DRN-6051103

The complaint Mr and Mrs M complain, through their representative, about how The Prudential Assurance Company Limited have administered a reviewable whole of life policy they hold. They’re unhappy that the policy’s sum assured was significantly reduced without any explanation. What happened The background to this complaint is well known to both parties so I won’t go over it in great detail, however the key points are as follows: • Mr and Mrs M complained to Prudential in April 2024 as the policy’s sum assured fell by over £200,000. • Prudential issued their final response letter in August 2024 explaining that they’d experienced system issues due to migration to new system in 2019. Because of this, the policy’s sum assured had been overstated but the issue had been subsequently resolved. They apologised for any inconvenience that had been caused and paid compensation of £325. • Mr and Mrs M’s representative then raised a further complaint on their behalf in December 2024 as the policy’s sum assured still appeared to be lower than it should be. • The complaint was referred to us in June 2025 as Prudential hadn’t responded. • Prudential then issued a final response letter in September 2025. They apologised for the poor level of service they’d provided and said that they’d been unable to deal with enquiries in a timely manner. They went to say that they would review the complaint in 30 days and offered an additional £325 in compensation. • They also issued a further final response in November 2025. They explained that they’d previously been unable to respond to the complaint fully until their system issues had been resolved. They clarified that the policy’s sum assured was £572,037.83 and apologised for the length of time it had taken to resolve the issue and offered a further £375 in compensation for the poor service they’d provided. • The complaint was reviewed by one of our investigators who didn’t think that Prudential needed to take any further action as the compensation they’d offered was fair and reasonable. She also thought that Prudential didn’t need to reimburse Mr and Mrs M’s legal fees as Mr and Mrs M had chosen to use professional representation instead of dealing with the matter themselves for free. • There was further discussion between the investigator and Prudential which resulted in an additional compensation payment being made to Mr and Mrs M. This brought the total compensation paid to £1,350. • Mr and Mrs M’s representative didn’t accept the investigator’s findings. They thought that the compensation was insufficient as it didn’t reflect the fact that Mr and Mrs M were elderly and had been caused a great deal of distress by the erroneous reduction in the policy’s sum assured. This had been aggravated by the length of time it had taken the matter to be resolved. They also thought that it was reasonable for Prudential to cover the cost of legal fees given the delays in resolving the issue and the lack of communication which had greatly increased the time spent on the complaint.

-- 1 of 3 --

The investigator wasn’t persuaded to change her opinion, so the complaint has been passed to me to decide. 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. It isn’t in dispute that Prudential made an error and incorrectly reduced the sum assured on Mr and Mrs M’s policy. They accepted that they made a failing here and the level of service they subsequently provided to Mr and Mrs M was below the required standard. Wit this in mind, my role here is to determine whether the compensation they’ve offered is fair and reasonable. Our service can make awards to complainants for the trouble, distress and inconvenience they have been caused by the respondent firm. Guidance on our approach towards the awards is in our website, at the following link - https://www.financial- ombudsman.org.uk/consumers/expect/compensation-for-distress-or-inconvenience . It says “An award of over £750 and up to around £1,500 could be fair where the impact of a business's mistake has caused substantial distress, upset and worry – even potentially a serious offence or humiliation. There may have been serious disruption to daily life over a sustained period, with the impact felt over many months, sometimes over a year. It could also be fair to award in this range if the business's actions resulted in a substantial short- term impact.” I appreciate that Mr and Mrs M’s representative thinks that a higher level of compensation is warranted in the specific circumstances of this complaint. It is clear that Mr and Mrs M were subject to a substantial amount of distress and inconvenience since the time they first complained in April 2024. Prudential took a very long time to correct their error and they didn’t respond to numerous chasers from Mr and Mrs M’s representative which would undoubtedly have had an impact on Mr and Mrs M given the importance of the policy towards their end of life planning. However, on balance, I would consider an award of £1,350 to be fair compensation for Prudential’s failings. I think this sum is reflective of the substantial distress Mr and Mrs M were caused and the length of time it took to resolve the issue. I don’t think they were subject to the sustained distress, severe disruption or extremely serious short-term impact that would meet the bar for a higher level of compensation, so I’m not persuaded that Prudential need to make any further payments. Taking into account the circumstances of this complaint and awards I’ve made in similar cases; I’m satisfied the compensation that Prudential have paid is broadly fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. I’ve then considered if Prudential need to cover the fees charged by Mr and Mrs M’s representative. I note their point that Mr and Mrs M are elderly and only instructed their representative because of the lack of communication and any progress from Prudential. I can understand their frustration with the poor service they received from Prudential. However, I note that the final response letter they received in August 2024 directed them to this service if the matter hadn’t been resolved to their satisfaction. Had they done this, then the matter would have been progressed without any legal fees being incurred. The available evidence also shows that they were able to correspond with Prudential and raise the initial complaint prior to the representative’s involvement. With this in mind, I’m not persuaded that it would be fair for me to ask Prudential to cover the

-- 2 of 3 --

fees Mr and Mrs M have been charged by their representative. Therefore, as they’ve already paid Mr and Mrs M the compensation of £1,350 for the poor service they received, I won’t be asking Prudential to do anything else to resolve this complaint. My final decision For the reasons I’ve given above, I think the compensation that The Prudential Assurance Company Limited have already paid to Mr and Mrs M is fair and reasonable. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr M and Mrs M to accept or reject my decision before 21 May 2026. Marc Purnell Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --