Not upheld: Service failures generally complaint against Liverpool Victoria Financial Services Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs S complained to the FOS about Liverpool Victoria Financial Services Limited's handling of her over-50's life insurance policy cancellation and the service she received during the process. Mrs S had raised a mis-sale complaint and initially wanted to hold off cancelling her policy while this was investigated. On 24 February 2025, she cancelled her Direct Debit and emailed LV to inform them, but did not explicitly request policy cancellation. LV sent letters on 25 February and 11 March 2025 confirming the policy remained live. On 23 April 2025, LV called Mrs S directly to confirm her cancellation intentions, which she confirmed, and the policy was subsequently cancelled. Mrs S complained that LV should have cancelled the policy following her 24 February email, that the 23 April call was unnecessary and patronising, and that LV should have communicated with Mr M instead of contacting her directly. She also complained about LV incorrectly referring to Mr M as her son/stepson and about LV's expression of sympathy for her loss. The ombudsman found that LV acted reasonably throughout, as cancelling a Direct Debit does not cancel a policy, Mrs S' email did not explicitly request cancellation, and LV's direct call to confirm her intentions was a reasonable exercise of its duty of care. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that cancelling a Direct Debit does not cancel a policy itself, and LV reasonably understood the policy was to remain live based on its conversations with Mrs S and Mr M. While Mrs S' email on 24 February 2025 indicated she had cancelled her Direct Debit, it did not explicitly state she wanted to cancel the policy. The ombudsman considered it unreasonable to expect LV to have assumed several weeks later that Mrs S wanted to cancel without further confirmation, particularly given that intentions can change and not all customers who raise mis-sale complaints proceed with cancellation. The ombudsman found LV's direct call to Mrs S on 23 April 2025 to confirm her cancellation intentions was reasonable and consistent with LV's duty of care, as it is standard practice for businesses to check a customer's understanding of the implications of formal policy decisions. The ombudsman noted that Mrs S had received letters on 25 February and 11 March 2025 making her aware the policy was still live, providing her with an opportunity to contact LV if she wished to cancel. The ombudsman also found that LV's reference to Mr M as son/stepson rather than son-in-law was human error that LV had apologised for, and that LV's expression of sympathy for Mrs S' loss was not disingenuous given the context Mr M had provided.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website