Not upheld: policy mismanagement, poor performance, charges, communication and accessibility complaint against Phoenix Life Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6032697 of 2026-06-15T00:00:00+00:00. policy mismanagement, poor performance, charges, communication and accessibility complaint against Phoenix Life Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6032697 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-15T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Phoenix Life Limited |
| Product | Life / income protection |
| Claim type | policy mismanagement, poor performance, charges, communication and accessibility |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | No further remedy ordered. Phoenix Life's existing offer of £100 compensation for delays in clarifying the third-party mandate limitations is deemed fair and reasonable. |
Summary
Mr B complained that his whole of life assurance policy with Phoenix Life, taken out in 1987, had been mismanaged due to poor performance and charges, and that Phoenix Life had not properly communicated with his representative Mrs A due to his health conditions including dementia and hearing difficulties. Phoenix Life had offered a third-party mandate allowing Mrs A to obtain verbal information only, not written correspondence. The ombudsman found no evidence of wrongdoing in the policy's management, performance, or charges, which are typical for with-profits funds and industry practice. Phoenix Life was not responsible for providing ongoing advice or checking if the policy still met Mr B's needs. The firm was not made aware of Mr B's additional needs until March 2025, and had made reasonable efforts to inform customers they could request adjustments. The third-party mandate was deemed a reasonable accommodation, and the £100 compensation already offered was fair.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that Phoenix Life did not act wrongly in its management of the policy, as with-profits funds operate on a discretionary basis and performance is not guaranteed. The charges deducted are common industry practice and reasonable. Phoenix Life provided adequate policy information through statements and factsheets. The firm was not responsible for providing ongoing advice or checking whether the policy still met Mr B's needs - that was Mr B's responsibility. Regarding communication, Phoenix Life was not made aware of Mr B's additional needs until March 2025, and its statements clearly invited customers to request adjustments. The third-party mandate was a reasonable accommodation given Mr B's circumstances and capacity. The £100 compensation already offered was fair for service delays.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Phoenix Life Limited, all decisions | 1,106 | 20% |
| Life / income protection, all decisions | 10,405 | 21% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website