Upheld: poor customer service, delays in processing policy alterations, inadequate communication, internal mismanagement complaint against Royal London Mutual Insurance Society, Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr and Mrs H complained that Royal London provided poor customer service over a prolonged period in handling their request to increase life and critical illness cover following a remortgage in April 2024. Although Royal London acknowledged service failings in its November 2024 final response and paid £200 compensation, significant delays and communication breakdowns continued through early 2025, with the matter remaining unresolved for approximately one year. The ombudsman found that while some delays were due to medical underwriting requirements (including Mrs H's additional back surgery), the primary cause was Royal London's poor internal communication, failure to respond to calls timely, and lack of progress even when Mr H promptly provided requested information. The complaint was upheld and Royal London was ordered to pay a total of £700 in compensation (£500 additional to the £200 already paid) to reflect the distress, inconvenience, and avoidable uncertainty caused by the firm's prolonged service failings.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Royal London's service failings extended significantly beyond what was addressed in its November 2024 final response. Although some delays were attributable to medical underwriting requirements and Mrs H's additional surgery, the evidence demonstrated that Royal London caused avoidable delays through poor internal communication, failure to respond to calls in a timely manner, and lack of progress even when Mr H promptly provided requested information. The ombudsman noted that while Mr H did not immediately respond to some requests (such as the October 2024 policy terms and December 2024 Declaration of Health form), these instances did not materially contribute to the prolonged delays. The primary cause was Royal London's poor service and miscommunication. The matter was only resolved when Mr H took the initiative to cancel the existing policy and arrange new cover himself, indicating the firm's failure to resolve the issue. The ombudsman rejected Mr H's request for Royal London to honour a £225k quote, finding that Mr H did not respond within the required 30-day timeframe and that it would not be fair to require the firm to revisit quotes given that Mr H could have taken greater steps to progress matters at a later stage.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website