DRN-6321214

The complaint Mr N complains that Scottish Equitable Plc trading as AEGON (“AEGON”) caused him loss due to a glitch with its online portal which caused him to unintentionally duplicate a trade. He seeks compensation for the tax consequences and missed gains in the value of equities he would have owned but for the glitch. What happened Mr N had a General Investment Account (“GIA”) with Aegon. On 18 October 2024, Mr N sold gilt fund investments via AEGON’s online portal, which ultimately generated a loss of £15,000. On the same date, and via the same portal, he attempted to sell JPM European Growth Fund units worth approximately £30,000, which would have generated a capital gain of £15,000. Mr N has claimed that as he attempted to sell the JPM European Growth Fund units he experienced technical issues with the online portal and that the process froze mid-way and in order to fix the problem he switched off his computer, logged back in to AEGON’s online portal and sought to complete the transaction. This time he says the sale went through and the units were sold for approximately £30,000. He completed a further sale of the same class of units on the same day worth approximately £6,000. Over a month later, on 27 November 2024, Mr N checked his AEGON GIA and noticed two sale transactions of approximately £30,000 of the JPM European Growth Fund units. Mr N says he realised at this point that his first attempted sale of those units had actually completed successfully, such that he had inadvertently sold approximately £60,000 worth of the units, when he had in fact only intended to sell approximately £30,000 of the units. Mr N contacted AEGON to explain what had happened and in particular that this error was the result of a system failure in AEGON’s online portal. Additionally, he complained that the error had ultimately led to an unintended capital gain of £15,000, which meant he was now liable to pay £3,000 in capital gains tax. Whilst the complaint was being investigated by Aegon, Mr N did not reinvest the additional £30,000 cash he had received as he expected that the investigation would confirm that there had indeed been as system failure and that AEGON would be able to reverse the duplicate transaction. On 30 January 2025, AEGON issued its final response letter. It did not uphold Mr N’s complaint. It stated that on 18 October 2024, the transactions were carried out in accordance with his instructions. It further noted that during a call between Mr N and AEGON on 21 October 2024 (i.e., three days after the transactions), he did not report any glitch in the online portal and instead asked for a capital gains or loss report. Unhappy with this outcome, Mr N brought his complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service. Mr N reiterated that he had experienced a glitch on the AEGON online portal and that this led to a duplicate transaction. This had cost him in terms of having to pay capital gains tax. In addition, he lost out in capital growth on the JPM European Growth Fund because he did not reinvest the approximate £30,000 from the duplicate sale as he expected

-- 1 of 4 --

AEGON to rectify the error (he eventually reinvested the cash on 18 February 2025, following the AEGON final response letter). The Investigator, after having reviewed the case, did not uphold Mr N’s complaint. She concluded that (i) there was insufficient evidence of a technical issue in AEGON’s online portal (ii) contract notes were issued the same day confirming both transactions had gone through, and (iii) generally Mr N failed to mitigate his losses. Mr N did not accept this conclusion. He argued it was obvious there was an unintended duplicate transaction and that he was trying to take advantage of capital losses of £15,000 by a single £30,000 transaction that would have registered a net gain of £15,000 and that there was no reason he would do a duplicate transaction so close the first transaction. Further, that AEGON had a duty to ensure their system operated properly which they failed to do on 18 October 2024 in his case. As Mr N rejected the Investigator’s view, the complaint came to me for decision. I issued my provisional decision on 31 March 2026. I’ve included an extract from it below. “In my view, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that there was a glitch in AEGON’s online portal. AEGON has confirmed that it has no record of any system issues on 18 October 2024 and that no other customers reported system issues on the day. Mr N has not been able to provide screenshots (or any other evidence) that might have confirmed the issues he says he faced. Instead, the records provided by AEGON confirm that all three transactions, including the first attempted sale, went through smoothly on 18 October 2024. In particular, the records show the following transactions took place: • A sale was generated at 9:10am for £30,016.90 worth of JPM European Growth Fund units. • A further sale went through at 9:11am of the same units for £30,016 worth of JPM European Growth Fund units. • A final request was generated at 9:15am for £6,015.61 worth of the same units. Further, AEGON has confirmed that contract notes confirming the sales were generated online and posted in the usual way for all three transactions. All of this suggests that on the balance of probabilities the AEGON system was operating properly on the day. However, I should add that I do not rule out the possibility that Mr N did experience technical issues from, for instance, his own internet connection or his computer freezing temporarily, but that is not the same as AEGON’s online portal being the issue (for which AEGON would have responsibility). Mr N has stated that given (i) the transactions were near identical and only a minute apart, and (ii) it should have been obvious he was trying to take advantage of capital losses, AEGON should have recognised this was a duplicate error and reversed the transaction. However, I do not agree, as AEGON was providing an execution only service and was entitled to assume the instructions it received were valid and intended. Indeed, Mr N accepted this approach when he accepted AEGON’s terms and conditions. In particular, clause 7.5.2 of its terms and conditions states as follows: “We accept all instructions in good faith. Once an instruction has been submitted and acknowledged online, we cannot make any changes to that instruction.”

