Heath Crawford: most-reported complaints
Automated analysis of 444 public Trustpilot reviews published 2023-08-27 to 2026-09-20. TrustScore 4.9 from 1,829 total reviews — see the Trustpilot page. Quick answer: is Heath Crawford legit? Issues below reflect what reviewers reported, not findings of wrongdoing.
Reviewers most often report misleading pricing, which accounts for 28% of the 36 complaints identified in 444 reviews. Support issues are also frequent, with 19% of complaints citing unreachable agents and another 19% describing support as unhelpful. The remaining 19% of complaints fall under other categories, such as unwanted contact. No clear trend can be established for these issues due to the limited number of reviews.
How to reach Heath Crawford
These are the contact details Heath Crawford publishes on its Trustpilot profile, as of our last check on 2026-09-24 — phone 020 8421 7030, email [email protected], address Iveco House, Station Road, Watford, WD17 1ET, GB.
The company claimed its Trustpilot profile on 2025-10-29, uses Trustpilot’s paid features, and last replied to a negative review on 2026-09-09. Trustpilot ranks it 34 of 170 in Insurance Broker. We last checked this profile on 2026-09-24 and found 13 new reviews. These are facts Trustpilot publishes about the profile, as of our last harvest.
Forum footprint: 0 MoneySavingExpert forum discussions mention this company (browse). Roughly 0 of the top, relevance-sorted search results were posted in the last 90 days — an approximate figure by construction, not a true recency count.
Elsewhere: 5★ on Google (0 reviews)
TrustScore over time
4.9 → 4.9 across 15 census measurements since 2026-08-12. Our own record, independent of Trustpilot’s display.
Reply behaviour over time
Solid: % of negative reviews replied to. Dashed: typical days to reply. Both as reported on this company’s Trustpilot profile, recorded whenever our census re-checked it and a figure had changed — the gaps between points are not equal: 2026-08-12 (100%, 2.1d) · 2026-08-15 (100%, 2.1d) · 2026-08-18 (100%, 2.1d) · 2026-08-21 (100%, 2.1d) · 2026-08-24 (100%, 2.1d) · 2026-08-27 (100%, 2.1d) · 2026-08-30 (100%, 2.1d) · 2026-09-02 (96%, 2.1d) · 2026-09-08 (96%, 2.3d) · 2026-09-12 (100%, 2.2d) · 2026-09-15 (100%, 2.2d) · 2026-09-18 (100%, 2.2d) · 2026-09-21 (100%, 2.2d) · 2026-09-24 (100%, 2.2d).
Severity: 14% of this company’s 36 graded complaints were classified as severe (money lost, an essential service cut off, or a problem unresolved for months). See the harm index.
Reviewers here waited a median of 2.5 days between the experience and publishing their negative review (45 reviews record both dates).
Ombudsman outcomes
The Financial Ombudsman Service has published 4 decisions naming this firm (too few to quote an upheld rate).
Covers decisions dated 2016-01-07 to 2026-07-22, by the acceptance-deadline date the Ombudsman publishes — not the date the complaint was decided.
Official published outcomes from the Financial Ombudsman Service, not our analysis. Uphold rates reflect the cases that reached the ombudsman, not all complaints. source.
What their policy promises
refund window: 7 years
“In most cases the period will be for a maximum of 7 years following the expiry of an insurance contract unless we are required to retain the data for a longer period due to business, legal or regulatory requirements.”
support availability: at no cost
“Reasonable access to your personal information may be provided at no cost upon request made to our Company at the contact information provided below.”
Quoted verbatim from the company’s own published policy (source page); complaint counts are census classifications. As of 2026-09-13.
Policy-page monitoring
We monitor this company’s published policy page for changes. No changes have been detected since we started watching on 2026-09-01.
Automated change detection on the company’s own published policy page — a record of when the page changed, not a judgement on what changed.
Measured reply time: across 45 negative reviews that received a public reply, the median wait was 1 days — the company profile reports an average of 2 days. The two are measured differently: ours counts only replies we captured to negative reviews.
Reply quality: of 45 company replies to negative reviews analysed, 73% engaged with the specific problem and 16% were generic templates.
9% of its 394 recent 5★ reviews came from accounts that had written only that one review when we captured it (the median across companies is about 39%). A high share is a reason to look closer, not evidence of fake reviews.
Sector benchmark: misleading pricing makes up 28% of this company’s complaints vs a 14% median across 87 ranked companies in its sector.
Review velocity: 1,813 of this company’s 1,829 Trustpilot reviews (99%) were written in the last 12 months.
Not enough reviews to establish a trend.
What are the most common complaints about Heath Crawford?
Misleading pricing
10 reports · 28% of complaints“Wasted money by Bupa as they refuse to refund me and not pay for my treatment”
The company replied on 2025-11-12: “Dear Bett, We’re very sorry to hear about your experience and sincerely apologise for any distress or inconvenience this situation has caused. We always aim to provide clear, transparent advice and…”
Our classifier read this reply as a substantive response.
It promised: to make contact.
1 reader marked this review helpful on Trustpilot.
“The words from the adviser were misleading and designed to have me sign up to this policy masking some key information.”
The company replied on 2026-01-19: “Dear Antonio, Thank you for taking the time to share your feedback. I’m very sorry for the frustration this has caused and completely understand why you feel misled — that was certainly not our…”
Our classifier read this reply as a substantive response.
“But then i had to pay for my hip replacment cos I had a pre existing condition.”
The company replied on 2025-12-10: “Dear Margaret, As you know, we have been investigating this for you. Thank you for taking the time to leave your feedback. I’m genuinely sorry to hear about the difficulties you experienced with your…”
Our classifier read this reply as a substantive response.
