Published decisions
1,875
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Firm analysis
A public analysis page covering published Financial Ombudsman decisions involving Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited, including outcome context, product mix, complaint themes, and representative cases.
Page summary
1,875 published decisions involving Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited, with product mix, upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
1,875
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
29.3%
549 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 02 Feb 2026
Published decisions
1,875
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
29.3%
549 upheld decisions
Leading product
Insurance (excluding PPI)
952 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Delay In Claim Handling
214 tagged decisions
Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited appears in 1,875 published decisions in this corpus. 29.3% 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 (excluding PPI) is the firm’s clearest product exposure in the published decisions, with 952 decisions and an upheld rate of 25.1%.
Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited'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, Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited appeared in 4 published decisions with an upheld rate of 25.0%.
Delay In Claim Handling is the strongest complaint-theme signal tied to Liverpool Victoria 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, 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
My final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Ms P to accept or reject my decision before 2 March 2026.
View source decisionMy final decision is that I uphold this complaint. Subject to my comments above, I require Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited to: • Pay Mr S and Mr S the reasonable and necessary costs incurred in repairing the drain.
View source decisionLiverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited has already made an offer to settle the complaint by paying Mr P £150 and backdating cover to the submission of the ET1 form. I think this offer is fair in all the circumstances and so my decision is that LV should do that.
View source decisionIt follows, for the reasons given above, that I think Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited’s offer to pay Mr C £750 compensation in acknowledgement of its failings feels fair. I’ll leave LV to pay this now if it hasn’t already and to consider any additional costs Mr C incurred, subject to reasonable proof.
View source decisionDRN-5811783 The complaint Ms K has complained about Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited (LV). She isn’t happy that it recorded a claim on her policy and about her increase in premiums. What happened Ms K contacted LV as she was considering making a claim under her insurance pol... (2 pages)
View source decision