Wesleyan Assurance Society · DRN-6144916

The complaint Mr T complains that Wesleyan Assurance Society (Wesleyan) carried out an unauthorised fund switch on 2 March 2025, leading to a financial loss. What happened Mr T has a personal pension with Wesleyan. This was set up in 2019 with an original Selected Benefit Date (SBD) in March 2025. I understand that Mr T invested in the Moderate-High Risk/Reward and the Higher Risk/Reward funds. Mr T didn’t want to take his benefits in March 2025. So he asked Wesleyan to move his SBD to March 2026. On 11 February 2025, Wesleyan wrote to Mr T to confirm his requested change of SBD. On 2 September 2025, Wesleyan wrote to Mr T as he was approaching his amended SBD. Then on 5 March 2025, Wesleyan wrote again to tell him it’d completed a fund switch he’d requested using unit prices from 2 March 2025. Although Mr T hadn’t requested the fund switch, the letter stated: Funds before switch: Fund name Number of units Value of units Moderate-High Risk/Reward (s2) 26,762.38 £78,494.06 Higher Risk/Reward Fund (s2) 803.08 £2,610.83 Funds after switch Fund name Number of units Value of units Risk averse fund (s2) 78,286.57 £81,104.89 The letter stated: “Please check the changes shown above are in line with your instructions. If there is any issue, please contact us as soon as possible …” Mr T wrote to Wesleyan about a separate complaint on 12 March 2025. Within this email he stated the following about the switch: “The timing of this switch has actually worked in my favour... I am currently content with having my funds in the Risk Averse Fund due to current market

-- 1 of 7 --

volatility, but I will be looking to switch back into the funds I was previously invested in… Again, I am currently ok with my funds being invested in the Risk Averse fund…” I understand that Mr T called Wesleyan about the switch on 14 March 2025. It told him that it’d carried out the switch as he’d reached his original SBD. And that it was its process to move funds into safer investments to protect assets once the SBD had been reached. Wesleyan wrote to Mr T again on 24 March 2025 about the switch. It again confirmed that he should check that the switch was in line with his instructions. On 31 July 2025, Mr T called Wesleyan to request a fund switch. I understand that he wanted to end up with 10% in the Risk Averse fund and 45% in each of the Moderate-High and Higher risk funds. He asked Wesleyan to put this in writing and to confirm the unit breakdown in each fund. In August 2025, Mr T complained to Wesleyan about the March 2025 switch. He said he was confused about the switch, noting he hadn’t requested it. And felt he’d been financially disadvantaged. Wesleyan issued its final response to the complaint on 1 October 2025. While it didn’t uphold the complaint, it apologised for failing to notify Mr T about the switch before it’d carried it out. It said it had notified him about the switch on 5 March 2025. And that within that notification, it’d clearly explained that Mr T should contact it if he wasn’t happy with the switch. As such, it felt that he’d been aware of the switch long before his switch request and complaint. Wesleyan also said that it had only carried out the switch based on the original SBD on file. It said its process was to move money into safe funds to protect assets once the SBD was reached. Mr T wasn’t happy with this response. So he brought his complaint to this service. He said the switch had been carried out without his consent or knowledge. He said that if Wesleyan had contacted him before carrying out the switch, he could’ve addressed the inappropriate action. He felt Wesleyan had breached its duty of care. He also complained about the way Wesleyan had handled his complaint. Mr T said Wesleyan’s error had caused him a financial loss. He also said it’d been stressful. And that he’d lost confidence in Wesleyan. To put things right, Mr T wanted Wesleyan to compensate him for any financial loss he’d suffered due to the unauthorised switch. Our investigator acknowledged that Mr T wasn’t happy with how Wesleyan had handled his complaint. But explained that this service didn’t have the power to consider that part of his complaint. She explained why that was the case. Mr T told this service that he didn’t currently use the services of an independent financial adviser. He said he hadn’t been aware that Wesleyan would apply its Lifestyling strategy to his pension. And he’d understood that Lifestyling wasn’t active on his account, in line with the information included on his annual statements. He said he’d never asked Wesleyan to opt him into Lifestyling. Mr T felt he’d made a direct financial loss of £2,268 due to the unauthorised switch. He wanted Wesleyan to credit this amount, plus interest, to his pension. He also wanted it to compensate him for the distress and inconvenience he said its error had caused him. Our investigator felt that Wesleyan hadn’t correctly explained why the switch had taken

