source decisionFor the reasons I’ve explained above, I uphold this complaint and direct Haven Insurance Company Limited to put things right by doing as I’ve said above, if they haven’t already done so. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr B to accept or reject my decision before 15 September 2026.
View source decision