Aviva Life & Pensions UK Limited · DRN-6226111

The complaint Mr P complains about the service he received from Aviva Life & Pensions UK Limited (Aviva) when taking benefits from his pension. He’d like to be compensated for this. Mr P is represented in this complaint by his daughter, who I’ll refer to as “Miss P”. What happened I issued a provisional decision on 27 February 2026. I’ve recapped the background below: Although I’ve considered everything the parties have provided in this case, I won’t detail every event or communication here. This simply reflects the informal nature of our Service. I’ll summarise what happened, including the main arguments, and focus on giving the reasons for my decision. Mr P held a Personal Pension Plan (PPP) with Aviva under reference ending 610. 12 October 2022: Mr P received a reminder letter from Aviva about taking benefits. 24 January 2023: Mr P called Aviva, confirming he was ready to take policy 610 as a cash lump sum. Aviva said a new Retirement Options Pack would be sent to him. Having not received the pack, Mr P chased Aviva up several times. 7 February 2023: Mr P chased Aviva again, expressing his dissatisfaction with how long the claim process was taking. Aviva agreed to log a complaint. 10 February 2023: Aviva emailed Mr P a Retirement Options Pack, but as he couldn’t access the documents with the pin he’d been given, he raised this with Aviva. 18 February 2023: Aviva sent Mr P another Retirement Options Pack he was able to access which confirmed his transfer value was just over £36,000. Concerned this was significantly less than he’d been quoted in August 2022, Mr P contacted Aviva. 20 February 2023: Aviva reassured Mr P, explaining that an error had been made with his transfer value. It acknowledged the impact of the worry this had caused and confirmed a manager would be in touch to discuss the matter. A manager tried to contact Mr P on the same day and left a voicemail saying a new retirement pack would be issued. 21 February 2023: Mr P received a voicemail from Aviva advising that it was working to correct the issue with his fund value. 22 February 2023: Mr P received another voicemail from Aviva, confirming a system error had caused his transfer value to be quoted incorrectly. It said a new Retirement Options Pack with the correct transfer value and forms would be issued. This happened on the same day. Mr P completed and signed the relevant documentation to proceed with the payment of his cash lump sum.

-- 1 of 21 --

24 February 2023 to 1 March 2023: Having not received his lump sum payment, Mr P chased Aviva for an update. 2 March 2023: Mr P chased Aviva again. Aviva confirmed that it had chased for an update on his lump sum payment five times that day. On the same day, an Aviva manager emailed Mr P, apologising for the delayed payment and promising to keep Mr P updated. 3 March 2023: Having only received £11,000, Mr P mailed Aviva, expressing concern that he hadn’t received the entirety of the cash payment he was due. Aviva responded on the same day, apologising and explaining that the delayed and partial payment was due to a system error which would be rectified. It acknowledged this had caused him significant distress. 8 March 2023: Aviva emailed Mr P, confirming he’d receive the outstanding funds from his PPP payout on 10 March 2023. 10 March 2023: Having not received his outstanding payment or any update on the matter, Mr P emailed Aviva. He said the delay was exacerbating his health issues. An Aviva manager replied to Mr P on the same day, confirming the remainder of his payout (just over £22,000) had been paid. They apologised for the delay and inconvenience caused and confirmed their complaint team would be in touch. Aviva issued a payment confirmation letter to Mr P confirming the following: • Before tax, the total value of Mr P’s PPP had been just over £48,000. • After tax, Mr P received just over £33,000 as a cash payment (around £22,000 of which was paid on 10 March 2023), which included TFC of just over £12,000 and late payment interest. • The tax Mr P paid on the cash payment was just over £14,000. 24 March 2023: Aviva sent Mr P a P45 confirming the tax deducted from his PPP payment. Mr P later complained to Aviva, and, in summary, made the following points: • Taking retirement benefits from plan ending 610 had been traumatic, impacting his health, family, and business. He’d sought medical help on several occasions because of how much issues with Aviva had raised his stress. • Aviva’s system error wiping £12,000 off his pension value concerned him so much that it prevented him from working. • Aviva caused delays, leading to the cash payment from his PPP being paid much later than it should’ve been. • Aviva’s communication with him about resolving the issues he’d raised had been poor. • As a minimum he expected Aviva to compensate him for the cost of calls he’d made (£350) and how much he’d lost in earnings (£1,000). • Aviva hadn’t compensated him for the distress and inconvenience it had caused him. 12 April 2023: Mr P chased Aviva for an update on his complaint. Having received no response, he chased it again on 15 April 2023. 21 April 2023: Aviva acknowledged Mr P’s complaint and confirmed a response would be received no later than 28 April 2023.

-- 2 of 21 --

30 April 2023: Having heard nothing from Aviva, Mr P contacted Aviva and requested a final response to his complaint. 3 May 2023: Mr P emailed Aviva, reminding it that he was still waiting for answers to his complaints. Due to the impact of the complaint on his mental health, Miss P became Mr P’s authorised representative in his complaints. 10 May 2023: Miss P called Aviva to check it had received her father’s emails. She requested a callback to discuss Mr P’s complaints and was told this would happen within 24 hours. 11 May 2023: Having heard nothing, Miss P contacted Aviva again. 12 May 2023: Aviva contacted Miss P. It confirmed records showed that Mr P’s complaint had been resolved after £175 compensation had been offered. As Mr P hadn’t received any notification of this, Miss P asked for his complaints to be reopened. Aviva said someone would call Miss P on 15 May 2023 to confirm this had happened. 15 May 2023: Having heard nothing from Aviva, Miss P contacted it raising the following concerns: • Despite complaining in April 2023 about his claim experience, Mr P hadn’t heard anything from Aviva despite promises to compensate him for what happened, which had caused him further distress. • Aviva’s service had been poor. It repeatedly failed to return calls or send emails despite promising to do so. And when contact was made, staff had little understanding of the issues. • Aviva’s offer of £175 compensation for what happened was derisory. Although a manager agreed that this would be reviewed, she hadn’t heard anything. 16 May 2023: Further to discussing Mr P’s complaint with Aviva, Miss P sent it evidence of calls Mr P had made to Aviva to get answers about his pension and discuss his complaint. She asked Aviva to compensate Mr P for call costs, loss of earnings, stress, and inconvenience. Aviva replied the same day, saying it would review Mr P’s complaint and the level of compensation it had offered, taking into account the additional delays he’d experienced. It said it would call her the same day to discuss the matter further, to which Miss P responded confirming what time suited her. Aviva offered to increase its compensation from £175 to £450. Miss P declined this, saying the cost calls exceeded this amount, so there’d been no consideration of Mr P’s lost earnings and health issues. A callback was arranged for the following day. 17 May 2023: No contact was received by Aviva. 18 May 2023: Miss P emailed and called Aviva saying that: • Despite further calls being scheduled, she hadn’t heard anything about her father’s complaint. • While looking through documents, Mr P noticed that the National Insurance (NI) number quoted on the P45 Aviva sent him on 24 March 2023 was incorrect. She said HMRC had advised her to get this changed by Aviva as soon as possible. • She’d like someone to call her the same day to discuss her concerns.

