DRN-6264188

The complaint Mrs R is unhappy that Zurich Assurance Ltd didn’t place her Hambro Adaptable Life Plan (ALP) into Trust. Zurich are now responsible to answer a complaint made about the administration of this plan and so I will only refer to them throughout this decision. What happened Mrs R took out an ALP which commenced on 1 March 1984. A Schedule was issued, the monthly premium and sum assured was noted within it. There were some special provisions noted but whether the ALP was written in Trust was not mentioned. It was noted that the Provisions 1707-1 applied to the Schedule. Zurich provided this service with a copy of the 1707-1 Provisions. An internal new business information sheet provided a list of documents with tick boxes to indicate if they had been included with the application or were to follow. Next to ‘Trust’ neither box was ticked. Mr R has represented Mrs R with her complaint. He took out the same policy as Mrs R at the same time and has provided his policy illustration document. This set out details around the income tax relief available on insurance premiums being paid. It didn’t mention Capital Transfer Tax (CTT) which is what we now know as Inheritance Tax (IHT). In January 1994 Zurich wrote to Mrs R, the letter explained that the sum assured was being increased with no increase to the monthly premiums. On 20 May 1994 Mr R contacted Zurich on behalf of Mrs R, following a letter he had received. The call note sets out that Trust forms and options about Mrs R’s policy should be sent out. And it stated that Mr R had expressed unhappiness with the policy, the way it had been sold and Mr R explained they hadn’t benefited from Life Assurance Premium Relief (LAPR). Mr R contacted Zurich in 2020 to refer a complaint – he said, amongst other things, that Zurich should have placed Mrs R’s plan in Trust. Mr R, when contacting this service and in correspondence with Zurich, explained this complaint point in detail. He also commented that Zurich had failed to provide evidence to this service regarding another complaint Mrs R had previously pursued. I won’t repeat everything here, but to summarise what Mr R explained, that Zurich: • Failed to place the policy in Trust in 1984 when it commenced. And said it was routine for insurers to do so at the time. Being in Trust was not required at the time as tax treatment was applied due to the policy design. • Failed to rectify the error in 1994 when he contacted them. He was told on the telephone that the plan would be placed into Trust. • Accepted they made an error by not sending him the Trust forms in 1994. Zurich provided their final response letter to Mrs R, and they have provided communications to this service. They didn’t uphold Mrs R’s complaint. They set out in summary that they had no evidence that the plan should have been placed into Trust on commencement. And, even

-- 1 of 4 --

if they didn’t send out a Trust form to Mrs R in 1994 following their discussion, she should have chased things up at some point between then and when she referred this complaint point to them. Zurich explained that they couldn’t do anything to place the plan into Trust without Mrs R completing and submitting a Trust Deed to them. An investigator provided their assessment; they didn’t uphold Mrs R’s complaint. They set out in summary: • The evidence provided from the point of application does not indicate that the plan would automatically be held within a Trust, Mrs R would have needed to complete a Trust form. • There is no evidence that the plan should have been placed into Trust when it was taken out in 1984. Zurich said that had it been placed into Trust this would have been noted on the Schedule – which it isn’t. The policy application has a section to declare if a Trust form has been submitted – and this wasn’t ticked. And the internal new business information sheet also has a section to declare if a Trust form has been, or will be submitted and neither of these boxes were ticked. • Mr R, on behalf of Mrs R, spoke with Zurich in May 1994, he discussed placing the policy in Trust and it was noted that Trust forms would be sent. It’s reasonable that Mrs R ought to have realised the policy had not been put into Trust when she didn’t receive the Trust forms, or any confirmation from Zurich that the policy had been placed into Trust. Mr R, on behalf of Mrs R didn’t agree with the assessment, he reiterated the complaint points and pointed to a number of clauses within the policy Provisions that he says Zurich have breached. He also reiterated that he felt Zurich failed to disclose information to this service in respect of a previous complaint. There was some back and forth between the investigator and Mr R – with the investigator reiterating what could and couldn’t be considered within this complaint. As no agreement could be reached the complaint was passed to an ombudsman for consideration. 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. Zurich have given this service permission to consider this complaint even if it has been referred out of time. As such I have not needed to consider whether the complaint was referred in time. I appreciate this will come as a disappointment to Mrs R, but I’m not asking Zurich to take any action. Mr R has provided detailed information and descriptions about this complaint and pointed to specific documents, which I thank him for. Whilst I have considered everything that has been provided to this service, I don’t intend on commenting on each item. Instead, I will focus on what I have determined are the key aspects of the complaint. When considering what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances, I need to take account of relevant law and regulations, Regulator’s rules, guidance and standards and codes of practice, and what I consider to have been good industry practice at the time. And where the evidence is incomplete, inconclusive or contradictory, I reach my conclusions on the

