Published decisions
2,916
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Firm analysis
A public analysis page covering published Financial Ombudsman decisions involving U K Insurance Limited, including outcome context, product mix, complaint themes, and representative cases.
Published decisions
2,916
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
33.3%
971 upheld decisions
Page summary
2,916 published decisions involving U K Insurance Limited, with product mix, upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
2,916
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
33.3%
971 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 15 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
2,916
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
33.3%
971 upheld decisions
Leading product
Insurance
2,914 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Delay In Claim Handling
133 tagged decisions
U K Insurance Limited appears in 2,916 published decisions in this corpus. 33.3% 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 2,914 decisions and an upheld rate of 33.3%.
U K Insurance Limited's decision trail runs from 2019 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, U K Insurance Limited appeared in 113 published decisions with an upheld rate of 31.0%.
Delay In Claim Handling is the strongest complaint-theme signal tied to U K Insurance Limited in the published decisions. In this corpus, those themes are the most stable public proxy for complaint “type”.
Icobs, Disp, Insurance Act 2015 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 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 M to accept or reject my decision before 13 October 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons given above, I don’t uphold Ms G and Mrs G’s complaint against U K Insurance Limited trading as Churchill Insurance. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Ms G and Mrs G to accept or reject my decision before 13 October 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons provided, I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr C to accept or reject my decision before 13 October 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons set out above, I uphold Ms G’s complaint in part. UK Insurance Limited must arrange a specialist inspection of the reported damage to determine whether its delays caused or contributed to it, before considering whether any further settlement is due to Ms G.
View source decisionI don’t uphold the complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Ms G to accept or reject my decision before 12 October 2026.
View source decision