-- 2 of 7 --

place. Nor had it warned Mr T of its intention to carry out the switch before it did so. But she felt that Wesleyan had made it clear to Mr T in its 5 March 2025 letter that the switch had taken place. She said the letter had confirmed that the funds had been switched into the Risk Averse Fund. And that Wesleyan had also clearly noted that Mr T should check that the switch was in line with his instructions. It said that if this wasn’t the case, he should contact it as soon as possible. Our investigator was therefore satisfied that Wesleyan had made Mr T aware of the fund switch and that he should contact it if he didn’t want that change. Our investigator acknowledged that Mr T had queried the switch in his 12 March 2025 email to Wesleyan. She said that within this email, he stated he was satisfied with the fund switch into the Risk Averse fund. And that he’d look to switch his funds back to those he was previously invested in. She said he appeared to have done so on 31 July 2025. While acknowledging that Mr T had waited until August 2025 to complaint about the switch, our investigator felt that it was likely with the benefit of hindsight that Mr T had felt he’d suffered a financial loss due to fund switch in March 2025. Our investigator also felt that if Mr T had told Wesleyan in March 2025 that he didn’t want the switch, it would’ve reversed it at that time. Therefore, while she acknowledged that Wesleyan had completed the fund switch in error, she didn’t think it should be required to consider any financial loss. Our investigator acknowledged that Wesleyan had told Mr T in March 2025 that it’d carried out the switch due to him reaching his original SRD. But she didn’t think this was correct. Nor did she think that Wesleyan had acted in line with its terms and conditions when completing the switch. She therefore considered that Wesleyan had made an error which had caused Mr T some initial concern. She also noted that Wesleyan had acknowledged that it’d failed to make Mr T aware of the switch before it carried it out. She felt Wesleyan should pay Mr T £100 compensation for what she felt was a one-off incident or occurrence. Mr T didn’t agree with our investigator. He made the following points: • He didn’t consider the £100 compensation our investigator had recommended was enough, given the forensic audit he felt he’d had to conduct for this complaint. He also didn’t think the compensation was in line with this service’s guidelines. He said it didn’t consider the fact that Wesleyan had previously offered him compensation ranging from £75 to £150 for six earlier complaints in a thirty-month period. He said Wesleyan had previously settled minor administrative delays for £150 compensation. He felt there were systemic issues and that Wesleyan had failed to implement safeguards, despite his warnings. • Mr T said his March 2025 email in which he’d agreed to the switch was based on misinformation from Wesleyan. He said it’d provided an inaccurate narrative to justify the switch, which he’d trusted. He said he wasn’t fully aware of the long-term impact of the unauthorised switch at the time. But that he’d later learnt that the switch hadn’t been in his best interests. He said that if Wesleyan had admitted it’d overridden a documented opt-out instruction, he would’ve objected at the time. • Mr T said the fact that Wesleyan had initially refused to admit fault had placed the burden of proof onto him. He said this had taken more time for him to resolve and caused him more inconvenience, for which he should be compensated. He said that the nature of his work meant that he relied on Wesleyan to look after his retirement funds. He didn’t think it was fair to expect him to have to work out what Wesleyan had done wrong. He said none of his other pension providers had switched his funds without consent.

