Published decisions
3,174
Decision volume in this year-product slice
Year + product analysis
A curated public analysis of Insurance (excluding PPI) in 2020, combining annual and product-level signals from the published Financial Ombudsman decision corpus.
Published decisions
3,174
Decision volume in this year-product slice
Upheld rate
41.8%
1,326 upheld decisions
Page summary
3,174 published FOS decisions in Insurance (excluding PPI) during 2020, with upheld-rate context, firm concentration, complaint themes, and representative cases.
Published decisions
3,174
Decision volume in this year-product slice
Upheld rate
41.8%
1,326 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 24 Dec 2020
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
3,174
Decision volume in this year-product slice
Upheld rate
41.8%
1,326 upheld decisions
Leading firm
Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Plc
248 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Delay In Claim Handling
776 tagged decisions
3,174 published decisions in the corpus sit in Insurance (excluding PPI) for 2020. 41.8% of those decisions were upheld, which makes this a strong public cross-section for understanding how one product behaved in one specific year.
Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Plc is the most visible firm inside this year-product slice, with 248 published decisions.
Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Plc, UK Insurance Limited, Aviva Insurance Limited, and others are the firms most often associated with Insurance (excluding PPI) complaints in 2020. This gives a much tighter public view than the standalone year or product pages alone.
delay in claim handling, non-disclosure or misrepresentation, policy wording ambiguity, and others are the strongest complaint-theme signals in this year-product combination.
The advisory layer for Insurance (excluding PPI) points to recurring handling implications here, including review disp precedent (appears in 0.5% of cases), review icobs precedent (appears in 0.5% of cases), review insurance act 2015 precedent (appears in 0.2% of cases), and others.
There is no strong “what loses” signal exposed for this product at the current advisory granularity.
Representative cases
5 examples shown
Mrs B’s complaint is about the handling of a claim under her drainage and plumbing insurance policy with British Gas Insurance Limited. background In January 2019, Mrs B made a claim under her policy with British Gas as her bath waste was blocked and it was draining slowly. British Gas sen... (4 pages)
View source decisionComplaint Mr and Mrs M are unhappy AXA Insurance UK Plc (AXA) has declined to pay for some work carried out to their property following a flood. They feel this work should be covered under their home insurance policy. Background In December 2013 Mr and Mrs M’s property was flooded, followi... (13 pages)
View source decisionMr S has complained about CIP Insurance Brokers Ltd. He isn’t happy about the fact that it didn’t set up a commercial agricultural policy for him that covered his hired equipment. background Mr S had an agricultural commercial policy which he organised through CIP over a number of years. H... (3 pages)
View source decisionMr and Mrs S are unhappy with the way National House Building Council (NHBC) have handled a claim under their NHBC Buildmark policies. background Mr S tells us that he made a claim under his NHBC Buildmark policy as the roof to his house was defective. The claim was accepted, and works wer... (3 pages)
View source decisionComplaint Mr H has complained that Red Sands Insurance Company (Europe) Limited unfairly increased the cost of his pet insurance policy. He’s also unhappy with an exclusion that’s been placed on a new policy he purchased and the way a condition has been categorised. My findings I’ve consid... (3 pages)
View source decision