-- 3 of 21 --

Aviva responded, saying that as the person Miss P needed to speak to wasn’t available, they’d contact her the following day. Miss P asked for a manager to call her the same day instead. 19 May 2023: Having received no response, Miss P emailed Aviva, in summary, saying: • Aviva’s customer service was extremely poor. • Not getting a proper response to the issues he’d raised was having a significant impact on Mr P, so it was essential Aviva called her to discuss the matter so she could update her father. • The issue with Aviva using Mr P’s incorrect NI number needed to be addressed. Mr P had been so distressed when he’d learned about this that Miss P hadn’t felt able to share with him that Aviva hadn’t returned calls to resolve the issue. • Given its further failings and delays, Aviva should increase its compensation offer. In a follow up email, Miss P provided further information about Mr P’s lost earnings. In summary, she said: • Over the course of three and a half months, Mr P had lost as least £1,750 in earnings due to Aviva’s failings • . As it would soon be almost four months without Mr P’s concerns being resolved, his lost earnings would rise to around £2,000. • Aviva was told in February 2023 about the impact its failure to address Mr P’s concerns was having on him. Originally it had said no evidence of this was required as it understood the effect the matter was having on him. • Miss P was concerned her father would spend time gathering more evidence of his lost earnings, only for it to be ignored or for more to be requested. She also noted that Aviva had changed its position on Mr P providing a note from his GP – this had been offered in March 2023, but Aviva had said it wasn’t required. It had since changed its position, but the GP note couldn’t be provided retrospectively. • Mr P stopped working when dealing with the issues surrounding his pension became too much to handle and when his complaint was first logged on 7 February 2023. Aviva responded on the same day, acknowledging the information Miss P had provided about call costs Mr P incurred. It noted that £450 had previously been offered and said anything following its loss assessment would be paid in addition to this. It confirmed the outcome of the loss assessment would be completed and shared in writing by 26 May 2023. Seemingly unaware of the response above, another department at Aviva also responded to Miss P’s emails, saying the loss assessment would be completed and shared via email on 22 May 2023. It added that it would amend its records to reflect Mr P’s correct NI number and arrange for confirmation to be sent to Mr P, reassuring him that there’d been no detriment due to this error. 22 May 2023: Miss P received no contact from Aviva, so she chased it by email. 24 May 2023: Miss P emailed Aviva again and received confirmation that it would be offering £450 compensation and £754 for Mr P’s evidenced call costs. It added that it would look at Mr P’s lost earning and provide its final position on this by 26 May 2023. 26 May 2023: Aviva emailed Miss P and confirmed two compensation payments of £450 and £754 had been made to Mr P via CHAPS. It said it hoped to give an answer about Mr P’s lost earnings that evening. However, no contact from Aviva was received.

-- 4 of 21 --

29 May 2023: Miss P chased Aviva but received no response. 30 May 2023: Aviva called Miss P, asking if Mr P cold provide sick notes for when he’d been unable to work. Miss P reminded Aviva that Mr P was self-employed and hadn’t required sick notes. Miss P said she’d ask Mr P if there was anything he could obtain from his GP. 2 June 2023: Miss P sent Aviva the evidence she had. Aviva responded on the same day, saying that having reviewed the available evidence, it wouldn’t be increasing its compensation offer. Miss P confirmed she’d be referring the matter to our Service. She also asked for an update on Mr P’s SAR and the issue with Aviva using the wrong NI number when he took benefits. 5 and 6 June 2023: Having received no response, Miss P chased Aviva. She noted that Mr P still hadn’t received the compensation it said it had paid in May 2023. 7June 2023: Aviva responded, saying: • Mr P’s compensation hadn’t been issued until that day as a further check had been required. No further compensation would be considered. • A request had been made for the issue with Mr P’s NI number to be corrected and an update provided to Mr P so he could let HMRC know. • Mr P’s SAR had been chased again. 9 June 2023: A manager at Aviva contacted Miss P and offered a further £150 for calls that had been made since its £754 compensation payment for calls. Miss P advised that Mr P was still waiting for the first payment. 13 June 2023: Aviva emailed Miss P, confirming that all three compensation payments due to Mr P should be received no later than 14 June 2023. And it said a loss assessment would be carried out to ensure Mr P hadn’t suffered a financial loss due to how long it had taken for him to receive his cash lump sum. 15 June 2023: As Mr P hadn’t received any of Aviva’s compensation payments, Miss P chased it. She also asked for an update on the SAR and Aviva’s position on Mr P’s lost earnings. 16, 17,19 June 2023: Miss P chased Aviva further for a response. 20 June 2023: Aviva acknowledged Miss P’s emails and said a full response would be provided shortly. 21 June 2023: Miss P wrote to Aviva, confirming Mr P had received its compensation payments. She asked Aviva to fulfil the SAR she’d made on 15 May 2023, especially as it had exceeded the deadline for responding to a SAR Mr P made when he first complained. Miss P said that if there wasn’t an update on Mr P’s loss assessment by 23 June 2023, they’d refer the matter to our Service and the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). 23 June 2023: Miss P emailed Aviva expressing disappointment that she hadn’t received its updated loss assessment or any update regarding the SAR. She confirmed she’d referred Mr P’s complaint to our Service and the SAR issue to the ICO. Aviva responded on the same day, apologising for not having the results of its latest loss assessment and explaining that calculating Mr P’s fund value was taking longer than expected. Aviva said it would call Miss P on 26 June 2023 to discuss the matter further.

-- 5 of 21 --

26 June 2023: Aviva called Miss P, saying its loss assessment was complete and that there hadn’t been a significant loss. It said the SAR would be completed within a week but didn’t have an update on the issue with Mr P’s NI number. 3 August 2023: Aviva sent Mr P a pension summary quoting policy 610. It confirmed the value of his plan was over £33,000 and included details of how Mr P could take his retirement benefits. 9 August 2023: Miss P chased Aviva for an update on the SAR. 19 August 2023: Miss P emailed Aviva, complaining about how long Mr P had been waiting for updates and requested information to be provided. She noted that Aviva repeatedly failed to meet its own timescales and was continuing to cause her father distress and inconvenience. 21 August 2023: Aviva responded to Miss P, apologising for not providing information that had previously been requested. Miss P asked for a new complaint to me raised about the issue. 10 November 2023: Miss P chased Aviva for an update on the SAR and P45 issues she’d raised. 8 December 2023: Miss P called Aviva and requested a final response to her father’s complaint. As this wasn’t available, Aviva said Miss P could refer her father’s complaint to our Service directly. Miss P referred Mr P’s complaint to our Service on 21 December 2023. As part of her submissions Miss P, in summary, said: • She wanted compensation for the time she’d spent trying to resolve issues with Aviva and the inconvenience she’d experienced. • Mr P should receive compensation for the stress and inconvenience he’d experienced since trying to take his pension. Aviva should also compensate Mr P for his lost earnings; explain what happened with his incorrect NI number; and the delayed payout of his pension. 24 April 2024: Mr P received an eviction notice from the County Court, confirming the court had issued a warrant for the possession of his property at the request of his mortgage lender. 12 March 2025 was the eviction date provided. 24 June 2024: Aviva sent Mr P a pension statement for policy 610, confirming the value was over £35,000. 26 July 2024: Following a call received from Mr P, Aviva wrote to him confirming that his complaint had been passed to someone for investigation. 1 August 2024: Further to a request from Mr P, Aviva sent him a pension statement confirming the value of his pension was just over £36,000. 9 August 2024: Having received an application from Mr P to take the value of his plan as a lump sum, Aviva wrote to him confirming the proceeds of his pension (over £33,000) had already been paid to him in March 2023.

