DRN-6318311

The complaint Mrs L complains that she has received a lack of communication and customer service from Family Assurance Friendly Society Limited trading as OneFamily (‘One Family’), since taking out her Over 50s policy and during crises such as the Covid pandemic. What happened The informal nature of our Service means I've outlined what I think are the key points and events below. Mrs L took out an Over 50’s policy with OneFamily in May 2017. Mrs L later went on to complain to OneFamily in April 2025 and, as part of that, she asked it to cancel her policy. And, in light of Mrs L’s correspondence with OneFamily and our Service, and for ease of reference, I think her complaint points can be summarised as follows: • Complaint 1 – Being points 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Mrs L’s complaint letter – A general, ongoing, lack of communication – OneFamily hasn’t attempted to keep in regular contact with Mrs L since the policy was incepted. For example, it didn’t send annual renewal notices to check if she wanted to continue with the policy, customer care information, newsletters or check if the cost of living was impacting her. It only contacted her annually to notify her of its Annual General Meeting (‘AGM’), for example. And this is in stark contrast to providers of other policies she and family and friends have, who send regular offers and enquire if support is needed. • Complaint 2 – Being points 1, 2 and 8 of Mrs L’s complaint letter – A lack of support during and post the Covid pandemic – despite new regulatory rules during these times, OneFamily made no attempt to check in with Mrs L about, for example, affordability, to offer a payment holiday and check if the rising cost of living was impacting her. While it isn’t that she needed a payment break, it should have contacted her anyway in the way all providers were required to, and in the way others did, to offer this and to invite her to contact it if in difficulty. • Complaint 3 – Being points 9, 10 and 11 of Mrs L’s complaint letter – OneFamily has given her conflicting information and insubstantial answers about the policy by phone and it didn’t follow up in writing. For example, when she sought reassurance it would pay a claim if she paid her premiums, she was told there’s no ‘Payout promise’. And, while she was told only the first half of death benefits goes to a nominated beneficiary, it didn’t her where the other half would be paid. Mrs L said that in failing to do the above OneFamily hasn’t acted in line with FCA principles, rules and guidelines, such as consumer duty, treating customers fairly and providing them with clear, fair and not misleading information. Mrs L said her complaint is based on her experiences with OneFamily, in contrast to those with her other providers and businesses, and her family and friends with theirs, and in light of what she now knows about FCA rules. Mrs L said that OneFamily has caused her upset and distress. She cancelled her policy and wants a refund of premiums, an apology and for OneFamily to erase her personal data under GDPR. Mrs L also said she only realised about what should and shouldn’t be done, after she’d spoken to family and friends and done did a deep dive into FCA rules. And that she decided to complain, as she lost faith in OneFamily and feels it treats customers unfairly.

