Phoenix Life Limited · DRN-6120926

The complaint Ms R complains that Phoenix Life Limited (Phoenix) treated her unfairly when she tried to withdraw funds from her savings and investment plan. What happened The events which led up to this complaint are well known to both parties, so I’ll give just a broad overview here. In 1993 Ms R took out a Wealthmaster Policy with a firm which was later taken over by Phoenix. This was a whole of life, unit-linked policy with premiums payable for a selected period. It was designed as a savings and investment plan to provide a tax-free capital sum at the end of the selected period. On 30 July 2025, Ms R called Phoenix to enquire about surrendering her policy. On the call she was told by Phoenix that she was unable to, as she had to be fifty-five years old to be able to do this. Ms R left the call but, after reflecting on the information Phoenix had given her, called it back later the same day, 30 July 2025. On this call Phoenix said Ms R had been given incorrect information on the earlier call and she was, in fact, free to surrender her policy. Phoenix awarded £100 for the distress and inconvenience it caused Ms R because of this error. Phoenix then proceeded to action Ms R’s request to surrender her policy and, on 6 August 2025, it sent her a letter detailing the cash-in value which stood at £20,287.32 and enclosing a Cash-in Application Form for Ms R to complete and return. On 14 August 2025, Ms R called Phoenix to chase the Cash-in Application Form as she hadn’t received it and needed the funds urgently. On 14 August 2025, Ms R also brought her complaint to this Service. She said she wasn’t satisfied with the £100 compensation offered by Phoenix and complained she still hadn’t received the forms to withdraw her funds. Ms R then received and completed the Cash-in Application forms and sent them back to Phoenix who received them on 20 August 2025. In her application Ms R had opted to surrender only a part of her policy and requested a withdrawal of £20,000. On 17 September 2025, Ms R called Phoenix as she wanted to know when she would be receiving her funds. Phoenix explained on the call that it would chase progress and contact Ms R with an update. On 19 September 2025, Phoenix tried to call Ms R but couldn’t get hold of her so it wrote and told her she couldn’t make a partial surrender as her policy was paid up. On 29 September 2025, Ms R called Phoenix and again asked for an update on her withdrawal request. Phoenix explained that Ms R was unable to make a partial surrender

-- 1 of 4 --

and would need to surrender the policy in full if she wished to withdraw funds. Ms R told Phoenix she was happy to go ahead with a full surrender. Phoenix agreed to process this request and said it would try and make the payment as soon as possible because of the delays already caused. Phoenix received the completed surrender forms from Ms R on 6 October 2025. Ms R called Phoenix on 7 October 2025 chasing receipt of her funds and to raise a complaint about the delays caused. Phoenix responded by acknowledging Ms R’s complaint and said it would process the surrender request as soon as possible. On 9 October 2025, Phoenix informed Ms R that it had processed her request and payment would be made to her account in three to five working days. In response to the complaint Ms R raised with this Service on 14 August 2025, our Investigator reviewed all the evidence available. In its evidence, Phoenix explained that it hadn’t responded to the complaint Ms R had raised with it on 7 October due to human error. Phoenix said it had considered all the events relating to Ms R’s request to withdraw funds from her policy, from the date of her original request, on 30 July 2025, until 9 October 2025 when it sent Ms R her funds. Phoenix accepted it had made errors by providing Ms R with incorrect information and then taking longer than it normally would to process the surrender request. And, because of these errors, it offered to pay a further £300 in compensation to Ms R in addition to the £100 it had already paid. Phoenix went on to note that Ms R had suffered no further financial loss because of the delays as the surrender value on her policy had increased over the time period. Our Investigator thought this increased offer from Phoenix was a fair and reasonable resolution for the errors Phoenix had made, and the distress and inconvenience this would have caused Ms R. Ms R wasn’t satisfied with our Investigator’s opinion, so the complaint has been brought to me for a final decision. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. The facts surrounding this complaint don’t, from the evidence I’ve seen, appear to be disputed. So, my role here is to decide if I think Phoenix’s offer of £400 in total for the distress and inconvenience, caused to Ms R by its errors, is a fair and reasonable resolution. And, if I don’t, then what I think Phoenix should do to put things right. I’ve first considered if Ms R suffered any financial loss because of the delays in obtaining her policy funds and I don’t think she did. From the evidence I’ve seen, if no errors had been made by Phoenix, then the fund value Ms R would have received, around 20 August 2025 (the date when Phoenix first received Ms R’s surrender request), would have been £20,463.97. Ms R received a higher total of £20,938.18, when she was sent her funds on 9 October 2025. So, even considering lost interest, it’s clear Ms R didn’t suffer a direct financial loss due to Phoenix’s delays. Given

-- 2 of 4 --

this, it’s left for me to consider the level of distress and inconvenience the errors will have caused Ms R personally and to decide if Phoenix’s offer of £400 is a fair resolution. In her evidence, Ms R has explained the impact Phoenix’s errors had on her. She said she needed the funds from her policy urgently as they were to be used to fund a property purchase which further impacted other family members. Ms R explained that she’d been put to significant worry because of this which had impacted her health. She also says she had to chase for updates and information and was left not knowing what the status of her withdrawal was and/or what was going on. I have every sympathy for Ms R, especially given the funds were to be used to support a property transaction which is often a stressful process. But having carefully considered all the evidence available, I think the £400 total payment Phoenix have offered is fair and I’ll explain why. The guidance from this Service says an award of £400 might be fair where the impact of a business’s mistakes has caused considerable distress, upset and worry – and/or significant inconvenience that needs a lot of effort to sort out. Typically, the impact lasts over many weeks or months. In this complaint I do think Phoenix’s errors caused considerable distress, upset and worry and I do think Ms R was put to significant inconvenience and effort to sort out as she had to chase Phoenix for information on several occasions. And this impact lasted for approximately ten weeks, from initial enquiry on 30 July 2025 to 9 October 2025, when Ms R eventually received her funds. But I also think this profile of the impact on Ms R of Phoenix’s errors and the effort she was put to in order to sort them out broadly fits the above definition of £400 being fair. So, given this, I won’t be asking Phoenix to increase this level of compensation. Ms R has said that other family members were affected by Phoenix’s errors and this should be considered. But under the rules which apply to this Service, I’m only able to consider compensation for Ms R as she is the only eligible complainant. So, while I am sorry that Phoenix’s errors had an impact on Ms R’s wider family, I’m unable to make any award to them when I decide the compensation I think Phoenix should pay. Finally, Ms R has also asked Phoenix to apologise to her personally and, from the evidence I’ve seen, I can’t see that Phoenix have provided this. Putting things right I’ve thought about what Ms R has said and I think her request for an apology is fair. And so, I think in addition to the total payment of £400 compensation, Phoenix should provide Ms R with a written apology for the errors it made and the impact this had on her. My final decision For the reasons stated above I uphold this complaint. Phoenix Life Limited should pay Ms R an additional £300 to the £100 it has already paid. For clarity, Ms R should receive a total of £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused to Ms R by its errors.

-- 3 of 4 --

Phoenix Life Limited should also provide Ms R with a written apology. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Ms R to accept or reject my decision before 23 April 2026. Ben Castell Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --