Family Assurance Friendly Society · DRN-6070793

The complaint Mr O complains about incorrect policy documents added to his Life Insurance policy, which listed unauthorised beneficiaries of his policy. This error was done without his knowledge or consent. What happened Mr O has a life insurance policy with Company V. Company B uploaded a Trust Deed incorrectly to Mr O’s account. Both Company V and Company B have policies which are administered by Family Assurance Friendly Society (‘Family Assurance’). As policy administrators, Family Assurance are considered the business responsible for this complaint. So, whilst there are several financial businesses involved, I will refer to this complaint as being about Family Assurance, for ease of reference. Mr O took out a Life Insurance Policy in 2023 with Family Assurance. He says that unbeknown to him, Family Assurance listed beneficiaries he had no personal connection with. He says this only came to light in 2025 as a result of his wife making enquiries online. Otherwise, the error would not have been uncovered. Mr O says that the impact as a result of this discovery has been profound. He explains how it has affected personal relationships as his wife was extremely distressed by reviewing information suggesting third parties stood to benefit from her husband’s life insurance policy. Mr O says this caused a significant rift in his family, which in turn affected his mental health, his ability to adequately perform in his job (which he says he lost around the time this error came to light), and an inability to sit exams he was supposed to complete at that time. Mr O further explains how this is not the first time he has been the subject of mishandling by a financial service. And the pattern that is forming leads him to believe that these acts are malicious. Mr O formally complained to Family Assurance about what happened. Family Assurance responded. The business acknowledges that information was added to Mr O’s policy incorrectly. Family Assurance apologised for this error and the concern it caused. The business also confirmed that a Data Protection Breach was recorded. Mr O and Family Assurance then exchanged several emails, in which Family Assurance clarified that the errors was not a deliberate act. The business added that it cannot be held responsible for family disputes or life events. Mr O was offered £100 as a gesture of good will to resolve his complaint. Family Assurance also confirmed that incorrect information was removed from Mr O’s records. Mr O remained unhappy with this complaint response. He says Family Assurance has failed to accept responsibility and accountability for the impact its errors have caused him personally. He considers he should be compensated for the financial loss and emotional distress he has been put through because of what happened. He also believes there should be service improvements so this cannot happen again, as well as a formal apology.

-- 1 of 4 --

Mr O escalated his complaint to our service. An investigator looked into the complaint and found Family Assurance’s apology and £100 financial remedy reasonable to remedy the injustice that she could link to what went wrong. She justified her view by explaining: - Family Assurance accepted that it uploaded a Trust Deed document to Mr O’s account in error – so the failing isn’t in dispute but the remedy being offered - Mr O’s own personal details were not shared with any third party - There would not likely have been a significant impact should a claim have arisen because it is clear that this Trust Deed was added in error as policy numbers, address details, and the insurance company holding the policy were all different - Matters resolved within two weeks of a formal complaint being raised - The claimed impact is acknowledged but cannot reasonably be linked to Family Assurance in the sense that the business cannot be responsible for reactions by third parties to this mistake. Mr O rejected our investigator’s view, for the following reasons: - Acceptance of error is not the same as adequate redress – there is no dispute about the error, but Mr O says our investigator’s view focused on the speed of how quickly the error was corrected rather than appreciating the severe and immediate damage that was caused as a result of this error - The impact is beyond short-term worry – Mr O explains there is now a deep sense of mistrust within his family causing both an emotional and financial impact, and trivialising this as an administrative error is a mistake - There continues to be ongoing personal and financial consequences – including a loss of employment and significant impact to mental health - There is still no understanding as to the impact a lack of notification of changes to an account can have Mr O adds that if no further compensation is being offered, then Family Assurance should reimburse all premiums he paid over the last three years. This is because he has had to cancel this policy because of a lack of trust that his financial affairs can be administered properly. Our investigator was not persuaded to change her view. And as an agreement couldn’t be reached, the case was passed to an Ombudsman for a final decision. 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 have summarised this complaint and what has happened linking back to the crux of what Mr O says went wrong. The purpose of my decision isn’t to address every single point raised by all of the parties involved. If there’s something I’ve not mentioned, it isn’t because I’ve ignored it - I haven’t. I’m satisfied that I don’t need to comment on every individual argument to be able to reach what I think is the right outcome. No discourtesy is intended by this; our rules allow me to do this, and it simply reflects the informal nature of our service. Instead, I