-- 1 of 6 --

In OneFamily’s final response letter it said, in summary, that: • The policy covers customers for life so it doesn’t send renewal notices. The premium is agreed at inception and the agreement remains unchanged while these are paid (which Mrs L’s were). It kept in contact annually and invited Mrs L to its AGM, so she had the opportunity to raise queries. And if it has news it tries to communicate this, for example it attempted to call Mrs L in 2024 about an available policy feature. • While it could be argued that it fell outside the FCA’s pandemic guidance Mrs L has referred to, it still took steps to meet these. In 2020, it made information about payment holidays available on its website, encouraging affected customers to contact it and it offered tailored support to those that did or missed payments. In respect of the rising cost of living, there’s no expectation that it contact customers individually. And it provides support and guidance to those that make it aware of difficulties. • It only found one call Mrs L made to it in November 2017, where she requested a beneficiary nomination form that it sent to her a few days later – it invited her to provide it with information for it to try to locate further calls, such as dates, times and other numbers. It said the purpose of a nominated beneficiary is to allow quicker payment, as in line with legislation it can pay up to £5,000 without needing to see a Grant of Probate or Will. And any remaining funds are paid to the estate. • It said ‘Payout promise’ can refer to the amount of a claim, or speed of payment. And while, as explained in its literature, it’s possible to pay more in premiums than the sum assured, as Mrs L’s premiums no longer needed to be paid from age 90, it would have always paid out more than the premiums she’d paid. • While the policy hasn’t met Mrs L’s expectations, it would have paid out should a claim have been made and it didn’t think it had failed to act in line with regulations, so it wouldn’t refund her premiums. • It couldn’t fully remove Mrs L’s details from its system at this time. Under GDPR it has the right to retain personal data to comply with legislation and it aims to keep to the six-year industry standard following the end of a customer relationship in respect of holding data for ‘no longer than is necessary’. It reassured Mrs L that it doesn’t sell customer data to third parties and that it had opted her out of any marketing. One of our Investigators said, in summary, that we can’t consider Mrs L’s complaints 1 and 3, as these have been made too late for us to do so under our rules. And they weren’t satisfied there were exceptional circumstances which meant we could do so outside our timescales. In respect of complaint 2 our Investigator said that, while that has been made in time for us to consider, they weren’t asking OneFamily to do anything as it hadn’t done anything wrong. This is because the guidance and regulations at the time of the Covid pandemic and rising cost of living – otherwise known as the ‘cost of living crisis’ – didn’t require firms to contact each customer. Mrs L said she didn’t miss any premiums and they hadn’t seen evidence to suggest she made OneFamily aware of any difficulties during these times. So OneFamily wasn’t required to directly contact Mrs L to, for example, offer a payment holiday. Mrs L didn’t agree. She said, in summary, that in respect of the timescales in which her complaint was made, she isn’t currently working, she’s incapacitated due to illness and struggled to make her complaint to OneFamily. She raised this after speaking to others and doing research into the rules and regulations, and she couldn’t have complained sooner as she didn’t have the understanding she does now. Mrs L also feels we haven’t considered her points about OneFamily’s duty of care and FCA principles and guidance, nor that it has incorrectly said it isn’t bound by those she referred to.

-- 2 of 6 --

What I’ve decided – and why While I understand Mrs L will be disappointed, I don’t think we can consider most of her complaint. I’ve set out below the parts we can and can’t consider and why. I’ve also set out why I’m not asking OneFamily to do anything in respect of those I think we can consider. And these reasons for this are largely the same as those given by our Investigator. At this point, I should say that I have summarised and responded to Mrs L’s complaint in far less detail than the parties have and in my own words. I’m not going to respond to every point made. No discourtesy is intended by this. Our rules allow me to do this and it simply reflects our informal nature. If there’s something I’ve not mentioned, it isn’t because I’ve ignored it – I haven’t. I’m satisfied I don’t need to do that to reach my decision. Where the evidence is unclear, or there are conflicts, I’ve made my decision based on the balance of probabilities. In other words I’ve looked at what evidence we do have, and the surrounding circumstances, to help me decide what I think is likely to have happened. The rules we’re bound by Our Service doesn’t have a free hand to consider every complaint brought to us. We must follow the rules we’re bound by, known as the Dispute Resolution (‘DISP’) Rules – found in the Financial Conduct Authority’s handbook. And DISP 2.8.2R says that, unless the business consents (OneFamily hasn’t), we can’t consider a complaint if it’s referred to us: “…(2) more than: (a) six years after the event complained of; or (if later) (b) three years from the date on which the complainant became aware (or ought reasonably to have become aware) that they had cause for complaint; unless the complainant referred the complaint to the respondent or to the Ombudsman within that period and has a written acknowledgement or some other record of the complaint having been received; unless: (3) in the view of the Ombudsman, the failure to comply with the time limits in DISP 2.8.2 R or DISP 2.8.7 R was as a result of exceptional circumstances;…” What I can’t consider – complaints 1 and 3 Complaints 1 and 2 In respect of complaint 1, in essence, I think Mrs L feels the level of ongoing contact she has received from OneFamily since she first took out the policy in 2017 hasn’t been good enough, and when compared to other policy providers. Mrs L didn’t complain about this until 2025 though, more than six years after taking the policy out in 2017. And, turning to whether I think Mrs L was, or ought reasonably to have become, aware she had cause to complain about this more than three years before she did in 2025, I appreciate Mrs L said she complained more recently having spoken to others and after now knowing the rules which she feels support her points. But Mrs L didn’t need to know all the details or everything that might have gone wrong at the time to make a complaint to OneFamily. Certainty isn’t required, it’s enough for Mrs L to be aware (whether actually or