Support unreachable
7 reports · 19% of complaints“I was unable to reach the agent via direct phone number nor recieved any response from emails.”
The company replied on 2026-09-04: “Hi Susan, Thank you for taking the time to share your experience. We’re genuinely sorry that what started as such a positive experience became frustrating, particularly when you were ready to proceed…”
Our classifier read this reply as a substantive response.
“left an email asking to not receive these spam calls and it hasn’t been actioned.”
The company replied on 2026-07-24: “Dear Isabelle, Thank you for taking the time to leave your feedback. I'm sorry to hear that our attempts to contact you came across as excessive and at inconvenient times. Having reviewed your…”
Our classifier read this reply as a substantive response.
“ask them to call back when I’m home at X time. But I get nothing for two days”
The company replied on 2026-06-26: “Dear Theresa, Thank you for taking the time to leave your feedback. I'm sorry that we didn't call you back when we said we would. I completely understand how frustrating that must have been,…”
Our classifier read this reply as a substantive response.
Support unhelpful
7 reports · 19% of complaints“I would expect a broker receiving commission to negotiate proactively with the existing insurer and present the best available renewal terms from the outset.”
The company replied on 2026-09-14: “Hi Dan, Thank you for your detailed feedback and for acknowledging the support and market reviews we have provided over the years. We completely understand your expectation that, as your broker, we…”
Our classifier read this reply as a substantive response.
“Rather than simply dealing with my request, he started counting the number of times they had called me that day.”
The company replied on 2026-09-09: “Dear Maddy, Thank you for your feedback. We’re sorry that the frequency of our calls caused you frustration. We have listened to the call you refer to and can confirm that you had received five calls…”
Our classifier read this reply as a substantive response.
It promised: to escalate.
“It is like speaking to an AI machine and set script”
The company replied on 2026-06-03: “Dear Edwin, Thank you for taking the time to share your feedback. I’m sorry to hear that the initial renewal conversation didn’t leave you feeling properly supported or reassured, particularly given…”
Our classifier read this reply as a substantive response.
Other
7 reports · 19% of complaints“u will call me 24 7, when I opted out for not to receive calls.”
The company replied on 2025-11-12: “Dear Andrea, We’re very sorry to hear about your experience and sincerely apologise for any inconvenience caused by our calls. If you had opted out of receiving calls, then you absolutely should not…”
Our classifier read this reply as a substantive response.
It promised: to escalate.
1 reader marked this review helpful on Trustpilot.
“Nothing has been received in over 3 months. No response to emails.”
The company replied on 2025-11-12: “Dear Christian An, We’re very sorry for the inconvenience and disappointment this has caused. The Amazon vouchers should certainly have been sent and we apologise if they haven’t arrived as expected.…”
Our classifier read this reply as a substantive response.
It promised: to make contact.
1 reader marked this review helpful on Trustpilot.
“No quotes given but endless phone calls from first thing in the morning throughout the day.”
The company replied on 2025-11-12: “Dear FJ, We’re very sorry to hear about your experience and apologise for any inconvenience caused by our follow-up calls. Our advisers contact customers after a quote request to understand…”
Our classifier read this reply as a substantive response.
It promised: to make contact.
1 reader marked this review helpful on Trustpilot.
Warranty disputes
3 reports · 8% of complaints“it turns out out I wasn’t covered for anything I had visited my GP for in the previous 5 years, what a pity this wasn’t explained at the time the cover was sold.”
The company replied on 2025-11-12: “Dear Mr Taylor, Firstly, please accept our sincere apologies for the delayed response — we have only just gained access to our Trustpilot page and became aware of your review. We are very sorry to…”
Our classifier read this reply as a substantive response.
It promised: to escalate.
“Sold us the most expensive insurance for fake reasons.”
The company replied on 2026-05-21: “Hi Elena, Thank you for taking the time to leave your feedback. We’re very sorry to hear that this is how you feel about your experience with us. We were surprised by your comments, particularly as…”
Our classifier read this reply as a deflection.
“INTENTIONALLY TRYING TO REJECT THE CLAIM”
The company replied on 2025-11-26: “Dear Mr Ahmed, Thank you for sharing your feedback, and for taking the time to speak with me on the phone just now. I’m very sorry to hear how stressful the claims process has felt — I completely…”
Our classifier read this reply as a substantive response.
It promised: to make contact.
Overcharging
2 reports · 6% of complaints“I was unable to reach the agent via direct phone number nor recieved any response from emails.”
The company replied on 2026-09-04: “Hi Susan, Thank you for taking the time to share your experience. We’re genuinely sorry that what started as such a positive experience became frustrating, particularly when you were ready to proceed…”
Our classifier read this reply as a substantive response.
“In renewal they hiked the premium”
The company replied on 2025-11-19: “Dear Mr Swanton, Thank you for taking the time to leave your review. We’re sorry to hear that you felt disappointed with your renewal experience. To provide clarity, your existing policy with The…”
Our classifier read this reply as a deflection.
Compare Heath Crawford with…
- Heath Crawford vs Howden Insurance
- Heath Crawford vs Howden Life & Health
- Heath Crawford vs Peter James Insurance
- Heath Crawford vs Pol-Plan Ubezpieczenia
- Heath Crawford vs Sharrocks
- Heath Crawford vs LetsGoCover
- Heath Crawford vs Chris Knott Insurance
- Heath Crawford vs BG Insurance
- Heath Crawford vs Mobilers
Method: reviews are classified into a fixed complaint taxonomy by an automated reader; every category shown is backed by at least two verbatim quotes from distinct reviews. Trends are computed from dated review counts only. Negative reviews are deliberately over-sampled for evidence depth; headline percentages use an unbiased recent sample only. Report updated 2026-09-21.