Not upheld: failure to disclose policy terms; inadequate disclosure of qualifying period conditions complaint against Attivo Financial Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6262537 of 2026-05-05T00:00:00+00:00. failure to disclose policy terms; inadequate disclosure of qualifying period conditions complaint against Attivo Financial Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6262537 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-05T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Attivo Financial Limited |
| Product | investment with life insurance |
| Claim type | failure to disclose policy terms; inadequate disclosure of qualifying period conditions |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | Attivo offered £250 compensation for distress and inconvenience, which the ombudsman noted the estate could accept if it wished to do so. |
Summary
The estate of Mr D complained that Attivo Financial Limited failed to adequately disclose a 90-day qualifying period for life insurance included with an investment product recommended for inheritance tax mitigation. Mr D, aged 84 with deteriorating health, died on 28 October 2024, within the 90-day period, resulting in the life cover being voided. The ombudsman found that while Attivo did not sufficiently highlight this qualifying period, the advice was suitable for Mr D's objectives and he would likely have proceeded regardless, as there was no evidence he expected imminent death within 90 days. The complaint was not upheld, though Attivo's offer of £250 compensation for distress was noted.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that while Attivo failed to make the 90-day qualifying period sufficiently clear to Mr D, the evidence did not support that Mr D believed he would die within 90 days. The Estate Planning Recommendation Report recorded that Mr D and his family felt age 90/95 would be optimistic, indicating no expectation of imminent death. The advice was suitable as it aimed to provide IHT relief either through survival to two years or through life cover payout if death occurred within that period. The ombudsman was persuaded that Mr D would have proceeded with the investment even if the 90-day qualifying period had been clearly disclosed, given his primary objective of urgent IHT mitigation and the suitability of the overall recommendation.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Attivo Financial Limited, all decisions | 2 | 25% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website