U K Insurance Limited

Activities and protection

What they can do, and how you are protected

• Hold or safeguard your money FSCS may apply
  Eligible deposits are typically protected by the FSCS up to £120,000 per person, per banking group.
• Give regulated advice FSCS may apply
  A claim for unsuitable advice is itself FSCS-protected, up to the limit that applies to the product you were advised on.
• Manage or trade investments FSCS may apply
  Eligible investment and pension claims are typically FSCS-protected up to £85,000 per person, depending on the product and your circumstances.
• Sell or arrange insurance FSCS may apply
  Eligible insurance claims may be FSCS-protected, often 90%, or 100% for compulsory or long-term cover.
• Lend or arrange credit No FSCS cover
  Consumer credit is not covered by the FSCS, so there is no compensation scheme if the firm fails.

Check your FSCS cover →

Complaints: You can refer a complaint about this firm to the Financial Ombudsman Service for free, whichever activity it relates to.

Track record

Action taken against them, and what customers complained about

2 fines between 2012 and 2026, £12.79m in total. This is part of the official register record and is worth reviewing before going ahead.

• Fined £10.63m on 10 March 2026

  On 10 March 2026, the PRA issued a Final Notice to U K Insurance Limited. For the reasons given in the Final Notice, the PRA imposed a financial penalty of £10.625 million for breaching: PRA Fundamental Rule 6 (A firm must organise and control its affairs responsibly and effectively); Rule 6.1, Notifications part of the PRA Rulebook (‘PRA Rulebook’); and Rules 2.4 and 3.2, Reporting part of the PRA Rulebook, between 1 June 2022 to 23 August 2024. A copy of the Final Notice can be found on the Bank of England’s website and can be accessed.

  Read the FCA notice →

• Fined £2.17m on 18 January 2012

  On 17 January 2012 the FSA imposed a financial penalty of £2,170,000 on UK Insurance Limited (UKI) for the failings of Direct Line Insurance Plc (Direct Line) and Churchill Insurance Company Limited (Churchill) for breach of Principle 2 (skill, care and diligence) of the FSA's Principles for Businesses (the Principles) which occurred between 8 April 2010 and 16 April 2010 (the Relevant Period). The FSA takes this action against UKI for Direct Line and Churchill's breach of Principle 2 during the Relevant Period. Direct Line and Churchill (together, the Firms) breached Principle 2 during the Relevant Period. Since then, the relevant business and liabilities of the Firms have been transferred to UKI. Therefore, UKI is responsible for paying the financial penalty of £2,170,000 in respect of the Firms breach of Principle 2. The Firms agreed to settle at an early stage of the FSA's investigation. They therefore qualify for a 30% (Stage 1) discount under the FSA's executive settlement procedures. Were it not for this discount, the FSA would have imposed a financial penalty of £3.1 million on the Firms. The Firms breached Principle 2 because they acted without due skill, care and diligence in the way that they responded to the FSA's request to provide it with a sample of their closed complaint files. The Firms breach of Principle 2 resulted in the FSA receiving files which had been altered improperly. These alterations were the consequence of inadequate measures taken by the Firms to ensure that 50 files specifically requested by the FSA would not be altered improperly. This failure occurred following a file review exercise started three weeks before the collation of the 50 files. Prior to the start of the earlier exercise, management had told staff during a conference call that if they were found not to be operating to the required standards, they would face internal disciplinary investigation. This message to staff increased the risk that files would be altered improperly. Of the 50 closed complaint files that were ultimately provided to the FSA by the Firms: (1) 27 had been altered before they were provided to the FSA; (2) 28 documents within 27 files had been altered or created; and (3) 7 internal documents contained staff signatures forged by one staff member. The Firms breach of Principle 2 did not result in any customer detriment. Nor did it have a significant impact on the FSA being able to review the Firms' complaints handling processes using different methods. Nevertheless, it is unacceptable for the FSA to receive any files which are not a true representation of a firm's work. This applies regardless of the substance of the alterations, which in this case were minor in nature. Firms must therefore take robust steps to ensure that the FSA receives accurate information. The FSA views these failings as serious because: (4) the FSA requires information it requests from firms to be submitted in its original state and not altered. Submitting altered information undermines the FSA's ability to supervise effectively the financial services sector and meet its objectives of protecting consumers and promoting market confidence; and (5) the Firms are part of RBS Insurance which is a prominent institution with significant operations in the UK. RBS Insurance is the second largest general insurance provider and the largest personal insurer in the UK. The size and potential consumer impact of RBS Insurance's operations require a significant degree of supervision from the FSA. The FSA relies on the receipt of accurate information from RBS Insurance in order to supervise its operations effectively. The majority of the alterations made to files were minor in nature and included the addition of telephone voice recording reference numbers, the correction of typographical errors and grammar and the re-ordering of existing information. The FSA has been able to rely on a detailed internal invesgation carried out by the Firms, the scope of which was agreed with the FSA.

Common questions

Frequently asked questions