Published decisions
2,884
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
2,884
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
33.4%
962 upheld decisions
Page summary
2,884 published decisions involving U K Insurance Limited, with product mix, upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
2,884
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
33.4%
962 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 04 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
2,884
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
33.4%
962 upheld decisions
Leading product
Insurance
2,882 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Delay In Claim Handling
119 tagged decisions
U K Insurance Limited appears in 2,884 published decisions in this corpus. 33.4% 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 2,882 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 81 published decisions with an upheld rate of 32.1%.
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 I’ve explained, I don’t uphold Mr and Mrs D’s complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr D and Mrs D to accept or reject my decision before 1 September 2026.
View source decisionIt’s my final decision that I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Ms V to accept or reject my decision before 1 September 2026.
View source decisionI’ve decided not to uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr G and Mrs G to accept or reject my decision before 28 August 2026.
View source decisionI’ve decided not to uphold this complaint Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr G and Mrs G to accept or reject my decision before 28 August 2026. James Park Ombudsman
View source decisionI uphold this complaint and require U K Insurance Limited, trading as Churchill Insurance to put things right, as I have set out above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr F to accept or reject my decision before 28 August 2026.
View source decision