Not upheld: Investment mis-selling complaint against Sesame Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr and Mrs W complained that they were misled when taking out a level term life assurance policy in 2014, as they expected to receive a surrender value at the end of the term but did not. The consultant had explained the policy would provide a lump sum payout if death or terminal illness occurred during the 12-year term, and written documentation clearly stated when the sum assured would be payable. Although Mr and Mrs W had previously held a different life assurance policy with a surrender value, Sesame was unaware of this prior policy. The ombudsman found that the consultant provided sufficient information about the policy features and did not mislead them, and therefore did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman reviewed the sales call recordings and found that the consultant provided sufficient information about the main features of the policy, explaining that it would pay out a lump sum only if death or terminal illness occurred during the policy term. The consultant did not mention or promise any cash-in value, and there was no reason for the consultant to explicitly state there was no surrender value since only simple life assurance was discussed and Mr and Mrs W did not express any expectation of receiving a value at the end of the term. The written documentation also clearly set out when the sum assured would be payable. Although Mr and Mrs W expected a different type of policy based on previous experience, Sesame had no knowledge of that prior policy.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website