-- 2 of 4 --

Thus, according to the terms to which Mr N agreed, AEGON accepts instructions in good faith and once it acknowledges them online (which would be evident in the account transaction history as mentioned below) it will execute those instructions and it’s role is not to question transactions, nor will it alter them or roll them back, even if the customer claims the transaction was an error. Additionally, I think if Mr N did consider he had experienced a technical issue when he attempted the first sale, he ought to have taken steps to avoid a duplicate sale, which he failed to do. In particular, given that he had initiated the process of the first sale, I think he had a responsibility to check whether a sale had in fact gone through. Indeed, this responsibility is confirmed in AEGON’s terms and conditions. Specifically, clause 7.5.3 states: “Details of instructions are provided online within the transaction history. We will confirm to you all investment purchases and sales that are instructed by you, your advisor, or your discretionary fund manager. It is the responsibility of you and your advisor to check the transaction history and make sure the instructions have been received by us.” Thus, Mr N ought to have checked his account transaction history, which would have confirmed that the initial attempted transaction had in fact successfully gone through. Additionally, I do think that before attempting the transaction again, it would have been reasonable to call or email AEGON to notify them he had experienced technical issues and seek confirmation as to whether the initial attempt had been successful. Again, it does not appear Mr N did this. Mr N has said that because the application froze during the first sale, there would have been no reason for him to check whether the sale had gone through as it would have been fair to assume the transaction attempt had been unsuccessful. I’m not persuaded by this argument. Given he had initiated the first sale and it was in process before the alleged freeze, there was always a real possibility that the transaction had gone through and so it was his responsibility to confirm whether that was indeed the case. Additionally, I do not find persuasive Mr N’s arguments regarding claimed losses deriving from missed growth on the JPM European Growth Fund units. Even if I were to accept the alleged duplicate sale was caused by a glitch in AEGON’s system, I think Mr N’s claimed losses here would largely be due to his own decisions and his failure to mitigate potential losses (which he is under an obligation to do). In line with my reasoning above, Mr N had a responsibility to check his account history and contract notes to confirm what sales had gone through. He appears not to have done this and only discovered the issue some fives week later. Any missed growth during this specific five-week period can I think significantly be attributed to Mr N’s own actions in failing to do these checks, which ultimately prevented him from reinvesting the cash and mitigating his losses. Once Mr N learned of the alleged duplicate sale, losses from that point flowed from his own decision-making and, again, failure to mitigate potential losses. In particular, Mr N raised a complaint with AEGON on 29 November 2024. He has explained that he did not reinvest the additional cash from the second sale because he expected AEGON to correct what he believed was an error. As a result, the duplicate amount remained as cash within the GIA. AEGON issued its final response on 30 January 2025, rejecting Mr N’s complaint. Subsequently, Mr N reinvested the cash on 18 February 2025.

-- 3 of 4 --

Whilst I accept that Mr N may have been anticipating that AEGON would uphold his complaint and reverse the duplicate sale, I don’t think he could have reasonably concluded that AEGON would definitely do so. There is no indication they ever said they would do this and the duty to mitigate losses does not simply cease while a complaint is being investigated. Therefore, I think any losses deriving from missed capital gains are more the result of Mr N’s own decision not to reinvest the cash and mitigate any potential losses. Thus, in light of my findings that (i) there is insufficient evidence of any technical issues deriving from the AEGON online portal, (ii) Mr N had a responsibility to check whether the initial sale had gone through before attempting the sale again, which he could have done but did not do, and (iii) any losses in respect of missed growth deriving from the uninvested cash were the result of his decision-making and failure to mitigate, I am minded to conclude that it would not be fair and reasonable to uphold this complaint.” I have not received a response from AEGON following my provisional decision. Mr N has responded saying he does not accept my provisional decision for the reasons he has already set out. He does not add anything to what he has already stated. 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. Having reconsidered this case, my decision remains that I do not uphold this complaint. My final decision My final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr N to accept or reject my decision before 25 May 2026. Zaib Malik Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --