Prudential loses FOS challenge over delayed annuity payments

Prudential has lost an appeal after the Financial Ombudsman Service ruled that sending out forms by post caused a client delays in taking three of his pensions.

In November 2016 the client, referred to in the FOS decision as Mr B, said he wanted to take all three of his pensions with Prudential at the same time and purchase an annuity.

Prudential gave him the option of taking all three immediately or waiting until the last one matured.

During a phone call in January, Mr B discussed what form of annuities he wanted, but Prudential told him it could not arrange these by phone and sent quotes to him by post.

Later that month, Mr B had chosen to take all his pensions together. However, the forms did not reach him in time as he lived abroad.

In an initial decision, a FOS adjudicator ruled that the provider should have done more to facilitate access to the pensions, and should put him back “in the position he’d be in if he’d been able to set up three annuities to start at the same time.”

Prudential challenged the ruling, arguing that during the January call, Mr B only instructed the provider to take the first of the available annuities, and cancelled the other two instructions before deciding on the correct course of action.

The provider argued that while it was able to send application forms for an enhanced annuity to Mr B electronically, sensitive information contained the rest of the application meant it had to be sent by post.

The ombudsman has upheld the complaint, however.

While he acknowledges that no clear instructions were given on one call in January, a further call later in the month did explain clearly that the remaining two pensions were to be converted to annuities and the process should start that day.

New annuity directive will force advisers to review sales process

Mr B’s wife did also explain the length of time it would take to receive the necessary forms.

The ombudsman writes: “I accept that Prudential wasn’t responsible for how post was processed, but I think Mr B had made his intentions clear and more should’ve been done to get quotes to him that he could’ve accepted – Mr B had set out the problems he’d had with the post at some length and in previous calls. I think if he’d received the quotes generated on 22 January 2017 he would’ve accepted them and I think there was enough time to arrange an annuity to start on 1 March 2017.”

The original compensation calculation, with Mr B paid the annuity payments he would have received if they had started on time, stands, including an 8 per cent per year simple interest on these amounts to rectify the period he did not receive his pensions for.

The ombudsman writes: “[The 8 per cent] isn’t something Mr B would’ve had if the annuities had been set up earlier. Instead it’s designed to compensate him for the time he was out of pocket. Mr B has said he’s had to use money from some of his other assets to cover his outgoings whilst he’s been waiting for his pensions, so this is designed to compensate him for that.”

Recommended

MM-AutumnBudgetBanner
3

Lifetime allowance 2018/19 increase confirmed but pensions absent

The Government has confirmed that the lifetime allowance 2018/19 will rise in line with inflation, but savers have been offered little else in the Autumn Budget. The lifetime allowance will increase from £1m to £1,030,000 to match CPI from 2018/19.  Though the maximum amount the can be saved each year into a Junior Isa or […]

Business-Handshake-Finance-Deal-700.jpg

Rathbones to drop Speirs & Jeffrey name after £104m acquisition

Scotland’s largest independent wealth manager Speirs & Jeffrey will change its name after its £104m acquisition by Rathbones. Rathbones announced this morning it is buying Speirs & Jeffrey, which has funds under management of £6.7bn. The initial consideration of £104m comprises £79m cash and £25m through the issue of new Rathbone shares. Rathbones is also lining […]

We'll do great things together
1

Which consolidator has the winning model?

As consolidators continue to acquire advice firms, analysts are assessing the financial position of key firms in the market to see how long the buying spree can continue. Aim-listed AFH continues to lead the way in volume of acquisitions, with 14 in the year to October 2017, its recently released accounts show, and eight so […]

105

Paul Lewis: Percentage charges are destroying client wealth

I didn’t do Latin at school (I was in the German stream), so I had to look up “ad valorem”. My online dictionary reveals it is the Latin for “rip-off”. Estate agents love ad valorem, although they are not usually posh enough to call it that. Almost all charge a percentage of the selling price of […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 3 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Is it all still Pete Tong at the FOS?

    Since 2011 we have been conducting research via a simple survey to gauge what advisers think about service levels and standards delivered by the FOS, in particular looking at their processes and the fairness of the system.

    The first survey ran in 2011, then 2014 and finally, our last was in 2016, with the same questions.

    A particularly disturbing trend was the increase of firms who had experienced false or manufactured accusations from complainants in an attempt to gain compensation, which went up from an already large 64% in 2011 to 74% in 2014.

    2016 continued to show a consistent negativity of experience.

    So, what does 2018 look like?

    Another two years have passed, and we want to know, will 2018 see any improvement on the:

    71% of advisers that felt FOS adjudications are unfair?
    69% of advisers that felt adjudicators help create complaints where no complaint existed?
    85% of advisers that felt FOS rules place an adviser or firm in a ‘guilty until proven innocent’ position from outset?
    FOS Review

    Channel 4 ‘Dispatches’ itself tackled the FOS earlier this year, painting a rather bleak picture of operations. As a result of the programme, FOS Boss Caroline Wayman has launched a review so it could “better understand and address the concerns” raised by Dispatches. This will be reported to Parliament shortly before summer recess.

    Hopefully our survey, which will be shared with MM, the FOS and Nicky Morgan (Chair of the TSC), will prove timely, and for Ms. Wayman provide a view of the FOS from an adviser perspective. And the industry itself can ponder if things have got better or not since 2011, 2014 and 2016.

    You can compete it here: https://bit.ly/2LWYGuf

    Your input would be greatly appreciated.

  2. If this is the same Nicky Morgan who was Education Secretary on a part time basis, I am not holding my breath.

    If they had sent it electronically, and his email was hacked, guess who would be to blame.

    Besides if post is a problem in your area, put in your request early.

  3. Why does FOS feel that a customer living abroad and so not pre-empting postal delays is the insurer’s issue? It’s common to require claim forms, especially in these days of evidencing the right actions have been taken. The reason for not emailing is similarly common. Prime example of FOS favouring the customer for issues not within the insurer’s control.

Leave a comment

Close

Why register with Money Marketing ?

Providing trusted insight for professional advisers.  Since 1985 Money Marketing has helped promote and analyse the financial adviser community in the UK and continues to be the trusted industry brand for independent insight and advice.

News & analysis delivered directly to your inbox
Register today to receive our range of news alerts including daily and weekly briefings

Money Marketing Events
Be the first to hear about our industry leading conferences, awards, roundtables and more.

Research and insight
Take part in and see the results of Money Marketing's flagship investigations into industry trends.

Have your say
Only registered users can post comments. As the voice of the adviser community, our content generates robust debate. Sign up today and make your voice heard.

Register now

Having problems?

Contact us on +44 (0)20 7292 3712

Lines are open Monday to Friday 9:00am -5.00pm

Email: customerservices@moneymarketing.com