Published decisions
910
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Firm analysis
A public analysis page covering published Financial Ombudsman decisions involving National House-Building Council, including outcome context, product mix, complaint themes, and representative cases.
Published decisions
910
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
29.2%
266 upheld decisions
Page summary
910 published decisions involving National House-Building Council, with product mix, upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
910
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
29.2%
266 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 24 Jul 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
910
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
29.2%
266 upheld decisions
Leading product
Insurance (excluding PPI)
608 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Delay In Claim Handling
188 tagged decisions
National House-Building Council appears in 910 published decisions in this corpus. 29.2% 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 608 decisions and an upheld rate of 23.4%.
National House-Building Council'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, National House-Building Council appeared in 8 published decisions with an upheld rate of 12.5%.
Delay In Claim Handling is the strongest complaint-theme signal tied to National House-Building Council in the published decisions. In this corpus, those themes are the most stable public proxy for complaint “type”.
Disp, Conc, 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 Mr K and Mrs K’s complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr K and Mrs K to accept or reject my decision before 21 August 2026.
View source decisionMy final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr C and Mrs C to accept or reject my decision before 18 August 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons I’ve set out above, I don’t uphold Mr S’s complaint because the offer made to move things forward is fair and reasonable. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr S to accept or reject my decision before 18 August 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons I’ve set out above, I don’t uphold Mr and Mrs N’s complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr N and Mrs N to accept or reject my decision before 27 July 2026.
View source decisionI uphold this complaint. I require National House-Building Council to do the following, if not done so already: • Pay £379 for the fridge freezer • Pay £200 for the washing machine • Pay £230 for the dishwasher • Reconsider the laminate flooring, as set out above • Pay £300 for the carpet • Reconsider the front patio slabs • Send the gas certificate to Mrs B • Pay £800 compensation Under the rules of the Financia...
View source decision