-- 6 of 21 --

19 September 2024: Aviva sent its final response to Mr P’s complaint about it sending pension statements for a policy he’d already encashed. In summary it said: • It completed Mr P’s request to encash his pension on 10 March 2023, but system issues meant the proceeds were paid in two parts. As the policy hadn’t updated to reflect the payments made, incorrect statements had been issued to Mr P automatically. • It was working to resolve the issue, but it was possible that Mr P would continue to receive incorrect statements for the next 10 days which he should ignore. • It apologised for any inconvenience caused and would be sending £100 in recognition of this. 10 March 2025: Mr P received confirmation from his mortgage company that due to his lump sum payment and an agreed payment arrangement, his eviction had been cancelled. One of our Investigators considered Mr P’s complaint and found the following: • Aviva had delayed the payment of Mr P’s lump sum from his pension and paid £175 for delays, late payment interest, and £450 of call costs for this; however, this didn’t go far enough. • Without delays, Mr P should reasonably have received his lump sum by 8 February 2023. So, Aviva should establish what the value of his pension payment would’ve been on 25 January 2023 (when Aviva would’ve had everything it needed to make the payment) and compare it to the value of the payment Mr P received. If the value was greater, Aviva should pay Mr P the difference plus 8% simple interest. It should also pay 8% simple interest from 25 February 2023 on the amount Mr P had already been paid. • The £175 compensation offered for distress and inconvenience caused wasn’t sufficient, so Aviva should pay a further £125 bringing total compensation to £300. • Aviva had already paid Mr P £450 in respect of call costs; however, if Mr P could provide evidence of further calls he’d made, Aviva should refund the cost of these • Regarding Mr P’s SAR requests, it was for the ICO to decide whether Aviva had breached any of its rules. • The issue with the incorrect NINO being used appeared to have been resolved. Aviva said it wrote to Mr P and HMRC outlining the correction. However, Mr P could follow up with HMRC for further confirmation. • Mr P was sent statements indicating he still had funds available to claim, which was also confirmed over the phone. Although Aviva said this was incorrect, it hadn’t explained why and the £100 paid for distress and inconvenience caused wasn’t sufficient. Mr P intended to use the funds he’d been told were available to pay off his mortgage, but he’d had to borrow money from family to make payments and avoid eviction. Given the circumstances, Aviva should pay Mr P a further £400 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused. Aviva accepted our Investigator’s findings. Miss P responded and, in summary, made the following points: • The proposed compensation didn’t reflect the suffering, loss and damage Mr P had endured over a prolonged period due to Aviva’s poor service and mishandling of his pensions. • Mr P’s stress, confusion and financial hardship had been compounded by Aviva’s repeated errors. On top of compensation already given for calls, Miss P and Mr P had spent a further 30 hours on the phone trying to resolve issues with Aviva.

-- 7 of 21 --

• Evidence of the additional call costs wasn’t available as Mr P’s provider confirmed itemised billing wasn’t available retrospectively. She’d tried to get the call history from Aviva without success. Mr P’s provider had however been able to confirm that Mr P had incurred £480 from 20 hours of calls to Aviva. Miss P had carried out the remaining 10 hours of calls within her own telephone plan at no cost; however, she’d lost significant time. • The ongoing stress and distraction caused by the issues Mr P experienced with Aviva had seriously impacted his health and prevented him operating his business. • Mr P relied on Aviva’s repeated assurances that he had around £35,000 still left to take from his pension and made crucial life decisions – such as repaying his mortgage – on this basis. He’d been left devastated when told the funds didn’t exist. • Aviva should compensate Mr P for lost income, totalling £7,000 and £480 in call costs. • Aviva should reinstate and pay Mr F the £35,000 he’d expected to receive to ensure he wasn’t burdened by mortgage arrears and ongoing debts which were preventable. As no agreement could be reached, Mr P’s complaint was passed to me for a decision on the matter. Having considered Mr P’s complaint, my provisional findings were as follows: “I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Having done so, I’m intending to uphold Mr P’s complaint in part. I’ll explain why. But before I do, I want to acknowledge that in addition Mr P’s issues with Aviva spanning several years, he’s also been waiting some time for our answer to his complaint. I have great sympathy for Mr P and the profoundly difficult circumstances he’s found himself in during this time as well as for the obvious challenges he’s faced trying to resolve matters with Aviva. And I remain grateful for his continued patience and understanding while our Service has been considering his complaint. Mr P has made extensive submissions to support his position, and I appreciate him taking the time to do so. I’ve considered these submissions along with Aviva’s in their entirety but given the informal nature of our Service – set up as a free alternative to the courts – , its remit, and my role in it, I trust that the parties won’t take it as a discourtesy that I’ve limited my response to the issues I consider to be central to this complaint. Miss P’s request for compensation Miss P has acted as Mr P’s representative in this complaint since May 2023. Since then, she’s invested significant time and energy trying to resolve matters, incurring costs from numerous calls with Aviva and corresponding with it at length. It’s clear to me that what has happened has caused Miss P inconvenience, worry, and upset, especially as she’s witnessed first-hand the toll the various issues have taken on her father. While I understand the basis on which Miss P is seeking compensation from Aviva, I’m afraid our rules don’t allow for payments to representatives as they aren’t eligible complainants. So, while I have sympathy for Miss P given what she’s experienced while representing her father in this situation, I’m unable to make any award to Miss P which I know will be disappointing. Mr P’s DSARs Mr P complains that despite making numerous DSARs, Aviva repeatedly failed to fulfil them.

