Published decisions
2,826
Decision volume in this firm-product slice
Firm + product analysis
A curated public analysis of U K Insurance Limited's published Financial Ombudsman decisions in Insurance, including outcome context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
2,826
Decision volume in this firm-product slice
Upheld rate
33.4%
943 upheld decisions
Page summary
2,826 published FOS decisions involving U K Insurance Limited in Insurance, with upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
2,826
Decision volume in this firm-product slice
Upheld rate
33.4%
943 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 17 Mar 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
2,826
Decision volume in this firm-product slice
Upheld rate
33.4%
943 upheld decisions
Latest active year
2026
24 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Delay In Claim Handling
95 tagged decisions
U K Insurance Limited appears in 2,826 published decisions in Insurance across this corpus. 33.4% of those decisions were upheld, making this one of the strongest public firm-product slices available for search and research.
The latest year represented in this slice is 2026, with 24 published decisions and an upheld rate of 33.3%.
U K Insurance Limited has a multi-year published decision trail in Insurance, which makes it possible to judge whether complaint exposure has been persistent or concentrated into a smaller set of years.
Insurance remains a meaningful part of U K Insurance Limited's published complaint exposure, but this page isolates just that one product line instead of blending it with the firm's wider footprint.
Delay In Claim Handling is the clearest complaint-theme signal in this firm-product slice, which helps explain what tends to drive published ombudsman decisions here.
The product advisory layer also points to recurring handling implications, including review consumer credit act 1974 precedent (appears in 1.3% of cases), review section 140a cca precedent (appears in 1.1% of cases), review disp precedent (appears in 0.3% of cases), and others.
Representative cases
5 examples shown
For the reasons I’ve outlined above, I don’t uphold Mrs B’s complaint about U K Insurance Limited. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs B to accept or reject my decision before 14 April 2026.
View source decisionI uphold this complaint and require U K Insurance Limited trading as Direct Line to pay compensation of £100 to Miss S for the trouble and upset it caused her. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss S to accept or reject my decision before 3 April 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons given above, I uphold this complaint and require U K Insurance Limited to reconsider Ms S’s claim based on the remaining policy terms. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Ms S to accept or reject my decision before 2 April 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 Mrs W to accept or reject my decision before 2 April 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons I’ve explained, my final decision is that I don’t uphold this complaint. I don’t direct U K Insurance Limited to do any more in response to this complaint.
View source decision