Published decisions
723
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Firm analysis
A public analysis page covering published Financial Ombudsman decisions involving Tesco Underwriting Limited, including outcome context, product mix, complaint themes, and representative cases.
Published decisions
723
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
42.3%
306 upheld decisions
Page summary
723 published decisions involving Tesco Underwriting Limited, with product mix, upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
723
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
42.3%
306 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 11 Sept 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
723
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
42.3%
306 upheld decisions
Leading product
Insurance
365 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Delay In Claim Handling
69 tagged decisions
Tesco Underwriting Limited appears in 723 published decisions in this corpus. 42.3% 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 is the firm’s clearest product exposure in the published decisions, with 365 decisions and an upheld rate of 49.3%.
Tesco Underwriting 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, Tesco Underwriting Limited appeared in 28 published decisions with an upheld rate of 32.1%.
Delay In Claim Handling is the strongest complaint-theme signal tied to Tesco Underwriting Limited in the published decisions. In this corpus, those themes are the most stable public proxy for complaint “type”.
Disp, 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 uphold this complaint. Subject to my comments above, I require Tesco Underwriting Limited to: • Reinstate Mr P’s renewed policy and reconsider his claim, subject to the remaining policy terms and conditions.
View source decisionFor the reasons I stated above, my final decision is that I am upholding this complaint. Tesco Underwriting Limited is required to pay Mr V £85 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by incorrectly recording the circumstances of his claim.
View source decisionMy final decision is that I uphold this complaint. I require Tesco Underwriting Limited to do the following: • Provide an updated SOW setting out a breakdown of the included works, excluded works and why.
View source decisionFor the reasons I’ve set out above, I don’t uphold Mr K’s complaint about Tesco Underwriting Limited. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr K to accept or reject my decision before 30 September 2026.
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 T to accept or reject my decision before 29 September 2026.
View source decision