-- 8 of 21 --

Initially, Aviva disputed that its DSAR team ever received a request for Mr P; however, our Investigator discovered that on at least one occasion Aviva confirmed receipt of Mr P’s DSAR and acknowledged that it was being made to support the referral of his complaint to our Service. Notwithstanding this, our Investigator concluded that it was the ICO’s responsibility to decide whether Aviva had breached any of its rules. While it’s not the function of our Service to make findings of non-compliance with data protection rules – that function belongs to the ICO which Mr P is aware he can complain to – I can consider whether Aviva has acted fairly and reasonably in the circumstances of this complaint. And, unlike the ICO, I’m able to award compensation for any distress and inconvenience Aviva caused by how it handled Mr P’s DSAR requests. The available evidence shows that two DSARs were raised which Aviva had to be chased for on at least seven occasions. Generally, firms are expected to respond to a DSAR within a month unless the request is complex. There’s nothing to suggest Mr P’s requests were complex so it’s concerning that despite promises to provide requested information, Aviva failed to fulfil any of Mr P’s DSARs. It's clear from correspondence that Mr P’s DSARs were raised due to his increasing worry and frustration with how Aviva was handling his concerns. There were several instances where Aviva ignored emails and calls unless chased repeatedly and it continually failed to provide the clarity Mr P was seeking about his pension. The DSARs being fulfilled might not have provided Mr P with all the information he needed to fully understand what had happened with his pension. But it’s easy to see why after so much time unsuccessfully pursuing Aviva for explanations, he felt that raising DSARs were his only option for resolving things. So, unsurprisingly, Aviva’s seeming refusal to fulfil the DSARs was experienced by Mr P as an attempt to stop him receiving what he was entitled to which was very distressing. To be clear, there’s nothing to suggest that Aviva’s inaction with the DSARs was deliberate. From what I’ve seen, its failings arose from poor communication, a lack of organisation, and not passing Mr P’ DSARs to its DSAR team promptly. However, this doesn’t alter the impact Aviva’s handling of the DSARs had on Mr P at a time when he was already concerned about the lack of information he was receiving about his pension value and delayed pension payout. I’m conscious that by the time the DSARs were raised, Aviva had already been made aware of Mr P’s financial challenges and the impact issues with his pension were having on his mental health. And I think Aviva’s poor handling of the DSARs over a prolonged period exacerbated this. As I understand it, Mr P still hasn’t received what he’s entitled to under General Data Protection Regulation from Aviva. Overall, I haven’t found that Aviva treated Mr P fairly when it failed to respond to his DSARs. £500 is a typical sum our Service would award where the impact of the business’ errors has caused considerable distress and upset over an extended period. I’m satisfied this applies here, so I intend to direct Aviva to pay Mr P £500, reflecting the avoidable worry Aviva caused. Delayed pension payout On 24 January 2023, Mr P confirmed with Aviva that he was ready to take the proceeds of his 610 policy as a lump sum payment. Aviva took Mr P through a stage of its retirement process that wasn’t necessary which caused delays and meant that Mr P didn’t receive his

-- 9 of 21 --

funds until March 2023. He received £11,000 on 3 March 2023, around £22,000 on 10 March 2023 plus late payment interest. There’s no indication that there was anything particularly complicated about Mr P’s withdrawal request, so he should’ve been taken through phase 2 of Aviva’s retirement process during his 24 January 2023 call with it, with the relevant forms being sent to him on the same day, completed, and returned on 25 January 2023. Following this, our Investigator concluded that Aviva should reasonably have processed Mr P’s payment within ten working days, so he received it on 8 February 2023. Aviva accepts this and I agree. In recognition of its errors Aviva offered Mr P £175 for distress and inconvenience caused and £450 for calls Mr P had to make about the delay. However, like our Investigator, I don’t think this goes far enough. In circumstances such as these, our Service would expect Aviva to put Mr P back into the position he would likely have been in had it not been for its mistakes. So, I intend to direct Aviva to carry out a loss calculation to determine what, if any, financial loss Mr P has suffered as a result. I’ve set out what I think Aviva needs to do in the “putting things right section” at the end of my decision. Understandably, Mr P feels very let down by the service he received from Aviva when taking the proceeds of his pension. The transaction wasn’t complex so it shouldn’t have taken almost two months to complete, and Mr P shouldn’t have been put in a position where he had to repeatedly chase Aviva for his funds – I’ve counted that he had to do this on at least eight occasions during this period. I’m also conscious that whilst waiting for his pension payout an error with Aviva’s systems caused around £14,000 to be wiped off Mr P’s pension value. Mr P discovered this from an email sent him on a weekend. He’s explained that as he couldn’t discuss the matter with Aviva until Monday 20 February 2023, the shock of the loss significantly increased his anxiety and blood pressure, preventing him from sleeping and working all weekend. Mr P was eventually able to speak with an Aviva representative who guessed that the drop in value was a clerical error but it’s disappointing that an Aviva manager went on to compound the error by reissuing an unnecessary retirement pack – quoting the same incorrect fund value – to Mr P the same day. Mr P discussed the issue with Aviva at length before the system error was confirmed and he received an apology, but by this time the stress of the matter had caused his health to decline which he says prompted him to see his GP. Although Aviva told Mr P that it had chased his payment five times internally and escalated the matter to managers, this appeared to have little to no impact which, coupled with what had already gone wrong, only increased Mr P’s concerns. Ultimately, Mr P’s lump sum was paid in two parts, seven days apart, leaving him worrying again about whether he’d get the money he was entitled to. It was only after Mr P chased Aviva for an explanation of what happened that it confirmed another system issue was to blame. While I’ve summarised what happened in much less detail here, I think it’s clear that during the payout of his pension Mr P experienced considerable inconvenience and, as Aviva accepts, “significant distress”. In recognition of this Aviva offered Mr P £175 which it later increased to £450.

