Not upheld: lack of communication, inadequate customer support during pandemic, conflicting information about policy terms, data retention complaint against Family Assurance Friendly Society Limited trading as OneFamily

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs L complained to OneFamily in April 2025 about lack of communication since taking out an Over 50s life insurance policy in May 2017, inadequate support during the Covid-19 pandemic and cost of living crisis, and conflicting information about policy terms. The Ombudsman ruled that two complaints (general communication and conflicting information) were brought more than six years after the events and more than three years after Mrs L ought reasonably to have become aware of cause for complaint, with no exceptional circumstances to justify the delay. For the pandemic support complaint, the Ombudsman found OneFamily was not required to actively contact all customers under FCA guidance and had complied by making information available on its website and offering support to those who contacted it. Since Mrs L did not contact OneFamily about difficulties and experienced no financial hardship, the complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The Ombudsman applied strict time-limit rules under FOS DISP 2.8.2R, finding that complaints 1 and 3 were brought more than six years after the events complained of and more than three years after Mrs L ought reasonably to have become aware of cause for complaint. The Ombudsman rejected exceptional circumstances arguments, noting that while Mrs L is currently incapacitated by illness, there was no evidence she was unable to correspond during the relevant timescales. For complaint 2 (pandemic support), the Ombudsman found OneFamily was not required to actively contact all customers under FCA guidance, had made information available on its website, and offered support to those who contacted it. Since Mrs L did not contact OneFamily about difficulties and did not experience financial hardship, OneFamily acted fairly and reasonably.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website