Partially upheld: Failure to follow customer instructions regarding LPA attorney restrictions and inadequate communication complaint against The Prudential Assurance Company Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs C complained that Prudential failed to follow her instruction to deal only with one of her four appointed attorneys under her Lasting Power of Attorney. Prudential maintained it was entitled to recognise all four attorneys appointed jointly and severally under the LPA and could accept instructions from any of them. The ombudsman found Prudential was legally correct in this position but upheld that its communication was inadequate, using unclear wording and failing to properly engage with Mrs C's concerns. The complaint was partially upheld, with the ombudsman confirming Prudential's £75 compensation offer as fair compensation for the frustration and inconvenience caused by the communication failings.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, when attorneys are appointed to act jointly and severally, each attorney has full legal authority to act independently. Prudential was therefore entitled to recognise all four attorneys and accept instructions from any of them. There is no legal requirement for Prudential to restrict dealings to one attorney. However, Prudential's communication fell short of standards: it did not clearly explain its position initially, used unclear wording that could reasonably suggest the approach was legally mandated, and failed to properly engage with detailed points raised in correspondence. These communication failings caused unnecessary frustration and inconvenience, though no financial loss occurred.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website