-- 10 of 21 --

However, considering the frustration Mr P experienced following Aviva’s repeated errors, his genuine concerns about receiving his funds, the length of the delay, and efforts he made to progress things, I think compensation totalling £600 more fairly reflects the impact of what happened. As Aviva has already paid Mr P £450 compensation for this, I Intend to direct it to pay a further £150. I’m pleased to see that Aviva paid Mr P £754 in recognition of the call costs he evidenced that he’d incurred during this time. Aviva’s error with Mr P’s NI number Unfortunately, the payout of Mr P’s pension didn’t mark the end of his difficulties with Aviva. Not long after receiving his funds, Mr P noticed Aviva hadn’t used his correct NI number when completing HMRC’s P45 form for the lump sum payment he’d received. Concerned about the financial implications of this, Miss P informed HMRC and Aviva of the issue on 18 May 2023. Aviva acknowledged the problem the following day, saying it would correct things and send Mr P confirmation, ensuring he suffered no detriment due to the error. Whilst it’s good to see that Aviva took responsibility for resolving the issue faster than it had with other problems Mr P experienced, it’s not acceptable that it took five chasers from Miss P for it to merely reconfirm that it would do what it had already promised to do three weeks earlier. What’s even more concerning is that following this ‘update’, Aviva took a further month and two weeks to write to HMRC to confirm the correct NI number and let Mr P know that corrective action had been taken. In total it took Aviva over two months to resolve Mr P’s NI number issue. I think this was excessive given the simplicity of what was required to put things right. Given the number of problems Mr P experienced with Aviva up until this point and what it knew of the impact this was having on his health, Aviva should reasonably have prioritised getting Mr P’s NI number corrected with HMRC. By not doing so, Mr P’s trust in Aviva’s ability to act in his best interests was eroded further and he experienced further avoidable distress. Although Miss P chasing Aviva about the NI issue reduced the practical impact on Mr P, this didn’t shield Mr P from the stress and worry the matter caused while it remained unresolved. Having spoken with HMRC, Mr P’s understanding was that the NI issue could have serious consequences if it wasn’t addressed quickly. Keen to get the matter resolved, Mr P was aware of Miss P’s repeated efforts to get Aviva to address the problem and of how frequently Aviva failed to return promised callbacks. As Miss P explained in her correspondence with Aviva at the time, Mr P became increasingly upset as more time passed without a resolution. The pressure Mr P felt about the matter became such that Miss P eventually felt she had to keep the full extent of Aviva’s failings from Mr P. Given the avoidable distress Aviva caused and the impact of its delayed corrective action on Mr P, I intend to direct Aviva to pay Mr P £300. Conflicting information about Mr P’s pension value Mr P says information Aviva provided about his pension benefits led him to incorrectly believe he had around £35,000 remaining to withdraw from his 610 policy. He says he relied on Aviva’s repeated assurances about the existence of these funds and intended to use them to pay off his mortgage. Mr P says discovering that there are no funds available has been financially and emotionally devastating. He’d like Aviva to pay him the amount he was led to believe he had so he can clear his mortgage arrears and other associated debts.

-- 11 of 21 --

Aviva confirms that when Mr P took the proceeds of his 610 policy, this marked the end of any pension entitlement he had under it. However, it explains that because a system error prevented it from cancelling the policy, its records continued to incorrectly show that the policy had a value, resulting in statements being issued to Mr P incorrectly indicating funds were available for him to take. In recognition of this, Aviva offered Mr P £100. Our Investigator thought £500 compensation was more appropriate for what happened. There doesn’t appear to be any dispute about the fact that Aviva provided Mr P with incorrect information about his pension. What I must decide is whether the action Aviva has taken satisfactorily resolves the matter and sufficiently compensates Mr P for what happened. But before I do, I need to explain what I think most likely happened as it has a bearing on how I believe Mr P was affected. Mr P held two pension policies with Aviva, policy 655 which started in 2012 and policy 610 which began in 1992. Mr P took the proceeds of policy 655 in 2022, leaving policy 610 invested. From what I’ve seen of updates and statements Aviva sent to Mr P, the valuations it gave for policy 610 between June 2022 and August 2024 were as follows: • 22 June 2022: Just over £48,000. • 4 August 2022: Just over £47,000. • 18 February 2023: Just over £36,000. • 22 February 2023: Just over £48,000. • March 2023: Mr P’s pension is valued as just over £48,000 which he claims, receiving just over £33,000 as a cash lump sum after tax. • 3 August 2023: Just under £33,000. • 24 June 2024: Just over £35,000. • 31 July 2024: Just over £35,000. • 9 August 2024: Aviva confirm with Mr P that he surrendered policy 610 in March 2023. Except for the 18 February 2023 valuation, the values Mr P was given for policy 610 before withdrew funds in March 2023 appear correct. And, when considered in isolation, the values provided after this are obviously incorrect. I’ve reviewed the statements and summaries Mr P was sent and I think some of his confusion around the availability of further funds under policy 610 may have stemmed from Aviva irregularly, and without obvious reason, interchangeably referring to the policy as “No.1” and “No.2” in some of the correspondence it sent Mr P. Aviva hasn’t provided an explanation for this, but I think it’s possible that when Mr P originally held policies 610 and policy 655 with it, each was labelled either “No.1” or “No.2” on its system. And in the same way Aviva had difficulties cancelling the 610 policy after Mr P withdrew funds in 2023, it seems plausible that a similar issue may have occurred when Aviva cancelled the 655 policy in 2022 after funds were taken, resulting in the 610 policy being incorrectly labelled both “No.1” and “No.2”. Mr P understood this labelling to be because his pension comprised of two parts but there’s no evidence the “No.1” and “No.2” labels reflected two distinct pension funds under Mr P’s 610 policy which he could withdraw separately. However, the larger portion of Mr P’s 610 policy labelled “former protected rights value” reflected his State Earning Related Pension Scheme (SERPS) entitlement built up while he was employed, while the smaller portion was made up of a “non-protected rights value”, reflecting benefits Mr P seemingly accrued while self-employed. Pension legislation eventually removed the distinction between protected and

-- 12 of 21 --

non-protected rights benefits and Aviva’s system reflected this change by referring to Mr P’s protected rights value as his “former protected rights value” and reporting on the total value of his pension fund. Although I’ve found that Aviva caused some avoidable confusion when it referred to Mr P’s 610 policy as “No.1” or “No.2”, I haven’t seen anything else in statements Mr P received before March 2023 consistently indicating the total value of his 610 policy was worth significantly more than was being reported such that he would reasonably have believed that after taking the £33,000 available from his 610 policy in March 2023 there’d be a similar amount available to withdraw at a later date to pay off his mortgage. From what I’ve seen, Mr P was only ever receiving one statement at a time, with just one – mostly consistent –value provided for his 610 policy. Given how similar Mr P’s March 2023 payment from his 610 policy was to what he says he thought remained under the policy and needed to pay off his mortgage, I think it’s likely that the March 2023 funds were the funds he’d originally earmarked for the settlement of his mortgage. Pensions, like mortgages, are generally longstanding financial arrangements with clear final repayment dates. I don’t know exactly when Mr P’s repayment date was, but as the eviction process can normally take anywhere between 6-12 months and an eviction notice was issued to Mr P in April 2024, it’s reasonable to assume he may have been due to pay off his mortgage sometime in 2023. If, over a long period, Mr P believed policy 610 would provide two cash lump sums, one of which he’d use to pay off his mortgage, it’s not clear why he waited until August 2024 to begin claiming the funds he says he thought were available to pay off his mortgage, which was after when I think his mortgage balance was due and after his mortgage provided began legal proceedings for non-payment. This doesn’t indicate to me that based on information Aviva provided, Mr P’s longstanding belief was that policy 610 would be sufficient to pay a lump sum in March 2023 and a similar amount at a later date to pay off his mortgage. I’ve looked at the paperwork Mr P was provided with when he cashed in his 610 policy and note there wasn’t any reference to remaining funds under the policy, but there were indications that after his cash payment – which Aviva referred to as “full encashment” of the policy – there wouldn’t be further funds available to take under the policy. For example, Aviva thanked Mr P “for confirming [his] decision to take [his] whole retirement fund as a cash sum payment (…)”. And when the payment was eventually made, it was referred to as “payment of [Mr P’s] fund as an Uncrystallised Lump Sum (…)”. Overall, as I’m not persuaded the evidence shows that Aviva’s acts and omissions resulted in Mr P being unable to pay off his mortgage, I won’t be directing it to pay the award he’s seeking to cover his mortgage arrears and other associated debts. Between August 2023 and July 2024, Aviva issued pension statements inviting Mr P to take benefits from policy 610 despite it already having been paid out him. And Mr P unsuccessfully attempted to withdraw the funds he believed existed. Although, for reasons I’ve given above, I think believing there were remaining funds under the policy was questionable, I do think any confirmation or reassurance from Aviva would’ve been persuasive. After all, it was his pension provider, and he was entitled to rely on the information it gave. I’m also conscious that Mr P’s issues with Aviva had been going on for almost two years by this point, during which time Mr P appears to have remained in poor health. I think his circumstances likely made him more susceptible to accepting what Aviva said at face value instead of interrogating it.

