Not upheld: Unknown / needs review complaint against Liverpool Victoria Life Company Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr A, in his late seventies, purchased an over-50s life assurance policy from LV after being approached by a representative, believing it had a £150,000 sum assured with a savings element. When he attempted to cash in the policy in mid-2020, he discovered it was actually a £1,500 policy with no cash-in value and that premiums could exceed the payout. Mr A complained about the mis-sale. The ombudsman found this was a non-advised sale where LV only needed to provide sufficient information for an informed decision, and the policy schedule clearly disclosed the actual sum assured and risks. Without evidence of what was said during the sale, the ombudsman could not attribute fault to LV and did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

As this was a non-advised sale, LV was only required to provide sufficient information for an informed decision, not to assess suitability. The policy schedule clearly stated the sum assured of £1,500 and explicitly warned in bold that premiums could exceed the payout amount. Although Mr A did not fully understand the policy, without evidence of what occurred at the point of sale, the ombudsman could not attribute fault to LV. Mr A had responsibility to check the policy matched his expectations, particularly given the 30-day cancellation period and clear written information provided.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website