Published decisions
1,058
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
1,058
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
21.0%
222 upheld decisions
Page summary
1,058 published decisions involving Legal and General Assurance Society Limited, with product mix, upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
1,058
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
21.0%
222 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 04 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
1,058
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
21.0%
222 upheld decisions
Leading product
Insurance
382 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Delay In Claim Handling
179 tagged decisions
Legal and General Assurance Society Limited appears in 1,058 published decisions in this corpus. 21.0% 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 382 decisions and an upheld rate of 20.7%.
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 27 published decisions with an upheld rate of 18.5%.
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 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 D to accept or reject my decision before 1 September 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 Legal and General Assurance Society Limited to do anything further.
View source decisionMy final decision is that I don’t uphold Mr M’s complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr M to accept or reject my decision before 28 August 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons set out above, I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs B to accept or reject my decision before 21 August 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons I’ve explained, I’m upholding Mr and Mrs M’s complaint about Legal and General Assurance Society Limited and directing them to pay Mr and Mrs M the £500 they previously offered to resolve their complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr M and Mrs M to accept or reject my decision before 18 August 2026.
View source decision