-- 13 of 21 --

I’m satisfied that Mr P was never entitled to the fund values Aviva provided for his 610 policy after March 2023. These were mistakes, so I won’t be asking Aviva to honour them. However, it’s clear to me that Mr P suffered a loss of expectation and was understandably very shocked and disappointed when he learned that the pension valuation he’d believed to be correct was in fact wrong. Mistakes happen but against the backdrop of the ongoing issues Mr P was having with Aviva at the time, its valuation error understandably made what was already a difficult time for Mr P personally and financially feel even worse. For the reasons I’ve outlined above, I think the compensation our Investigator recommended and Aviva accepted – £500 – represents a fair amount and is in line with what I’d have been directing Aviva to pay for what happened. So, I intend to direct Aviva to pay Mr P £500. Loss of earnings Mr P says the issues he experienced with Aviva left him unable to work so he’d like Aviva to compensate him for loss of earnings. While I don’t doubt that Mr P’s experiences with Aviva made his day-to-day life, including his ability to work, challenging, I haven’t seen clear evidence that this directly resulted in Mr P no longer being able to run his business and earn an income. The evidence I’ve seen shows that sales and revenue through Mr B’s business were much lower in 2023 than they were the year prior, and that they were higher in 2024 than they were in 2023. It doesn’t show that Mr P was unable to work or evidence actual loss of earnings. Without evidence that Aviva’s actions stopped Mr P from working and demonstrable proof of loss of earnings, I’m afraid I’m unable to make the award Mr P’ seeking. Customer service and vulnerability Disappointingly, Aviva was consistent in its provision of poor service to Mr P in the two years he tried to resolve multiple issues related to his pension. And I think the impact of this was compounded by its failure to respond to what I think were clear indicators of Mr P’s vulnerability. The FCA Handbook includes a rule (COBS 2.1) and two principles (Principles 6 & 7) which required Aviva to “act honestly, fairly and professionally in (…) the best interests of its customers” and “pay due regard to the information needs of its clients and treat them fairly”. And in its FG21/1 guidance, the FCA sets out its expectations on firms identifying and treating vulnerable customers fairly. Its definition of vulnerability refers to customers who, “due to their personal circumstances, are especially susceptible to harm, particularly when a firm is not acting with appropriate levels of care.” The FCA acknowledges that all customers are at risk of becoming vulnerable, but this is increased by characteristics of vulnerability related to key drivers like health, life events, resilience, and capability. Retirement, income shock, long-term illness, and mental ill-health are all referred to as examples of health and life events which can lead to customers having additional or different needs which, if not met by firms, can limit their ability to make decisions or to represent their own interests. Unfortunately, I think that’s representative of what happened in Mr P’s case and I don’t think Aviva acted fairly in response. Below, I’ve summarised the failings I’ve identified:

-- 14 of 21 --

• In March 2023, Mr P made Aviva aware that its errors and delays were exacerbating his health issues and impacting his ability to run his business. He described his experiences with Aviva up until then as traumatic, saying they’d prevented him from sleeping such that he’d had to seek medical help for increased stress. Although, after being chased, Aviva confirmed receipt of Mr P’s complaint, it failed to acknowledge or meaningfully engage with the information Mr P had shared about his circumstances. There were no enquiries or any attempt to identify what, if anything, it could do to support him while working to resolve his concerns. • In April 2023, having heard nothing from Aviva, Mr P explained that his daughter, Miss P, would be dealing with his concerns on his behalf. Aviva promised to provide answers to Mr P’s questions by the end of the day, but Mr P received nothing. • In May 2023, Mr P emailed Aviva, reminding it that he was still waiting for answers to his concerns. Again, having received no response and because of the impact dealing with Aviva was having on his mental health, Miss P became Mr P’s authorised representative. Miss P called Aviva to check it had received her father’s emails. She requested a callback to discuss Mr P’s concerns and was told this would happen within 24 hours. Miss P heard nothing and had to chase Aviva. • Miss P shared that Mr P had sought medical help on several occasions due to the stress of trying to resolve the issues he’d raised Aviva. Again, Aviva failed to acknowledge this disclosure; question what may have caused Mr P to no longer feel able to represent himself; or consider whether there was anything it could do so Mr P felt able to represent himself if he wished. I’m aware that not being able to represent himself and having to rely on his daughter to advocate for him financially during his ongoing issues with Aviva has caused Mr P some embarrassment. • Miss P explained to Aviva that poor handling of the issues Mr P had raised resulted in him being unable to work for several months and losing income. Although Aviva agreed to consider how much its actions had impacted his ability to generate an income, no questions were asked about the immediate financial impact of this. • Aviva repeatedly promised callbacks and rarely fulfilled them without being chased. I haven’t seen any consideration given to the impact this had on Mr P. Although he was being represented by Miss P some of the time, it was made clear that Mr P was still very much aware of and affected by the limited progress being made with resolving his concerns. Miss P explained that Aviva’s failure to provide updates and meaningful responses to questions significantly increased Mr P’s anxiety such that she often had to spend time to trying to calm Mr P down. Having been made aware of Mr P’s circumstances, I’ve seen no effort by Aviva to take steps to avoid further harm. • Aviva’s inconsistent position on evidence it required to determine the impact of its poor service caused Mr P further distress. In March 2023, Mr P offered to provide evidence of the impact his experience with Aviva was having on his health. Aviva first deemed this unnecessary, but it went on to request the evidence two months later. By this point, retrospectively getting a GP note for Mr P was impossible. And despite being told that Mr P was self-employed, Aviva continued to request sick notes to evidence the time he was unable to work. Based on what I’ve set out above, I think it’s clear that the service Aviva provided fell significantly short of what Mr P should’ve been able to expect in the circumstances. In this case, the available evidence doesn’t demonstrate that Aviva has had appropriate regard for Mr P’s needs. There’s no indication that Mr P has more than a limited experience and understanding of pension matters, so it’s understandable that in line with its obligations he relied on Aviva to act in his best interests, have regard for his information needs, and communicate information in a way which is clear, fair and not misleading.