-- 2 of 4 --

balance of probabilities – that is, what I think is more likely than not to have happened based on the available evidence and the wider surrounding circumstances. I would like to reiterate that I am unable to consider the sale of this policy. I’m also unable to consider any comments made in relation to previous complaints this service has already considered. This service is an informal resolution service. My role is to consider if Zurich have made an error and where I establish they have, consider if they have made a fair and reasonable offer to resolve things or, if not, determine how they should put things right. Mr R explained to this service that they may suffer a financial loss in relation to IHT. That is because, if Mrs R’s policy is not held in Trust any claim paid will form part of her estate and so may be subject to inheritance tax. Neither Zurich or Mrs R hold evidence that a Trust has been formed and so currently Mrs R’s plan is not held within a Trust. I have considered the evidence provided to this service and on balance of probabilities I think it’s unlikely that Mrs R completed and sent a Trust form to Zurich in 1984 or 1994. I say that for largely the same reasons as the investigator explained within their assessment. None of the evidence from the application in 1984 indicates a Trust form was completed or was expected to be completed and Mr R had a conversation with Zurich in 1994 following which Trust forms were to be sent out. So, it was clear in 1994 that no Trust had been set up in 1984. And there’s no evidence in 1994 that the plan was placed into Trust either. Mr R said he kept records of his communications with Zurich – this is evidenced from his submissions to this service, for example he had recorded the name of the agent he spoke to in May 1994. So, in addition to the lack of evidence that a Trust was formed, I also think it likely that Mr R, on behalf of Mrs R, would have kept record of such an important document as a Trust Deed had he completed one. I appreciate Mr R has said that he was told during the call that the plan would be put into Trust. Which may have been the case – however to do so Mrs R was required to complete the Trust form and return it. There’s no evidence that this happened. That’s not to say that Mrs R is being untruthful in her submissions to this service. However, I must consider what I think is most likely based on the evidence provided. That can be scarce when an event took place so many years ago. The evidence provided does not support Mrs R having completed and provided a Trust form to Zurich in either 1984 or 1994. All of that being said, even if I was to find that at some point Zurich did make an error in relation to a Trust being set up, I would need to consider how they could rectify things. In this case that would mean assisting Mrs R to place her plan into Trust now. Mr R has mentioned that this chance has been lost – but that is not the case. Zurich have explained to Mrs R that she can place the policy in Trust now by completing and returning a signed Trust form to them. This is a fair and reasonable suggestion to resolve things. I say that because, once the plan is placed into Trust, Mrs R will be in the same position she would have been in had the plan been placed in Trust in 1984. Zurich are unable to do this for Mrs R, they can’t act as if the plan is in Trust without a completed Trust Deed. That is because a Trust Deed is a legal document that Mrs R must agree to by signing it. So, even if I agreed that Zurich made an error in 1984 or 1994 by not sending Mrs R Trust forms, or misplacing them, there is nothing I could direct Zurich do to set up the Trust which they have not already offered to Mrs R as a resolution to his complaint.

-- 3 of 4 --

Summary I appreciate this will come as a disappointment to Mrs R, but I am limited to considering only if Zurich made an error by not placing her plan into Trust under this complaint. I appreciate other points have been made including Zurich withholding information. However, I am unable to consider those points here. There is no evidence that Mrs R completed a Trust form and so I have considered on the balance of probabilities what was most likely based on the evidence provided to this service. None of the evidence provided points to a Trust form being completed by Mrs R or received by Zurich. Zurich have set out how Mrs R can now place her plan into Trust, which is a reasonable way for them to resolve this complaint point. My final decision I don’t uphold Mrs R’s complaint about Zurich Assurance Ltd. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs R to accept or reject my decision before 25 May 2026. Cassie Lauder Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --