Watchdog overrules home insurers in more than half of disputed repairs and delays, Which? FOI reveals

Home insurers are losing more than half of ombudsman disputes over delays and poor repairs, as a Which? FOI investigation reveals rejected claims are the top cause of customer frustration.

Drawing on official complaints records from the Financial Ombudsman Service, detailed policy analysis, and the firsthand experiences of over 3,000 claimants, the consumer champion's investigation pulls back the curtain on an industry failing its customers when they need help most.

Which? researchers found that the ombudsman was most likely to rule in favour of customers in complaints about delays, with uphold rates of 54 per cent for buildings cover and 46 per cent for contents cover. 

For buildings cover claims, the ombudsman also upheld one in every two complaints about repair work, while disputes over the value of claims were upheld just under half the time.

When the FOS ‘upholds’ a complaint, it has criticised some aspect of how the insurer has dealt with the customer - though it won’t necessarily have agreed with every part of the complaint. Across all financial services during the period Which? analysed, the overall uphold rate was three in ten.

Additionally, the investigation found that declined claims were the most complained about issue among home insurance customers, accounting for 35 per cent of buildings insurance complaints and 42 per cent of contents cover complaints. More than a quarter of the complaints of this nature were upheld by the ombudsman.

According to insurers, rejected claims often stem from customers failing to look closely enough at the terms of their policies. However, Which?’s evidence proves that, sometimes, the insurer is genuinely at fault. 

Many rejected claims are for essentials the average customer would assume are automatically covered, where in reality coverage limits aren’t clearly explained or require supplementing by purchasing optional add-ons. Examples include accidental damage or home emergency cover—which often don’t come as standard—or disputes over what counts as ‘wear and tear’ in storm damage cases where a property may not have been properly maintained.

Customers are typically not shown claims outcome data, or any other indicator of service quality, on price comparison websites (PCWs). Which? is calling on the FCA to require PCWs to incorporate robust quality metrics into the buying journey.

The consumer champion discovered that claims value was the second-biggest complaints driver for contents cover and third-biggest for buildings insurance, making up 19 per cent and 10 per cent of all complaints respectively. The FOS upheld nearly half of all buildings insurance complaints of this nature, where the amounts in dispute can potentially reach tens of thousands of pounds.

In light of this, Which? is also calling on the FCA to hold firms to account where they have provided poor levels of service or unfairly resolved claims, with robust supervision and enforcement where necessary to act as a deterrent. This should include finally getting to grips with the inadequate oversight of claims handled by third parties and unfairly low cash settlement offers. 

Which? submitted a super-complaint to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in September 2025, after years of raising concerns about poor practices in the home and travel insurance industries, including high claims rejection rates, lacklustre claims handling and inadequate sales processes.

Now, just a month after the House of Lords published a report urging reform in the home and travel insurance markets, the FCA is due to publish its year-end update on how it is tackling these issues. Which? believes that, with this report, the regulator has a real opportunity to break its cycle of perpetual reviews and reform this dysfunctional market for the benefit of all consumers.

Rocio Concha, Director of Policy and Advocacy at Which?, said:

“Coming home to a flooded home or collapsed ceiling is traumatic enough, but nobody should have to spend months or years living in a construction site while their insurer drags its feet. 

“With its end-of-year report imminent, the FCA has a real opportunity here to show how it’s finally getting a handle on the insurance market. We’re eager to see the progress the regulator has made and work with them in rolling out their plans.”

ENDS

Notes to Editors:

Methodology

After sending an FOI request, in September 2026 Which? received five years of complaints data from the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). It reviewed all home insurance complaints logged by the FOS in the year to March 2026, totalling 6,416 buildings insurance and 1,652 contents insurance complaints, to determine which issues customers complained most about and which were most often upheld by the FOS. 

Where fewer than 50 complaints were resolved by the ombudsman, researchers omitted an uphold rate percentage.

Between May and June 2026, Which? also conducted an online survey of 3,419 members of the general public who had made a home insurance claim in the past two years. The findings were used to inform insights in this investigation. 

In June and July, Which? surveyed 30 insurance companies about the levels of cover in their policies, ranking 177 elements of each, including buildings cover, contents cover, and elements that applied to both, such as admin fees. The findings were also used to inform insights in this investigation. 

FOI complaints data

Buildings insurance

Contents insurance

Which?’s super-complaint

In September 2025, Which? issued a super-complaint to the Financial Conduct Authority, calling on the regulator to take decisive action in addressing systemic unfairness rife in the home and travel insurance markets.

Through independent research and investigations in the year prior to lodging the super-complaint, Which? revealed myriad issues with the markets, from unclear, inconsistent policy terms and unreliable third-party claims handlers to ineffective comparison data and a lack of transparency over the reasons for rejected claims.

The consumer champion also revealed that over half (54 per cent) of all people making a home or travel insurance claim experienced at least one problem during the process, while separate FCA data showed that 29–38% of home insurance claims are rejected outright, depending on the product.

Unclear policy terminology, unreasonable terms and a lack of support to compare policies were particular issues Which? identified. For example, the consumer champion analysis of insurers’ definitions of “storm” found that 20 per cent operated on terms that contradicted both common sense and industry guidance. Other insurers explicitly excluded coverage involving heavy rain, hail or snow when not accompanied by strong winds.

Additionally, the consumer champion reported that cash settlements — which comprised 44 per cent of all settled claims — can leave claimants out of pocket should repairs ultimately cost more than initially determined by the insurer. 

Which? also found that customers were more likely to cite issues with claims involving third-party handlers.

Since September 2025, the FCA has acknowledged the issues raised by Which?, launching five new initiatives covering sales processes, claims-handling and policy terms. The regulator has challenged unfair policy terms, securing changes from several firms. It has also launched an industry working group, of which Which? is a member, dedicated to improving consumers’ understanding of insurance policies. The regulator additionally began new investigations into third-party claims-handling and sales processes.

However, with the regulator’s Consumer Duty having been in place for three years now, Which? believes that more can and should still be done to tackle these glaring injustices in the home and travel insurance markets. That is why the consumer champion is now making the following requests of the regulator:

• Regularly track why claims are rejected.
• Hold firms to account with strong supervision and enforcement where necessary to act as a deterrent, including tackling issues with the governance of third-party claims-handlers.
• Intervene on poor quality products, ensuring policy terms meet reasonable expectations on definitions of key terms.
• Improve how policies are sold, including enabling customers to compare policies based on metrics beyond price.

On high rejection rates for home insurance claims

Separate Which? research found various reasons that could explain high rejection rates for home insurance claims. For example, while the overall amount of contents cover you buy is in the tens of thousands, most policies limit the maximum payable for any single item in a claim - with limits ranging from £1,500 to £20,000, and even lower limits for certain kinds of items such as gadgets or money. And only 38% of policies assessed include ‘matching sets’ cover, which could contribute to replacing a set of furniture if one part is irreparably damaged and can’t be replaced with a match. 

In a report last year, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) also pointed to inadequate cash settlement offers as being an area in need of improvement with some insurers. In a recent Which? survey of 3,419 home insurance claimants, 44% of those whose claims were accepted said it had been settled in cash.

Useful links

Which? policy paper -Consumer harm in the insurance claims process - July 2024

Which? - Best home insurance companies 2026 - September 2026

FCA report into home and travel insurance claims handling - July 2025 

FCA response to Which?’s super-complaint - December 2025

House of Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee report - October 2026

Key points from the FSRC report:

• Price comparison websites have driven strong price-centric competition in the UK insurance market, at the expense of overall product value (p10).
• The problem of limited consumer understanding of insurance policies is a contributor to poor claims outcomes and is exacerbated by poorly explained terminology within policies and inadequate provision of information to consumers (p12).
• While third-party claims handlers and cash settlements are not inherently harmful to consumers, they do carry a higher risk of poor practice (p15/16)
• Pursue standardisation of policy terminology, particularly around commonly disputed terms such as “storm damage” and “Wear and tear” (p20).
• It should strengthen the implementation, supervision and enforcement of the consumer Duty in home and travel insurance, including by establishing a reporting framework for firms that enables the effective comparison of consumer outcomes (p 28).

About Which?

Which? is the UK’s consumer champion, empowering people to make confident choices and demand better. Through our research, investigations and product testing, we provide trusted insight and expert recommendations on the issues that matter most to consumers.

Fiercely independent, we put people over profit - shining a light on unfair practices, influencing policy and holding businesses to account to make life simpler, fairer and safer for everyone.

The information in this press release is for editorial use by journalists and media outlets only. Any business seeking to reproduce information in this release should contact the Which? Endorsement Scheme team at endorsementscheme@which.co.uk.