-- 15 of 21 --

I’ve seen little evidence of Aviva proactively dealing with the issues Mr P raised about his pension. Mr P and Miss P have repeatedly been put in a position where they’ve had to chase Aviva for updates. And despite assurances Aviva has given and the deadlines it set itself to provide responses, it has often failed to make contact when it said it would, even when it recorded that this should happen as a matter of urgency. Many of Mr P’s encounters with Aviva resulted in little ownership being taken by anyone to effectively progress matters or, at the very least, ensure Mr P or his representative understood what was going on. In the absence of being given meaningful responses to his concerns, it’s understandable that Mr P became increasingly concerned and ultimately very distressed about the situation. Aviva’s records show that Mr P and his representative repeatedly shared details of the impact the situation was having on him but concerningly none of this appears to have been taken seriously enough such that effort was made to act with an appropriate level of care and engage with Mr P in a way that was commensurate with his circumstances and what he was experiencing. Although I’ve found a note in Aviva’s records where it seemingly recognised and recorded that Mr P was a vulnerable consumer, this wasn’t enough. It needed to identify and respond to his needs appropriately. I think Aviva should’ve prioritised Mr P’s case, ensuring decisions were reached on the issues he’d raised as quickly as possible, significantly reducing the risk of further foreseeable harm being caused. I’ve reviewed available GP notes for appointments Mr P had between January 2024 and October 2025 which only cover part of the time he was having issues with Aviva. While there’s no mention of the problems Mr P was having with Aviva, there are, amongst other things, references to him being stressed, depressed, struggling to work, and living off universal credit, further demonstrating difficulties he was having at the time. For the reasons I’ve set out above, I think it’s appropriate that Aviva makes a payment to Mr P to reflect the level of distress and inconvenience its caused due to poor service, specifically its failure to respond appropriately to Mr P in a way that took into consideration his circumstances and needs. I think Aviva should pay Mr P £500, reflecting the impact of Aviva’s ’s actions and what it could’ve done better. Putting things right Compensation for distress and inconvenience caused It isn’t entirely clear exactly what compensation payments Mr P has received from Aviva, so it would be helpful if the parties could provide details of this in response to my provisional decision, so it’s clear what Aviva will need to pay Mr P before my final decision. Currently I’m intending to direct Aviva to pay Mr P compensation for distress and inconvenience caused as follows: • £500 for failure to fulfil DSARs. • £150 for delayed payment issues (based on my understanding £450 has already been paid). • £300 for NI issues. • £500 for conflicting information given about Mr P’s pension. • £500 for service issues and vulnerability considerations Financial loss

-- 16 of 21 --

My aim in awarding fair compensation is to put Mr P back into the position he would likely have been in, had it not been for delays caused by Aviva. That means Aviva will need to work out whether Mr P has suffered any financial loss. To do this, it should compare the lump sum payment Mr P received from his pension (the actual value) with what he would’ve received (the notional value) if the date Aviva used for the final value of his pension had been 25 January 2023 and his lump sum been paid on 8 February 2023. If the actual lump sum value is higher than the notional value, there’s no financial loss. But if the notional value is higher, Mr P has suffered a financial loss. In that case Aviva will need to pay Mr P the difference between the actual and the notional lump sum value. The compensation amount should be paid directly to Mr P as a lump sum after making a notional reduction to allow for future income tax that would otherwise have been paid. 25% of the loss would be tax-free and 75% would have been taxed according to his likely income tax rate in retirement – presumed to be 20%. So, making a notional reduction of 15% overall from the loss adequately reflects this. Aviva should also pay Mr P interest at 8% per year simple on the loss amount for the period from 8 February 2023 to the date of my final decision, to reflect Mr P not having the money he should have had over this period. I’m aware that Aviva has already paid late payment interest of £33.32 to Mr P. However, it’s unclear what period this covered. So, if the late payment interest I’ve directed Aviva to calculate above exceeds late payment interest Mr P has already received, Aviva may choose to deduct the latter from the former and pay Mr P the difference.” I invited Mr P and Aviva to respond to my provisional decision. Aviva accepted my provisional decision. Mr P and Miss P responded and, in summary, made the following points: • Aviva should compensate Mr P for lost earnings as he’d been unable to work for a prolonged period due to the stress and administrative burden of pursuing answers from Aviva. • Although it was accepted that compensation couldn’t be awarded to Miss P, as Mr P’s representative, compensation for the cost of telephone calls should be reconsidered as they were incurred solely because of Aviva’s repeated failings. • In statements and telephone calls, Aviva repeatedly indicated that Mr P had funds remaining under his policy after it was encashed in March 2023. The content of Mr P’s telephone calls with Aviva would’ve shown exactly what information he’d been given and whether he was led to believe further funds would be available at a later date. Aviva had been asked to provide recordings of these calls but had failed to do so, and this should be taken into consideration. • Mr P reasonably relied on information Aviva gave about his pension when planning how he’d manage his final mortgage payment. The impact of Aviva’s misleading information wasn’t fully reflected in the provisional decision. • Mr M had intended to use the funds Aviva led him to believe remained under his pension to settle his final interest-only payment due in March 2025. When it became clear that there were no additional funds, he was forced to rely on his family to prevent him from losing his home.

-- 17 of 21 --

• Mr P should receive higher compensation for how long incorrect information was given about his pension and how significantly Aviva raised his expectations and caused financial hardship. • The eviction process didn’t arise because Mr P’s mortgage had reached the end of its term. Mr P fell into arrears on his mortgage because the stress of dealing with Aviva left him unable to work and without any income. 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 done so, my decision remains the same as before (and as set out above). That means I’m partially upholding Mr P’s complaint for the reasons I’ve previously given. I’ll respond to some of the points Mr and Miss P made following my provisional decision, but I won’t be responding to all of them. No discourtesy is intended by this. It simply reflects the informal nature of our Service. If I haven’t commented on something it isn’t because I’ve ignored it. I’m satisfied I don’t need to comment on every individual argument to be able to reach what I think is the right outcome. Instead, I’ll focus on what I consider the key issues to be. Lost earnings Mr P was clearly affected by the difficulties he faced when trying to resolve his pension issues with Aviva. He invested a lot of time and energy – much more than he should’ve had to – engaging with Aviva and trying to ensure that when things went wrong, he understood why and received assurances that they’d be put right. It’s not disputed that these experiences with Aviva caused Mr P considerable distress and inconvenience. As I acknowledged in my provisional decision, his anxiety increased and the stress of what was happening left him struggling to sleep. Overall, his day-to-day life, including his ability to work, became challenging, which Mr P says led to him seek help from his GP on several occasions. Mr P’s issues with Aviva began in January 2023. He raised concerns with Aviva in March 2023 and tried to resolve these with it directly until May 2023, when Miss P took responsibility for taking his complaints forward. In the four months that Mr P was corresponding directly with Aviva about difficulties he was experiencing with its claim process, he was repeatedly having to chase Aviva about issues with retirement packs, incorrect pension values, and delays with his pension payout. Sometimes he was chasing Aviva by email and/or telephone several times a day. Mr P shouldn’t have had to do this and as I concluded, Aviva caused him avoidable distress and inconvenience which he should receive further compensation for. Aviva also accepted that Mr P had incurred £754 in avoidable call costs which it compensated him for. Notwithstanding this, I’m still not persuaded the available evidence shows that Aviva’s acts and omissions during the relevant period, and the administrative burden of dealing with them, caused Mr P to be unable to work, such that I could reasonably hold it responsible for his lost earnings and direct it to compensate him for this. I’m conscious that Mr P was able to proactively pursue his concerns with Aviva. Whilst I don’t doubt that this was stressful, took time, and impacted his ability to work in the way he might have normally, I haven’t seen evidence that it prevented him from working entirely.

