Published decisions
364
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
364
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
56.3%
205 upheld decisions
Page summary
364 published decisions involving Haven Insurance Company Limited, with product mix, upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
364
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
56.3%
205 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 16 Apr 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
364
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
56.3%
205 upheld decisions
Leading product
Insurance
322 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Delay In Claim Handling
23 tagged decisions
Haven Insurance Company Limited appears in 364 published decisions in this corpus. 56.3% 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 322 decisions and an upheld rate of 60.3%.
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 7 published decisions with an upheld rate of 14.3%.
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 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
For the reasons I have outlined 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 T to accept or reject my decision before 14 May 2026.
View source decisionI don’t uphold Mr W’s complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr W to accept or reject my decision before 30 April 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons given above, my final decision is that I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr S to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons I’ve given above, my final decision is that I don’t uphold this complaint. I don’t require Haven Insurance Company Limited to do anything further.
View source decisionFor all the above reasons, I’m not upholding this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr A to accept or reject my decision before 3 April 2026.
View source decision