-- 3 of 7 --

• He wanted Wesleyan to compensate him for his lost investment growth from March 2025 to July 2025. Mr T provided this service with information about his six previous Wesleyan complaints. He noted the amount of compensation that he’d accepted as a resolution to each of these complaints, none of which were directly linked to the complaint he’d asked this service to consider. Our investigator considered the points Mr T raised. But didn’t change her view. She said her investigation had looked at the event surrounding this complaint, which was about the March 2025 fund switch. She said Wesleyan didn’t dispute that it’d made an error when it’d made the fund switch. While she acknowledged that Mr T had made several previous complaints to Wesleyan, she said she couldn’t consider those under this complaint. Our investigator acknowledged that Mr T felt that his complaint fell within the £300 to £750 compensation bracket. But still felt the £100 compensation she’d recommended was fair. While our investigator felt that Wesleyan’s explanation of the fund switch wasn’t accurate, she felt that it’d made it clear to Mr T that it’d made a fund switch. She didn’t agree that he’d only agreed to the switch based on misinformation. She felt Wesleyan had made it clear that it’d moved his funds from the Moderate-High and Higher Risk/Reward funds to the Risk Averse fund. She also noted that it’d correctly explained that it’d moved his funds into safer investments. She felt that if Mr T had been unhappy with the switch at the time, it would’ve been reasonable for him to have asked Wesleyan to switch the funds back. She said he hadn’t done this. Instead, he’d told Wesleyan he was content with the fund switch due to the current market volatility. She therefore felt that it was only with the benefit of hindsight that Mr T now felt he’d suffered a financial loss due to the switch in March 2025. And she didn’t think it would be fair to require Wesleyan to consider any potential investment loss. Our investigator said she couldn’t consider how Wesleyan had handled Mr T’s complaint. While she acknowledged the time and effort it’d taken Mr T to raise his complaint, and his professional responsibilities, she said it was generally the consumer’s responsibility to review their pension plans to ensure their investments remained suitable. Wesleyan questioned why Mr T had asked this service to consider the previous complaints he’d raised with it. It said he’d deemed them resolved. And noted that the complaint our investigator had considered wasn’t connected to the previous issues he’d raised and accepted compensation for. And therefore had no bearing on the current complaint. Mr T didn’t agree with our investigator. And didn’t accept the £100 compensation our investigator had recommended. He didn’t think it was fair to categorise the error as a "one- off minor mistake". He said this was factually incorrect, noting that he’d evidence six previous failures. Mr T provided reference numbers and compensation amounts – ranging from £75 to £150 – for the six previous complaints he’d raised with Wesleyan since October 2023. He felt this showed that he should receive a higher level of compensation for his current complaint, due to its gravity. And that the compensation should reflect the cumulative distress and total erosion of trust caused by the seventh failure. Mr T also felt that under the Consumer Duty, firms had to act in good faith and enable customers to make informed decisions. He felt that Wesleyan’s explanation hadn’t been accurate. And that he’d been led to believe that the switch was a legitimate automated process, rather than a manual error. He felt that he hadn’t been able to provide informed consent about the error as he’d been misled about its causes. He also felt that Wesleyan had ignored his documented "opt-out" instruction, causing foreseeable harm to his retirement planning.