-- 18 of 21 --

Prior to issuing my provisional decision, I requested evidence of Mr P seeking medical help when he says Aviva’s actions caused him to stop working. But the GP notes that were provided didn’t cover the relevant period. And the screenshots shared of Mr P’s business’ online sales at the time, didn’t demonstrate that he wasn’t working or earning an income. I’m aware that in addition to causing him to be without an income, Mr P considers that Aviva’s actions also resulted in him falling into mortgage arrears. But as I haven’t been able to conclude that Aviva’s actions prevented him from working and earning an income, it follows that I haven’t been able to determine that it was responsible for him falling into mortgage arrears. Misleading pension statements, Mr P’s final mortgage payment, and compensation In my provisional decision I explained that prior to encashing his 610 policy in March 2023, there was no indication Mr P received anything consistently showing that the total value of his policy was worth significantly more than was being reported, such that he could reasonably have believed that, after encashment, around £35,000 would available to withdraw at a later date to pay off his mortgage. Mr P says that in addition to pension statements he received from Aviva between 2023 and 2024, he had numerous telephone conversations with it before and after this period reconfirming that he had around £35,000 remaining to withdraw from his 610 policy. Aviva hasn’t been able to provide recordings of these calls. Miss P says they’re crucial as they’d show exactly what Aviva told Mr P about the value of his plan and whether it was reasonable for him to believe further funds would be available after encashment to pay off his mortgage in March 2025. Although it’s disappointing that Aviva hasn’t been able to provide recordings of the calls Mr P had with it, that hasn’t prevented me from drawing reasonable conclusions about what, based on the available evidence, most likely happened. I think it’s highly unlikely that Mr P received assurances from Aviva before March 2023 that after encashment there’d be funds of around £35,000 available to withdraw at a later date. I say this because it was only when Mr P encashed his policy in March 2023 that a system error resulted in misleading statements being issued, incorrectly indicating funds were still available for him to take. I’ve also considered Mr P’s testimony which includes a detailed timeline of his interactions (calls included) with Aviva between August 2022 and March 2023. Although the calls in Mr P’s timeline reference incorrect information being given about his pension value, this only relates to the sudden £12,000 decrease in his pension value in early February 2023, which Aviva confirmed was a system error and corrected in late February 2023. There’s nothing to suggest he was told that after encashing his policy, funds would remain and be available for him to withdraw in the future. It’s not disputed that Aviva sent Mr P misleading statements about his encashed 610 policy in 2024. As I noted in my provisional decision, three were issued between June and August 2024. On 9 August 2024, Aviva confirmed with Mr P that his pension had already been paid to him. I’ve reconsidered the period over which Mr P was given misleading information about funds remaining under his policy after it had been encashed – August 2023 to August 2024.

-- 19 of 21 --

Having done so, I’m still not persuaded Mr P could have been operating under the longstanding belief that that policy 610 would be sufficient to pay a lump sum in March 2023 and a similar amount two years later to make his final mortgage repayment. I say this because Aviva ‘only’ incorrectly stated further funds were available under the 610 policy for around a year. I think it’s far more likely that Mr P would’ve made plans based on the correct information he’d received about his policy value for the majority of the time he held it. As I said in my provisional decision, I think it’s more likely that the funds Mr P received when he encashed his 610 policy in March 2023 were the funds he’d earmarked for the settlement of his mortgage. Overall, based on the loss of expectation Mr P suffered and the circumstances surrounding this, I remain satisfied that £500 compensation represents a fair amount and is keeping with the level of awards our Service would usually recommend for an error which has caused considerable distress as has been the case here. Compensation for call costs Miss P has requested reimbursement for call costs incurred after Aviva’s £754 compensation payment in recognition of calls Mr P made. The call costs Miss P refers to are those which she incurred while acting as Mr P’s representative. While I don’t doubt the sincerity with which this request is being made, I’m afraid that for the same reasons I gave in my provisional decision, I’m unable to make the award she’s seeking. Our rules don’t allow for payments to representatives as they aren’t eligible complainants. Putting things right Compensation for distress and inconvenience caused For the reasons I set out above and in my provisional decision, Aviva should make a payment to Mr P for the level distress and inconvenience it caused. Overall, I’ve determined that compensation totalling £1950 is fair. Financial loss My aim in awarding fair compensation is to put Mr P back into the position he would likely have been in, had it not been for delays caused by Aviva when encashing his 610 policy. That means Aviva will need to work out whether Mr P has suffered any financial loss. To do this, it should compare the lump sum payment Mr P received from his pension (the actual value) with what he would’ve received (the notional value) if the date Aviva used for the final value of his pension had been 25 January 2023 and his lump sum been paid on 8 February 2023. If the actual lump sum value is higher than the notional value, there’s no financial loss. But if the notional value is higher, Mr P has suffered a financial loss. In that case Aviva will need to pay Mr P the difference between the actual and the notional lump sum value. The compensation amount should be paid directly to Mr P as a lump sum after making a notional reduction to allow for future income tax that would otherwise have been paid. 25% of the loss would be tax-free and 75% would have been taxed according to his likely income

-- 20 of 21 --

tax rate in retirement – presumed to be 20%. So, making a notional reduction of 15% overall from the loss adequately reflects this. Aviva should also pay Mr P interest at 8% per year simple on the loss amount for the period from 8 February 2023 to the date of my final decision, to reflect Mr P not having the money he should have had over this period. I’m aware that Aviva has already paid late payment interest of £33.32 to Mr P. However, it’s unclear what period this covered. So, if the late payment interest I’ve directed Aviva to calculate above exceeds late payment interest Mr P has already received, Aviva may choose to deduct the latter from the former and pay Mr P the difference. My final decision For the reasons I’ve set out, I uphold Mr P’s complaint and direct Aviva Life & Pensions UK Limited to put things right as set out above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr P to accept or reject my decision before 27 April 2026. Chillel Bailey Ombudsman

-- 21 of 21 --