Policy article

OPINION: Why Which? submitted an insurance super-complaint

Rocio Concha, director of policy and advocacy at Which?, explains why the consumer watchdog launched an insurance super-complaint in response to persistent failures in claims handling and inadequate regulatory action and argues the system meant to protect customers urgently needs reform
4 min read
Rocio ConchaDirector of Policy and Advocacy, and Chief Economist

Originally published in Insurance Post 25 November 2025. Permission to publish all opinion pieces authored by Rocio Concha, sought and granted on 5 March 2025.

The slow, grinding pace of change in tackling consumer issues in financial services is not merely an inconvenience. It represents years of avoidable financial and emotional harm for real people.

The fight for justice for victims of authorised push payment (APP) fraud is a clear example of the human cost of delay. When we first raised the alarm over banks’ treatment of authorised push payment fraud victims in 2016, it took eight years for a mandatory reimbursement scheme to be introduced, leaving people exposed and fighting alone for nearly a decade.

While complex issues certainly require time and consultation, many fundamental problems - such as those highlighted in our insurance super-complaint - demand urgent attention. 

The stories underpinning our super-complaint show this urgency is necessary. One family we’ve spoken to were forced to leave their home after a small house fire in January 2024, just two weeks before their second baby was due. At time of writing, their claim is no closer to being resolved. Claire Massey, who also suffered a house fire, was so aghast at her insurer’s handling of her case that she set up Claims Guardians, a place for others who’ve suffered home insurance ordeals, to campaign for better treatment. 

Industry eyebrows may have been raised when we used our legal powers to submit a super-complaint, but they shouldn’t have been. BIBA was quick off the mark to say that the regulator needn’t bother itself with any more work than it is already doing. But when one considers the weight of evidence about the human cost of failures in this market underpinning this super-complaint, the question people should be asking is: what took Which? so long? 

The FCA’s review into claims handling published in July 2025 uncovered similar issues to its findings back in 2014, including confusion when third-party claims handlers get involved and customers needing to chase their insurer for answers. We don’t think that the regulator took action that was sufficient to the seriousness of the situation at either point. 

According to the FCA’s own data, fewer than two-thirds of buildings-only insurance claims are paid out. With some insurers, it’s less than half. And more than half of people making a home or travel claim told us they had problems during the process. This doesn’t suggest that there are only a few bad apples in otherwise well-functioning markets. 

In its most recent claims handling review, the FCA said it would speak to the firms it had identified as behaving particularly poorly. This included firms that were unreasonably offering cash settlements rather than repairing homes, which could unfairly leave people short when it comes to repair costs and add further stress to people in vulnerable circumstances. Well, this regulatory version of ‘having a word’ doesn’t pass muster either. 

When Which? submitted a Freedom of Information request asking how many firms the FCA was investigating, they couldn’t tell us because the number was so small and we would be able to figure out who they were. Perhaps more concerningly, they admitted that their review apparently didn’t even look at whether firms were breaking any laws beyond FCA rules, despite the FCA being responsible for enforcing insurance and consumer protection laws. Our legal review found many concerning examples including where terms and conditions of policies seemed obviously unfair to consumers and likely not to be in compliance with the law. 

The way firms sell their products and the confusion over what is and isn’t covered can also lead to some customers experiencing nasty surprises when the time comes to make a claim. Consumers shouldn't be absolved of all responsibility - but insurance firms also have a responsibility to clearly explain how their cover works. And this includes highlighting restrictions that most people would reasonably expect to be covered (such as missing connecting flights through no faults of their own).

We weren’t naive enough to expect our super-complaint submission to be warmly received by all sections of the industry. But the truth is that good insurers should welcome the crackdown on bad ones, and the overall raising of standards that ought to follow. 

Indeed, the latest general insurance value measures data shows that claims acceptance rates in the home and travel insurance sectors remain stubbornly low - hovering at around 63% (for buildings cover) and 80% (for single-trip cover). 

The regulator has until 23 December to respond to our super-complaint. In that time we will continue meeting industry groups and insurers to explain why we’ve taken this extraordinary step, confident in our evidence and determined to bring about fundamental changes in these markets. Because insurance should act as a safety net for when things go wrong, like house fires or medical emergencies abroad. Making an insurance claim should not be the most stressful part of the process.