Published decisions
715
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
715
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
42.4%
303 upheld decisions
Page summary
715 published decisions involving Tesco Underwriting Limited, with product mix, upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
715
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
42.4%
303 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 03 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
715
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
42.4%
303 upheld decisions
Leading product
Insurance
357 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Delay In Claim Handling
65 tagged decisions
Tesco Underwriting Limited appears in 715 published decisions in this corpus. 42.4% 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 357 decisions and an upheld rate of 49.6%.
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 20 published decisions with an upheld rate of 30.0%.
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
For the reasons set out above, I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr S to accept or reject my decision before 31 August 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons given above, my final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs G to accept or reject my decision before 27 August 2026.
View source decisionI don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr C and Mrs P to accept or reject my decision before 25 August 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons I’ve given above, my final decision is that I uphold this complaint. I require Tesco Underwriting Limited to do the following: • Reimburse Mr H for the costs he paid (including any fee report) for repairs for £3,478.
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 Miss C to accept or reject my decision before 24 July 2026.
View source decision