Phoenix Life Limited · DRN-6257827

The complaint Mr J complains that Phoenix Life Limited (‘Phoenix’) has treated him unfairly in how it responds to his requests for valuations on his investment. What happened Mr J has a savings endowment investment plan administered by Phoenix, which has been in place for many years. Mr J said he used to be able to obtain same day valuations over the phone, but following a systems upgrade, he’s had difficulty obtaining valuations. Phoenix has explained Mr J’s policy remains on a legacy system, which only certain colleagues are able to access. Initially, it suggested it would arrange call-backs if relevant staff members were unavailable to take Mr J’s calls to request valuations, but more recently decided it will provide written valuations only, within 10 working days of the request. Mr J believes the 10 working day timescale is unreasonable. He said the delay in obtaining valuations prevents him from managing his policy. He feels unable to make a decision about when to cash in the policy without a real-time understanding of the current valuation. Mr J told us the issue has been ongoing for some time, during which he has raised multiple complaints to Phoenix. In addition to points noted above, Mr J is concerned that: • By not training call handlers on the legacy system, or moving his plan to the new system, Phoenix is treating him unfairly. • Phoenix does not always provide valuations within its 10 working day timescale. Sometimes requests are not responded to at all and arranged call-backs not provided. • Phoenix used to provide clear information, which set out the valuation net of tax, but recent valuations make the tax position unclear. • Phoenix has refused to pass his concerns about how his complaint has been handled to a senior manager and a phone number it provided for its complaints team didn’t work. • The issues have caused him a lot of stress and he’s spent a considerable amount of time on the phone to Phoenix. Phoenix has responded to Mr J on several occasions to address his concerns. In summary, it disputed having treated him unfairly as a result of retaining his policy on a legacy system as it wasn’t denying him the information he’d requested, but acknowledged there had been occasions where its service had been poor and awarded some compensation. Mr J remained unhappy as he felt Phoenix had agreed to fix the issue, but he continued to encounter problems in obtaining valuations for his investment, particularly since the call-back service was withdrawn. Mr J referred his complaint to our service.

-- 1 of 5 --

Mr J’s complaint was reviewed by one of our investigators, who determined they couldn’t comment on some of the issues Mr J complained of because he’d contacted our service too late. In response to his remaining concerns, they didn’t think Phoenix needed to take any further action. In summary, they said: • They couldn’t consider the issues Phoenix reviewed in its response to Mr J’s complaint dated July 2024, because he didn’t refer his complaint to us within the six- month deadline that applies to complaints referred to this service. Their comments would be limited to more recent events, which were reviewed in Phoenix’s further final response letter dated March 2025. • In their view, Phoenix had fairly addressed Mr J’s concerns by awarding compensation where it acknowledged there had been service failings. • Phoenix had confirmed Mr J’s requests for valuations had been sent within the 10 working day timescale. • They hadn’t seen anything to suggest Phoenix had promised it would resolve the issue of being unable to provide immediate valuations over the phone. • Our service isn’t able to require a business to make changes to how it operates. Mr J didn’t accept our investigator’s findings. He maintained his view that he couldn’t effectively manage his investment without access to up to date valuations and felt the investigator had failed to consider the fact he used to be able to obtain the information straightaway. Phoenix was treating him differently compared to other customers with policies that had been moved to the new system. Further, he explained the options he has been given to request valuations were not working. He said Phoenix does not respond to emails he sends to the legacy team’s mailbox, which it directed him to. Phoenix also failed to inform him it would no longer arrange call-backs to provide valuations over the phone. To investigate further, our investigator asked Phoenix to provide additional comments. In response, it said: • It had provided valuations by post in response to requests Mr J made by email to the legacy team mailbox or by phone. • Going forward, it could arrange to send the valuations by password protected emails instead of post, but it was no longer offering a call-back service. Based on the new information provided, our investigator issued further findings amending their previous outcome to uphold Mr J’s complaint. They said: • Information provided by Phoenix indicated it had posted valuations in response to Mr J’s emails, but didn’t send replies by email, which Mr J was expecting. • A valuation issued in July 2025 said it was based on the value of Mr J’s policy in April 2025. Mr J had asked for a current valuation. • Mr J wasn’t given notice that the valuation call-back service was being withdrawn. • It was their understanding Mr J would prefer to receive valuations by email rather than post and recommended Phoenix arrange for future valuations to be emailed. • To acknowledge the additional service failings identified, Phoenix should pay Mr J an additional compensation award amounting to £50. Phoenix agreed with our investigator’s recommendation to pay the additional compensation, but Mr J remained unhappy. He said:

