Published decisions
1,615
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Firm analysis
A public analysis page covering published Financial Ombudsman decisions involving Inter Partner Assistance SA, including outcome context, product mix, complaint themes, and representative cases.
Published decisions
1,615
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
43.5%
703 upheld decisions
Page summary
1,615 published decisions involving Inter Partner Assistance SA, with product mix, upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
1,615
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
43.5%
703 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 18 Aug 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
1,615
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
43.5%
703 upheld decisions
Leading product
Insurance (excluding PPI)
860 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Delay In Claim Handling
277 tagged decisions
Inter Partner Assistance SA appears in 1,615 published decisions in this corpus. 43.5% 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 (excluding PPI) is the firm’s clearest product exposure in the published decisions, with 860 decisions and an upheld rate of 44.9%.
Inter Partner Assistance SA's decision trail runs from 2013 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, Inter Partner Assistance SA appeared in 35 published decisions with an upheld rate of 34.3%.
Delay In Claim Handling is the strongest complaint-theme signal tied to Inter Partner Assistance SA in the published decisions. In this corpus, those themes are the most stable public proxy for complaint “type”.
Icobs, Disp, Fsma, 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
For the reasons set out above, I do not uphold the complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr M to accept or reject my decision before 15 September 2026.
View source decisionMy final decision is that I uphold this complaint. I require Inter Partner Assistance SA to do the following: • Pay Mr A £400 in total for distress and inconvenience, including the original £100.
View source decisionMy final decision is that I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr R to accept or reject my decision before 14 September 2026.
View source decisionMy final decision is that I uphold this complaint and require IPA to put things right as set out above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr M and Miss W to accept or reject my decision before 11 September 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons given, my final decision is that I uphold Mr and Mrs W’s complaint and Inter Partner Assistance SA must: • pay Mr and Mrs W £50 compensation in recognition of the limited response to concerns raised during its handling of their claim. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr W and Mrs W to accept or reject my decision before 8 September 2026.
View source decision