-- 3 of 6 --

constructively) that there was, or may be, a problem which had, or might have, caused her to lose out. And I think it’s fair to conclude that a reasonable person would know they could complain about something they were unhappy with. I think that when Mrs L took out her policy in 2017 she likely had her own expectations about the level of communication OneFamily should have been providing her with since then. And that it’s clear from Mrs L’s comments that she feels it hasn’t ever met these. Mrs L has also said she’s aware she hasn’t been receiving the same level and type of communication from OneFamily as she has from other providers. And I think it was likely Mrs L’s existing concerns about OneFamily’s communication – that she felt this wasn’t meeting her expectations and/or needs, and that she might be losing out from a customer care perspective as a result – that caused her to consult others about their experience and look into the rules and regulations. So, for the above reasons, I think Mrs L was aware, or ought reasonably to have become aware, she had cause for concern about OneFamily’s communication with her more than three years before she raised her complaint about this in 2025. And this means I can’t consider complaint 1 of Mrs L’s. I do, however, think we can consider complaint 2 of Mrs L’s, which more specifically concerns what she feels was a lack of support from OneFamily during and following the Covid pandemic, in light of new rules during that time. While I appreciate this still concerns the communication OneFamily provided her with, the events Mrs L has said OneFamily didn’t provide her with support through are considered as having taken place from 2020. And that’s within six years of when Mrs L first complained to OneFamily about this in 2025. So I’ve considered, and will come back to, complaint 2 below. Complaint 3 Mrs L has said that she was given conflicting information and insubstantial answers by OneFamily by phone about her policy after taking this out. Having searched its records using Mrs L’s previous and current phone numbers, OneFamily found that it had one call with her, in November 2017, since she took the policy out in May 2017. While OneFamily no longer has a copy of this, the call notes show that beneficiary nomination, for example, was mentioned, and I understand OneFamily then sent Mrs L a beneficiary nomination and information form as a result. And Mrs L hasn’t pointed to, with times and dates, or provided evidence of, any more recent calls with OneFamily which might have taken place within our timescales when given the opportunity to. So, based on the available evidence, it seems likely to me that the conversations Mrs L is referring to – where she feels she was given conflicting and insubstantial information by OneFamily about, for example, where the death benefit would be paid – took place around the time of the policy inception in May 2017 and/or during her later November 2017 call with it. Mrs L didn’t raise a complaint about this until more than six years later though, in 2025. And, in respect of our three-year timescale, I think it’s clear Mrs L has been unhappy with the information she has said she was given by OneFamily ever since the calls took place. In addition, the letter OneFamily sent Mrs L following the November 2017 call – which was correctly addressed so I think it was likely sent to and received by Mrs L, even if she no longer recalls this – set out how the death benefits would be paid. So if Mrs L felt unhappy with the information she’d been given by OneFamily and that it wasn’t clear and consistent, then I think she ought reasonably to have become aware she had cause to complain about this at the time. And, as I’ve said, I think it’s fair to conclude that a reasonable person would know they could complain about something they weren’t happy with.

