Published decisions
1,049
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Firm analysis
A public analysis page covering published Financial Ombudsman decisions involving Legal and General Assurance Society Limited, including outcome context, product mix, complaint themes, and representative cases.
Published decisions
1,049
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
21.1%
221 upheld decisions
Page summary
1,049 published decisions involving Legal and General Assurance Society Limited, with product mix, upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
1,049
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
21.1%
221 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
1,049
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
21.1%
221 upheld decisions
Leading product
Insurance
373 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Delay In Claim Handling
176 tagged decisions
Legal and General Assurance Society Limited appears in 1,049 published decisions in this corpus. 21.1% 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 373 decisions and an upheld rate of 20.9%.
Legal and General Assurance Society Limited's decision trail runs from 2015 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, Legal and General Assurance Society Limited appeared in 18 published decisions with an upheld rate of 22.2%.
Delay In Claim Handling is the strongest complaint-theme signal tied to Legal and General Assurance Society Limited in the published decisions. In this corpus, those themes are the most stable public proxy for complaint “type”.
Disp, Cobs, Icobs 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’ve explained, I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr B and Miss M to accept or reject my decision before 12 May 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons I’ve explained, I’m not upholding Mrs P’s complaint about Legal and General Assurance Society Limited. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs P to accept or reject my decision before 14 May 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons I’ve explained, I’m not upholding Mr P’s complaint about Legal and General Assurance Society Limited. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr P 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. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr C to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026.
View source decisionDRN-6243355 The complaint Mr L complains that Legal and General Assurance Society Limited (“L&G”) incorrectly cancelled his term assurance policy. What happened Mr L took out a term assurance policy with L&G in 2014, having received advice from an independent financial advisor.
View source decision