-- 2 of 4 --

will focus on what I find to be the key issues and evidence relevant to this complaint. Both Mr O and Family Assurance accept that the service provided fell below a reasonable standard. And that an incorrect Trust Deed was uploaded to Mr O’s account when it shouldn’t have been. As such, what I am being asked to consider here is not whether there has been a failing in service because both parties agree on this. And I do not believe there would be any value in me repeating details that both parties largely accept. What I am therefore being asked to consider is whether the remedy offered by Family Assurance is fair and reasonable given the circumstances in this case. I have carefully considered this complaint and all the evidence provided, including the investigator’s view shared in December 2024 as well as the comments received from Mr O rejecting this view. Having done so, I agree with the conclusions reached by my investigator colleague, and that Family Assurance’s apology and offer of £100 is fair and reasonable to remedy the injustice we can link to what went wrong in this case. As such, I won’t be asking the business to do more to resolve this complaint. I will outline how I have reached my decision. I understand that for Mr O, £100 does not feel nearly reasonable enough to compensate him given all that he explains happened as a result of the wrong information linked to his policy coming to light. I can also appreciate from Mr O’s perspective that he already lost some trust in financial services because of problems he had experienced in recent history with another financial provider. All of which has compounded this issue further for him. Cancelling an insurance policy is not a decision that is taken lightly. But given all that has happened, I can appreciate Mr O’s reasons for doing so. At the same time, I need to take a balanced approach and consider what is fair to both parties in this case. Family Assurance has accepted the error, and how its services fell below a reasonable standard. The business also explained how, when the error came to light, it reported the data breach and completed checks to make sure Mr O’s personal data hadn’t been shared. These steps are what I would expect of a business; to take appropriate and proportionate steps to resolve an error as quickly and practically as possible. In my view, what tips the balance to support that the offer made by Family Assurance is fair and reasonable are the following two considerations. 1. The Trust Deed incorrectly added to Mr O’s account is clearly there in error. This isn’t a case of a deed being incorrectly completed, where only some details are recorded in error. But an entirely incorrect document uploaded to an account which was clearly intended for another service user. Not only are all the policy numbers and address details incorrect, but the template includes entirely different branding (for Company B) which Mr O had no direct connection with (he had the policy set up via Company V). Therefore, on balance, it is reasonable to assume that reading this document would clearly show that it was added to Mr O’s policy incorrectly. - I cannot link the failing to the claimed impact. Family Assurance says it cannot be held responsible for third party reactions. I think it better to say that whilst Family Assurance is not responsible for third party reactions, failings in services can cause problems between a client and other parties. However, the difficulty I have in Mr O’s case is that I cannot reasonably link what he is saying went wrong to the administrative failing raised as part of this complaint.

-- 3 of 4 --

Family Assurance could not reasonably foresee there would be such an issue when uploading incorrect documents to an account. It wouldn’t be fair to hold the business liable for a loss (financial or otherwise) that is so remote from the action that is isn’t reasonably foreseeable. I’m of the view that this applies in Mr O’s case based on his explanation of what happened as a consequence of this error. It’s unreasonable to say that Family Assurance uploading the wrong document was going to cause all these consequential issues. Also, Mr O’s policy is in his own name. Yet much of the impact claimed involves people close to him. I don’t think Family Assurance would expect other people to be viewing his policy details in the first place. So we cannot reasonably ask the business to consider (or recompense) what impact could be caused by others viewing information. Putting things right Our service has guidance on when it is appropriate (and not appropriate) to award a financial remedy for distress and inconvenience. This guidance is available on our website. Our guidance says that an award of between £100 and £300 is appropriate where the error has caused an impact that has been more than just minimal, which requires reasonable effort to sort out, and which causes a level of disappointment and loss of expectation. Looking at the distress and upset Mr O talks about, including having to engage with the business about this error and raise a formal complaint, I believe this injustice sits firmly within the parameter of a financial award of between £100 and £300. This remedy recognises the disappointment Mr O has experienced, given the impact was more than just minimal. Therefore, as the offer of remedy is a reasonable one, and because Family Assurance took all the steps I would have expected the business to do upon receiving a complaint about inaccurate data, I cannot see there is any further remedy that would be proportionate for me to recommend. My final decision I do uphold Mr O’s complaint. At the same time, I find the apology and £100 offered is fair and reasonable to resolve this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr O to accept or reject my decision before 23 April 2026. Emily Bowyer Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --