Veste

Upheld: incorrect decline of application based on inaccurate medical information complaint against Legal & General Assurance Society Limited

Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6111921 of 2026-04-28T00:00:00+00:00. incorrect decline of application based on inaccurate medical information complaint against Legal & General Assurance Society Limited. Outcome: Upheld.

Decision detail

ReferenceDRN-6111921
Decision date2026-04-28T00:00:00+00:00
FirmLegal & General Assurance Society Limited
Productlife insurance
Claim typeincorrect decline of application based on inaccurate medical information
OutcomeUpheld
RemedyL&G should make a total payment of £250 to Mr N for distress and inconvenience caused.

Summary

Mr N applied for life insurance with L&G in April 2025 and was declined in June 2025 based on medical conditions that did not appear in his medical records. After Mr N contacted his GP and discovered the error, L&G admitted the mistake within two days and apologized. L&G offered £150 compensation, corrected its records, and assured Mr N the incorrect information would not be shared externally. The Investigator recommended £250 compensation, which L&G accepted, but Mr N sought £1,000. The ombudsman upheld the complaint and awarded £250, finding this fair given the swift resolution and limited impact despite the distress caused.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that L&G was at fault for incorrectly declining the application based on medical conditions that did not exist in Mr N's records. However, L&G responded quickly to the complaint within two days, admitted the error, apologized, corrected its records, and provided assurance that the incorrect information would not be shared externally or affect future applications. The ombudsman considered £150 too low but £1,000 too high, settling on £250 as fair compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused, particularly given the swift resolution and limited impact.

How this compares

GroupDecisionsUphold rate
Legal & General Assurance Society Limited, all decisions33921%

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website