Published decisions
49,217
Product-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Product analysis
A public view of how Insurance performs in the published Financial Ombudsman decisions dataset, including volume, outcome mix, firm exposure, and recurring complaint themes.
Page summary
49,217 published FOS decisions in Insurance, with upheld-rate context, firm exposure, complaint themes, advisory patterns, and representative cases.
Published decisions
49,217
Product-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
36.0%
17,697 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 02 Feb 2026
Published decisions
49,217
Product-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
36.0%
17,697 upheld decisions
Leading firm
U K Insurance Limited
2,809 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Delay In Claim Handling
1,946 tagged decisions
49,217 published decisions in this corpus sit within Insurance. 36.0% of those decisions were upheld, which makes this a useful public category page for spotting where complaint outcomes have tended to land.
U K Insurance Limited is the single biggest firm exposure inside Insurance in the published decision set. Delay In Claim Handling is the leading complaint theme in the same category.
Insurance 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, Insurance recorded 95 published decisions with an upheld rate of 28.4%.
delay in claim handling, non-disclosure or misrepresentation, affordability assessment failure, and others are the strongest complaint-theme signals in Insurance. 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 Insurance, including review consumer credit act 1974 precedent (appears in 1.3% of cases), review section 140a cca precedent (appears in 1.1% of cases), and others.
Representative cases
5 examples shown
For the reasons I’ve set out above, it’s my final decision that I uphold this complaint and I require Aviva Insurance Limited to refund the £60 she paid to buy heaters for her tenants. It can require Miss S to show she bought these in the relevant time period.
View source decisionFor the reasons I’ve explained above, I don’t uphold Mr and Mrs A’s complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr A and Mrs A to accept or reject my decision before 2 March 2026.
View source decisionMy final decision is that I uphold this complaint and direct Casualty & General Insurance Company (Europe) Ltd to pay Miss J’s claim and It should add interest at 8% simple per annum in line with what I’ve said above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss J to accept or reject my decision before 2 March 2026.
View source decisionMy final decision is that the offer Aviva Life & Pensions UK Limited has made is fair and reasonable, so it should now pay Mrs C £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs C to accept or reject my decision before 2 March 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons I’ve explained, my final decision is that I don’t uphold this complaint. I don’t direct Ageas Insurance Limited to do any more in response to this complaint.
View source decision