-- 4 of 7 --

Mr T didn’t think it was fair for our investigator to say he should’ve caught the error sooner. He said that he’d had to perform a forensic audit of his records during a quiet period in his work to prove Wesleyan had lied. He therefore felt the compensation should be increased to reflect the time and trouble he’d had to take. Mr T felt that he’d lost investment growth over the period from March 2025 to July 2025 due to Wesleyan’s error. He felt Wesleyan should cover this loss, with interest, to put him back in the position he should be in. As agreement couldn’t be reached, the complaint has come to me for a review. 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, I’m going to uphold it. But I agree with our investigator that Wesleyan’s error didn’t cause Mr T a financial loss. I know this will be disappointing. I’ll explain the reasons for my decision. I first considered Mr T’s point that because Wesleyan didn’t accurately explain why it’d made the switch, he couldn’t make an informed decision about whether it was in his best interests. Could Mr T make a reasonably informed decision about whether to leave the switch in place? Mr T said that Wesleyan had led him to believe that the switch was a legitimate automated process, rather than a manual error. And that he didn’t become aware of the long-term impact of the switch until July 2025 when he’d learnt that it hadn’t been in his best interests. Mr T felt that he hadn’t been able to provide informed consent about the error in March 2025 as he’d been misled about its causes. Our investigator gave her view about Wesleyan’s explanation for why it’d carried out the switch when it did. I won’t repeat the detail of that again here. But I agree with her that Wesleyan’s explanation wasn’t accurate. Therefore I agree with Mr T that Wesleyan didn’t provide him with the correct reason for its error. Having said that, I’m not persuaded that the fact that Wesleyan didn’t explain the correct reason for its error to Mr T changed the impact that error had on him. Therefore, while I acknowledge that Mr T said he would’ve objected to the switch in March 2025 if Wesleyan had told him it’d overridden his opt-out instruction, I’m not persuaded that he would. I say this because the evidence shows that Wesleyan made it clear to Mr T in its 5 March 2025 letter – three days after the switch - what it’d done and what this meant for his investments. And one week later, Mr T wrote to tell Wesleyan that he was “currently content” with the switch due to “current market volatility”. This was despite Wesleyan’s letter making it clear that if Mr T wasn’t happy with the switch he could change it. The reason for the error doesn’t alter these points. Had Mr T not been happy with the switch, I’m satisfied he could’ve told Wesleyan at this point without the need for a forensic audit of his pension. And I’m also satisfied that it would’ve then reversed the switch. I acknowledge that once Mr T had further considered his investments in July 2025, he felt the error had caused him a financial loss. With the benefit of hindsight, it’s possible that Mr T would’ve been better off had the switch not taken place when it did. But the evidence shows that while he didn’t instruct the March 2025 switch, he did accept it in writing just over a

-- 5 of 7 --

week later. It was then up to Mr T when – if ever – to move back into riskier assets. Therefore I can’t reasonably require Wesleyan to carry out the loss assessment Mr T has requested. I went on to consider the compensation Wesleyan should pay Mr T for its error. Distress and inconvenience I’d first like to say that this decision simply considers Mr T’s complaint to Wesleyan about the 2 March 2025 switch, and its final response letter dated 1 October 2025. While I acknowledge that Mr T has referenced six other complaints he’s had with Wesleyan, it was the one relating to the 2 March 2025 switch that he referred to this service. I can see that Mr T considers that as he’s had other complaints with Wesleyan, it would be unfair to categorise the error at the heart of this complaint as a "one-off minor mistake". However, I’m satisfied that the previous complaints aren’t linked to the current complaint. As such, they have no bearing on it. And I therefore won’t consider the previous amounts Wesleyan paid Mr T to resolve his other complaints with it. Nor will I consider increasing the compensation due to a “cumulative effect”. Mr T doesn’t think the £100 compensation our investigator recommended is enough. He said he’d had to carry out a forensic audit of his records to resolve the complaint. And that caused him more inconvenience, for which he should be compensated. Our investigator felt that Wesleyan hadn’t given Mr T the correct explanation about why it’d carried out the switch in March 2025. She therefore felt that it’d made an error which had caused some initial concern to Mr T. She also noted that Wesleyan had acknowledged it’d failed to make him aware of its intended switch before it carried it out. She felt that compensation of £100 fairly reflected the situation here. I agree with our investigator that Wesleyan made an error. But, as I noted above, I’m satisfied that the error didn’t have a detrimental financial impact on Mr T, as he quickly accepted it after it was made. As such, any compensation for the error would be to apologise for not letting Mr T know about the switch before it took place and for failing to correctly explain why it’d happened. While I know Mr T doesn’t agree, I’m satisfied that £100 compensation is fair under the circumstances of this complaint. I say this because although Wesleyan did make an error, there was only a period of one week – between Wesleyan’s 5 March 2025 letter and Mr T’s 12 March 2025 written acceptance of the switch – over which I consider Mr T may have been concerned. I therefore uphold the complaint. Putting things right I require Wesleyan Assurance Society to pay Mr T £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience it has caused him. My final decision For the reasons set out above, I uphold Mr T’s complaint. Wesleyan Assurance Society must pay Mr T £100 compensation. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr T to accept or

-- 6 of 7 --

reject my decision before 21 April 2026. Jo Occleshaw Ombudsman

-- 7 of 7 --