Not upheld: inadequate information provision and policy review outcome complaint against ReAssure Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6192532 of 2026-06-09T00:00:00+00:00. inadequate information provision and policy review outcome complaint against ReAssure Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6192532 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-09T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | ReAssure Limited |
| Product | Life / income protection |
| Claim type | inadequate information provision and policy review outcome |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | The £400 compensation offered by ReAssure for the inconvenience caused by unclear communications regarding the level of cover for each life assured is deemed fair and reasonable. Mr and Mrs F are free to accept this offer. |
Summary
Mr and Mrs F complained to ReAssure Limited about the outcome of their 2024 whole of life policy review, which required premiums to increase from £242.26 to £523.38 per month to maintain cover. They also raised concerns about the suitability of the policy and alleged they had been given misleading information in the past. ReAssure partially upheld the complaint and offered £400 compensation for unclear communications. The ombudsman found that while ReAssure failed to provide sufficient clear, fair and not misleading information about the policy, Mr and Mrs F would likely not have taken different action if properly informed earlier, as evidenced by their inaction in 2019 despite being made aware of serious policy problems. The complaint was not upheld, though the £400 compensation for unclear communications about cover levels was deemed fair and reasonable.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman acknowledged that ReAssure failed to provide sufficient clear, fair and not misleading information about the policy. However, the key issue was whether Mr and Mrs F would have acted differently if properly informed. The ombudsman examined their response to the substantial information provided in 2019 (charges exceeding premiums, five-year projection, significant fund depletion, risk of material premium increases) and found they took no action despite understanding the policy's serious problems. The ombudsman reasoned that if they didn't act when the situation was dire (2019), they would not have acted earlier (2011) when projections would have been more favourable. Therefore, the failure to provide information earlier would not have changed the outcome. The ombudsman distinguished between a firm's failing and whether that failing caused loss, noting that compensation for the inconvenience of unclear communications was appropriate but the complaint itself should not be upheld.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| ReAssure Limited, all decisions | 1,046 | 32% |
| Life / income protection, all decisions | 10,405 | 21% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website