-- 4 of 6 --

So I think Mrs L was aware, or ought reasonably to have become aware, she had cause for complaint to OneFamily about this more than three years before she raised her complaint in 2025. And this this means I can’t consider complaint 3 of Mrs L’s. Exceptional circumstances We can look into complaints brought out of time if there were exceptional circumstances that caused the delay. But the bar for exceptional circumstances is a high one – guidance to our rules gives an example of such circumstances as where the complainant was incapacitated. I’ve taken into account that Mrs L has said she isn’t currently working due to her ill health having incapacitated her. While I don’t doubt the impact Mrs L’s circumstances are now having on her, as per our rules I must consider whether I think exceptional circumstances were present during the above timescales, which caused the delay in her raising complaint 1 and 3. I’ve not seen anything to persuade me that Mrs L wasn’t able to correspond about her complaints during those times. And I respectfully note that, while it might have been harder for her to do so, she has still been able to recently do that. Given all this and from the evidence we’ve been provided with, I’m not satisfied exceptional circumstances exist to explain the delay in Mrs L making her complaints 1 and 3. So, while this will be disappointing for Mrs L, for the reasons set out above, I can’t consider complaints 1 and 3 as I don’t think these have been brought in time for me to do so. What I can consider – complaint 2 I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. As set out above, Mrs L thinks she received a lack of support from OneFamily during and post the Covid pandemic. That, despite new regulatory rules during these times, it made no attempt to check in with her about, for example, affordability, to offer a payment holiday and to check if the cost-of-living crisis was impacting her. In deciding this complaint I’ve taken into account relevant law and regulations, the Regulator’s rules, guidance and standards and codes of practice, along with what I consider to have been good industry practice at the relevant time. Also including guidelines the FCA published for supporting customers facing temporary difficulties due to Covid-19, as well as its guidance and expectations for firms concerning the rising cost of living, which set out actions that a firm should take. Having considered all the available information, while Mrs L has said her other policy providers contacted her during the above times to let her know what support was available if needed – and that she thinks OneFamily should have done that too – that doesn’t mean to say OneFamily has done anything wrong here that would cause me to consider asking it to do anything. And, while I understand Mrs L’s strength of feeling, I don’t think it has for the following reasons. OneFamily wasn’t required to actively contact all customers under the guidance. And it has explained that it put information on its website for customers to get in touch if needed during the pandemic, and that it offered affected customers support if they did so, for example, in line with the guidance and in the way I’d have reasonably expected it to. I’m also mindful that if Mrs L had been struggling with premiums or if her circumstances were impacting her ability to maintain her OneFamily policy and she felt she needed more support or information from it as a result, then she could have contacted it. And when considering

-- 5 of 6 --

Mrs L already had some awareness from her other providers of the type of support she might be able to seek if needed. There’s no indication Mrs L made OneFamily aware of any difficulties she might have been having though. And, in any case, while I understand Mrs L might have found it reassuring if she’d received more active contact from OneFamily offering support in the event she had needed it, she hasn’t said that she did need this, that she’d been in any financial difficulty or that she had needed a payment holiday, for example. So, having considered all the information provided, I’ve seen nothing which suggests OneFamily has treated Mrs L unfairly or unreasonably in the circumstances. And this means I’m not asking it to do anything. Briefly, Mrs L said OneFamily hasn’t erased her personal data under GDPR when asked. It isn’t our role to decide whether a business has breached data protection laws – that’s the role of the Information Commissioners Office. But we can look at whether a business has treated a customer fairly and reasonably in its course of business. OneFamily recorded Mrs L’s data for the purposes of opening and running her policy. It said it needs to keep information about Mrs L due to its legal obligations. And the regulations say the ‘right to be forgotten’ isn’t an absolute one and only applies in certain circumstances. In brief, OneFamily is entitled to keep Mrs L’s data in case of complaints or legal claims, for example. And I can’t say it has acted unfairly or unreasonably in the circumstances. In summary, while I understand Mrs L will be disappointed, I’m not asking OneFamily to do anything for the above reasons. My final decision For the reasons given above, we can’t consider complaint 1 and 3 of Mrs L’s and, in respect of complaint 2, I’m not asking Family Assurance Friendly Society Limited trading as OneFamily to do anything. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs L to accept or reject my decision before 29 May 2026. Holly Jackson Ombudsman

-- 6 of 6 --