-- 2 of 5 --

• The posted valuations were in response to phone calls he’d made, rather than his email requests. His emails had been ignored. • Phoenix had not acknowledged instances where it had breached its 10 working day service agreement and he wanted to know what can be done if this happens again. • His main concern was that Phoenix had gone back on its previous agreement to provide timely valuations. • He wanted to know if Phoenix would pay compensation for any financial loss incurred should the value of the policy fall between the time of receiving a valuation during the 10 working day timeframe and any decision he makes to cash in the policy. Our investigator acknowledged Mr J’s remaining concerns, but wasn’t minded to change their opinion on how his complaint should be resolved. As matters remain unresolved, Mr J’s 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. I’m broadly in agreement with the conclusion reached by our investigator. I’ll explain why. Time limits Due to the rules that apply to this service, I’m not able to address all of the concerns Mr J has raised about how Phoenix has administered his investment and the service he’s received. In their initial view, our investigator explained this service wouldn’t be able to address the concerns Phoenix responded to in its complaint response dated July 2024. This is because Mr J missed the six-month deadline to refer his concerns to our service and there was no evidence to indicate exceptional circumstances applied. Neither party has made further submissions in response to our investigator’s finding on the time limit rules. I therefore won’t address the issues that are time-barred any further within this decision. The remaining issues in dispute I’ve carefully reviewed the entirety of Mr J’s submissions and while I note he has raised a number of different concerns during the complaint process, I’ll limit my comments to what I consider to be the core remaining issues that are not impacted by the time limits referenced above. Namely, the continued customer service issues Mr J has encountered in attempting to obtain up to date and timely valuations for his investment. I’ve reviewed copies of valuations Phoenix sent to Mr J by post in June, July and August 2025 and January 2026. I’ve not seen any evidence to indicate any of these valuations were issued outside Phoenix’s 10 working day timescale. Mr J believes the recent valuations he received have only been issued in response to phone calls he made rather than the emails he sent, but based on the evidence I’ve seen, I don’t agree his email requests for valuations have been ignored entirely. While failing to acknowledge his emails at all was poor service in my view, Phoenix has explained its recent valuations were issued in response to a combination of phone calls and emails. I’ve not seen anything to suggest this is incorrect.

-- 3 of 5 --

I’ve thought about Mr J’s concern that the valuations are not up to date. Aside from the time it takes Phoenix to issue the valuations, which I’ll address below, I note Phoenix’s July 2025 valuation stated it was based on the value of Mr J’s policy in April 2025. Phoenix has explained this valuation was issued in response to an email Mr J had sent eight working days prior. It’s not clear to me why Phoenix would have provided figures that were three months old in this particular valuation. I’ve thought about whether this might have been a typo, but the transfer value appeared reduced compared to the figures provided in the June and August 2025 valuations. I’m satisfied the other valuations appear to be based on up to date figures. I understand Mr J remains unhappy with Phoenix’s 10 working day timescale more generally, as he feels this causes an unreasonable delay, which prevents him from being able to make an informed decision on whether to cash in the policy. He’s also unhappy that he’s being treated differently to customers with policies on the new system. I think it’s understandable that any delay between requesting and receiving a valuation has caused Mr J frustration, particularly when valuations were provided more quickly in the past and customers with other types of policies may not encounter the same issues. However, considering the type of investment Mr J holds with Phoenix, which I understand is intended to be held long-term and is not actively managed by him, I haven’t seen anything to suggest that he has been unfairly disadvantaged by Phoenix’s decision to send valuations in writing only, within the timescale it has set. I’m also not persuaded this has unreasonably prevented Mr J from making decisions about when to cash in the policy. I appreciate Mr J is concerned the delay in receiving valuations impacts his ability to make a decision on whether to cash in the policy as the value could fluctuate. But even if Phoenix could offer immediate valuations, price fluctuations – both up and down – could still occur during the withdrawal process. I therefore don’t agree with Mr J’s suggestion that Phoenix ought to redress any fall in value that occurs between it issuing a valuation and Mr J opting to cash in the policy. That said, I agree with our investigator’s view that there have been further service failings. In particular, Phoenix’s communication with Mr J could have been better, as it appears Mr J was not aware that Phoenix had made a decision to respond to valuation requests by post and no longer arrange call-backs. And as I noted above, it appears Phoenix did not respond to, or simply acknowledge any of Mr J’s emails to the legacy team mailbox. Had it clearly explained it would be responding to his valuation requests by post, this may have gone some way to avoid some of the frustration and stress that Mr J has encountered by receiving no replies from the email mailbox he was specifically directed to, and time spent making phone calls. I agree with our investigator’s stance that Phoenix has previously taken reasonable action to acknowledge and redress the customer service failings it identified at the time, but in my view, it would be fair to award an additional payment to Mr J to address the further customer service problems he has encountered since. I’ve explained what Phoenix should do below. Complaints handling Mr J made us aware of some concerns related to service he received from Phoenix’s complaints team, which I note weren’t addressed by our investigator. Mr J said he had difficulty getting in touch with Phoenix to discuss his complaint, as he was given a phone number for the complaints team that didn’t work. He also provided copies of emails which indicated a refusal by Phoenix to pass his complaint to a senior manager. I appreciate these points don’t appear to continue to be of great concern to Mr J – but for completeness, I’d like to clarify that complaint points related to complaints handling typically

-- 4 of 5 --

won’t fall within the remit of this service, unless considered ancillary to a regulated activity also complained about. In the circumstances of Mr J’s complaint, I don’t consider these specific points related to his contact with Phoenix’s complaints team to be ancillary to Mr J’s main concern about the service he’s received when attempting to obtain timely valuations. I therefore won’t reach a finding on them. Putting things right To acknowledge the additional frustration and inconvenience caused to Mr J, who I understand continued to seek valuations for his investment by phone and email without being clearly informed valuations will be issued by post only, I direct Phoenix to pay him £50 compensation. This payment is in addition to compensation Phoenix has previously awarded to acknowledge service failings. If any previous compensation offers remain outstanding, Phoenix should also arrange to make payment. Finally, I note Phoenix has confirmed it can send future valuations to Mr J by password protected email rather than post. As sending valuations by email will enable the information to be received more quickly than post, Phoenix should arrange for this method to be used in response to valuation requests Mr J makes going forward. I appreciate this answer may feel disappointing to Mr J, as I understand he wants Phoenix to make changes to enable immediate, real-time valuations to be provided on demand. As previously noted by our investigator, our service does not have authority to interfere with how a firm operates its business, so I’m unable to make a direction to that effect. My final decision My final decision is that I uphold Mr J’s complaint. I require Phoenix Life Limited to take the actions set out above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr J to accept or reject my decision before 20 May 2026. Rebecca Faiers Ombudsman

-- 5 of 5 --