Published decisions
49,645
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.
Published decisions
49,645
Product-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
35.9%
17,837 upheld decisions
Page summary
49,645 published FOS decisions in Insurance, with upheld-rate context, firm exposure, complaint themes, advisory patterns, and representative cases.
Published decisions
49,645
Product-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
35.9%
17,837 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
49,645
Product-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
35.9%
17,837 upheld decisions
Leading firm
U K Insurance Limited
2,826 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Delay In Claim Handling
2,085 tagged decisions
49,645 published decisions in this corpus sit within Insurance. 35.9% 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 523 published decisions with an upheld rate of 31.9%.
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
I don’t uphold Mrs P’s complaint about Zurich Assurance Ltd. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs P to accept or reject my decision before 14 April 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons I’ve given, it’s my final decision that I don’t uphold this complaint. And I make no award against Vitality Health Limited.
View source decisionFor the reasons I have given, it is my final decision that the complaint is not upheld. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr J to accept or reject my decision before 14 April 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons set out above, I don’t uphold Miss C’s complaint against Red Sands Insurance Company (Europe) Limited. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss C to accept or reject my decision before 14 April 2026.
View source decisionI do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask R to accept or reject my decision before 21 April 2026.
View source decision