Not upheld: delay in pension payout and poor service handling complaint against Prudential Pensions Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6284052 of 2026-05-14T00:00:00+00:00. delay in pension payout and poor service handling complaint against Prudential Pensions Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6284052 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-14T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Prudential Pensions Limited |
| Product | pension |
| Claim type | delay in pension payout and poor service handling |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | Prudential has already paid £175 in total compensation for distress and inconvenience (£125 and £50 in two separate payments) plus £71.86 in interest, totalling £246.86. No further remedy was ordered. |
Summary
Mr P complained that Prudential took four months (from July to October 2025) to pay out his personal pension fund of £4,094.03 and handled his request poorly. Prudential acknowledged the delay and service failures, offering £175 compensation for distress and inconvenience plus £71.86 interest, calculating that payment could have been made by 5 August 2025. Mr P remained dissatisfied, particularly objecting to a letter mentioning money laundering requirements and claiming repeated requests for identification documents. The ombudsman found Prudential's compensation offer fair and reasonable, accepting that 5 August 2025 was a reasonable earliest payment date and that the £175 was appropriate for the service failures. The ombudsman rejected Mr P's objections to the identification letter as a standard regulatory requirement and found no evidence of lost documents or unreasonable repeated requests.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman accepted Prudential's position that payment could have been made on 5 August 2025, which was reasonable given the process began on 1 July 2025 and involved confirming Mr P's wishes, verifying identity, and arranging payment. The interest payment of £71.86 at 8% per annum simple interest was fair compensation for the delay. Regarding the letter mentioning money laundering, the ombudsman found it was a standard letter sent to all customers in similar situations explaining why identification was required, not an accusation against Mr P. The ombudsman considered the £175 total compensation for distress and inconvenience appropriate for an error lasting several weeks with some poor handling, noting that FOS awards tend to be modest. The ombudsman rejected Mr P's other complaints as either falling away due to the accepted payment date or not constituting actionable failures.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Prudential Pensions Limited, all decisions | 8 | 38% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website