Not upheld: failed fund switch due to systems error and adequacy of notification complaint against Phoenix Life Limited t/a Standard Life

Decision detail

Summary

Mr L complained that Phoenix Life Limited t/a Standard Life failed to adequately alert him that a fund switch instruction had not been processed due to a systems error that allowed him to select a restricted fund. While on holiday in Europe on 14 November 2025, Mr L instructed a switch of his entire £427,377 pension plan from a higher-risk to lower-risk funds, but the instruction failed because one of the selected funds was restricted to certain Group plans. Standard Life sent a secure message at 11:30am the same day explaining the problem and providing phone and email contact details for alternative instructions. Mr L did not open the message until four days later and did not submit alternative instructions until 20 November after returning home, resulting in a loss of approximately £7,459 due to market movements. The ombudsman found Standard Life's actions reasonable and timely, rejecting Mr L's arguments that a phone call should have been made or that the communication was inadequate, and concluded that Mr L's failure to act promptly on the secure message was his own responsibility.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Standard Life acted reasonably by sending a secure message within 2.5 hours of the failed transaction, which was a safe and appropriate communication method. The message clearly stated the switch hadn't been processed and provided alternative contact methods (phone and email). The ombudsman rejected Mr L's argument that a phone call should have been made, noting that an unknown caller while abroad might not be answered. The ombudsman found that Mr L could have acted on the message the same day by calling or emailing before 5pm, or on Monday 17 November before travelling home on Wednesday. Since Mr L was prepared to call Standard Life on 20 November after returning home, he reasonably could have done so from overseas earlier. The ombudsman concluded that Mr L's failure to open the secure message promptly and take mitigating action was his responsibility, not Standard Life's, and that the £300 compensation already paid was appropriate for the inconvenience caused.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website