Published decisions
686
Product-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Product analysis
A public view of how Claims Management performs in the published Financial Ombudsman decisions dataset, including volume, outcome mix, firm exposure, and recurring complaint themes.
Published decisions
686
Product-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
44.8%
307 upheld decisions
Page summary
686 published FOS decisions in Claims Management, with upheld-rate context, firm exposure, complaint themes, advisory patterns, and representative cases.
Published decisions
686
Product-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
44.8%
307 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 05 Feb 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
686
Product-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
44.8%
307 upheld decisions
Leading firm
Quickly Finance Limited
85 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Delay In Claim Handling
64 tagged decisions
686 published decisions in this corpus sit within Claims Management. 44.8% of those decisions were upheld, which makes this a useful public category page for spotting where complaint outcomes have tended to land.
Quickly Finance Limited is the single biggest firm exposure inside Claims Management in the published decision set. Delay In Claim Handling is the leading complaint theme in the same category.
Claims Management has a multi-year decision trail in the corpus, which makes it possible to compare recent complaint pressure against earlier years rather than relying on a single snapshot.
In 2026, Claims Management recorded 1 published decisions with an upheld rate of 100.0%.
delay in claim handling, affordability assessment failure, communication failure, and others are the strongest complaint-theme signals in Claims Management. For public analysis, those tags are the closest durable “type” layer available in the dataset.
The existing advisor model also points to recurring handling implications for Claims Management, including review disp precedent (appears in 0.3% of cases), review fsma precedent (appears in 0.1% of cases), and others.
Representative cases
5 examples shown
For the reasons I’ve explained, I uphold Ms G’s complaint and direct Core Financial Compensation LLP to put things right by doing as I’ve said above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Ms G to accept or reject my decision before 5 March 2026.
View source decisionDRN-6039497 The complaint Mr J complains about Sanderson Drake Limited (“SDL”) and their handling of a claim for irresponsible lending they pursued on his behalf. What happened The claim and complaint circumstances are well known to both parties. So, I don’t intend to list them chronolo... (5 pages)
View source decisionDRN-5840061 The complaint Miss G is unhappy with the service provided by The Claims Experts Ltd trading as Impakt Claims (Impakt) after it dealt with irresponsible lending complaints on her behalf. What happened Miss G instructed Impakt to deal with irresponsible lending complaints aga... (3 pages)
View source decisionDRN-5625755 The complaint Mr J complains about 4 th Dimension Innovation Limited (“FDIL”) and the advice they provided on his first notification of loss (“FNOL”) call following a road traffic accident. Mr J has been represented during the claim and complaint process by his mother, Ms J.... (3 pages)
View source decisionDRN-5455204 The complaint Mr P complains about fees Allegiant Finance Services Limited charged him after a lender settled an unaffordable lending complaint. What happened In October 2020, Mr P asked Allegiant to represent him in relation to a mis-sale claim. This was against a loan pro... (4 pages)
View source decision