Not upheld: mis-selling - inadequate disclosure of policy deductions complaint against Wesleyan Financial Services Limited (formerly BMA)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr H complained that he was mis-sold an income protection insurance policy in 1995 because the adviser failed to clearly explain how pension income would be deducted from his benefit. When Mr H claimed on the policy in 2020 following early ill health retirement, he received only 20% of his expected benefit due to these deductions. The ombudsman found the policy was suitable for Mr H's needs based on the financial planning report and proposal form provided at sale, which clearly detailed the deductions that would apply. The complaint was not upheld as the ombudsman was not persuaded that clearer disclosure would have led Mr H to purchase an alternative policy.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that during an advised sale, the seller must ensure the policy is suitable for the client's needs. The documentation provided at the time of sale, including the proposal form with a detailed table of cover and the financial planning report, clearly set out the deductions that would apply. The ombudsman was not persuaded that highlighting deductions at the point of sale would have led Mr H to choose a different policy given his budget and occupation-specific policy type. The policy was therefore suitable and not mis-sold.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website