Partially upheld: delays in pension benefit access, failure to communicate as requested, service failures complaint against Royal London Mutual Insurance Society, Limited (THE)
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6223843 of 2026-05-01T00:00:00+00:00. delays in pension benefit access, failure to communicate as requested, service failures complaint against Royal London Mutual Insurance Society, Limited (THE). Outcome: Partially upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6223843 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-01T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Royal London Mutual Insurance Society, Limited (THE) |
| Product | pension |
| Claim type | delays in pension benefit access, failure to communicate as requested, service failures |
| Outcome | Partially upheld |
| Remedy | Royal London must calculate the net annuity income and tax free cash that would have been paid if policy 85XXX24 had been purchased on 15 May 2025 and policy 84XXX44 had been purchased on 1 July 2025. Any difference between these amounts and actual amounts paid represents Ms C's loss. Interest must be added at 8% per year simple from the respective dates to the date of payment. Compensation should be paid as a lump sum after notional reduction for income tax. Royal London's previous payment of £778.06 should be taken into account. The £300 compensation for distress and inconvenience already paid is deemed appropriate and no further compensation is required for this element. |
Summary
Ms C complained about delays in accessing her two personal pensions with Royal London, poor communication (documents sent by post despite her email request due to being overseas), and failure to advise that she had sent one application form in duplicate. Royal London acknowledged causing delays by requesting identification documentation they already held and agreed to revised timescales. The ombudsman upheld the complaints regarding delays and communication failures, finding Royal London should have communicated more clearly and respected Ms C's email preference. However, the complaint regarding the annuity not including inflation escalation was not upheld, as call recordings showed Ms C was provided with clear information about both options and made an informed decision based on income considerations. Royal London was ordered to calculate and pay the loss Ms C incurred due to the delayed annuity purchase dates, plus interest at 8% per year simple.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
Royal London caused delays by requesting identification documentation they already held and by sending communications by post despite Ms C's explicit request for email communication due to being overseas. Royal London failed to clearly advise Ms C that she had sent one form in duplicate, which contributed to confusion and further delays. However, the telephone call recordings demonstrate that Ms C was provided with clear information about both level and escalating annuity options and made an informed decision to choose the level annuity based on the income reduction associated with escalation. The ombudsman accepted the investigator's revised timeline for when payments should have been made and upheld the complaint regarding delays and communication failures, but rejected the annuity escalation complaint as there was no evidence of unfair treatment or lack of informed consent.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Royal London Mutual Insurance Society, Limited (THE), all decisions | 19 | 16% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website