ReAssure Limited · DRN-6249992

The complaint Miss W complains that during the delays caused by ReAssure Limited (‘ReAssure’) when processing the transfer of her pension to another provider, the value of her plan increased, but ReAssure retained the increased value which was due to her. What happened Miss W held four private pensions, with various providers, and sometime around September 2024, having taken financial advice, decided to transfer all four arrangements to another provider (who I will refer to as Provider A) in order to purchase an annuity with the combined funds. At that time, Miss W’s plan with ReAssure was comprised of 2 parts – an uncrystallised element worth around £93,500 and a drawdown pot (crystallised) worth £45,800. Miss W had already taken £15,000 tax free cash. Miss W (supported by her adviser) instigated the transfer from ReAssure to Provider A and a transfer request was submitted via the Origo system. Miss W requested that the tax free cash from the uncrystallised element of her pension, was transferred to her, and the remaining fund be switched to provider A. On 18 November 2024, ReAssure wrote to Miss W’s adviser confirming that the transfer value was £138,375. A quarterly update was sent on the same day, showing the breakdown of the plan as at 17 October 2024. This provided a breakdown of the crystallised and uncrystallised funds (£43,375 and £92,999 respectively). On 23 December 2024, ReAssure sent £139,785 (representing the total value of the fund) directly to Provider A, and did not send the tax free cash to Miss W. ReAssure advised Miss W of the total sent to Provider A in a letter. On 17 January 2025, Miss W’s adviser on her behalf contacted ReAssure to confirm whether the tax free cash had been paid, and if so, the amount. On 20 January 2025, Miss W submitted a complaint. The call notes state, in summary, that the complaint related to how long it was taking to receive the tax free cash information. On 10 February 2025, Provider A returned the £139,785 to ReAssure. On 13 February 2025, ReAssure wrote to Miss W sending a quarterly update, giving an overview of her retirement account as at 24 January 2025. This showed the value at that time to be £96,300 (uncrystallised) and £46,551 (crystallised). On 18 February 2025 ReAssure received the returned funds, and arranged to pay the tax free cash for the uncrystallised funds to Miss W. At that time, the remaining funds would be crystallised, and a transfer of £116,284 was to be paid back to Provider A. The tax free cash was paid on 19 February 2025

-- 1 of 5 --

On 24 February 2025, Miss W called ReAssure to query the amount of tax free cash received. She had received £23,501, however her understanding was that the value of the fund at that time was £96,300, therefore she believed that she would receive £24,075. On 4 March 2025, ReAssure wrote to Miss W confirming the total of £116,284 had been transferred to Provider A. On 18 March 2025, ReAssure sent a final response to Miss W’s complaint following a telephone call with her. They apologised for the funds being paid incorrectly, and the delays in remedying the situation. They stated that the correct effective date used when the payment was made was 13 December 2024. The letter explained that this date was used because that was the date that all requirements had been met. Due to not having paid the tax free cash correctly, ReAssure paid interest which they rounded up to £351 and confirmed that they would perform a loss assessment to make sure Miss W had not been disadvantaged by the delays. They referred to mortgage payments Miss W stated that she had had to pay due to not being able to pay off her mortgage earlier, and said that upon seeing evidence of the payments, they would consider this also. In addition to this they made a payment of £450 compensation for their error, £200 for exceeding the eight week timeframe for dealing with the complaint, and the above interest, meaning a total of £1,001 was paid. On 31 March 2025, ReAssure wrote to Miss W, confirming that following receipt of information from Provider A, they were satisfied that Miss W had not lost out financially as a result of the delay On 27 June 2025, Miss W forwarded her complaint to this service. She complained that during the time that elapsed when errors were made relating to her pension transfer, the value of her portfolio increased, which she believed should be paid to her. On 27 November 2025 our investigator wrote to both parties with her view. She did not ask ReAssure to take any action. The investigator considered the timeline of events, the delays that had occurred and whether they were reasonable. The investigator concluded that ReAssure had accepted that an error was made on their part, by not sending the 25% tax free cash to Miss W before transferring the funds to Provider A. She concluded that if ReAssure had processed everything correctly, it was more than likely that the transfer would have completed on 13 December 2024 when all the requirements were met, therefore any loss assessment should be carried out at that date. She reiterated that ReAssure had used the initial Origo request date of 28 November 2024 to terminate the policy, and although the funds were returned in February 2025, the policy had already been terminated. Because Provider A had confirmed that the annuity purchased with Miss W’s funds had been backdated, she was satisfied that there had been no financial loss as a result of the error. Miss W was unsatisfied with our investigator’s response and therefore the complaint has been forwarded to me Provisional Findings I issued my provisional decision on 11 March 2026. It said: “I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and

-- 2 of 5 --

reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Having done so, I am in largely in agreement with the investigator, and for broadly the same reasons however I have come to a slightly different conclusion in relation to the compensation due to Miss W. I have summarised this complaint in less detail than Miss W has done and I’ve done so using my own words. The purpose of my decision isn’t to address every single point raised by all of the parties involved. If there’s something I’ve not mentioned, it isn’t because I’ve ignored it – I haven’t. I’m satisfied that I don’t need to comment on every individual argument to be able to reach what I think is the right outcome. No discourtesy is intended by this; our rules allow me to do this and it simply reflects the informal nature of our service as a free alternative to the courts. At the outset I think it is useful to reflect on the role of this service. This service isn’t intended to regulate or punish businesses for their conduct – that is the role of the Financial Conduct Authority. Instead this service looks to resolve individual complaints between a consumer and a business. Should we decide that something has gone wrong we would ask the business to put things right by placing the consumer, as far as is possible, in the position they would have been if the problem hadn’t occurred. ReAssure have provided a call log outlining the communications between them and the relevant other parties involved in the transfer. This shows that the original Origo transfer request that was submitted, wasn’t valid due to the pension having both crystallised and uncrystallised funds. This call log shows that following the cancellation of the original Origo request in early December 2024, a new request was submitted and in the final stages of authorisation in mid December 2024. The call notes dated 11 December 2024 state “last note on task states waiting for authorisation, so in final stages”. Following this, the transfer payment was made in full on 23 December 2024. However, this was incorrect, as the full value of the pension was sent to Provider A, rather than the available tax free cash being sent to Miss W. In their correspondence, ReAssure have stated that they received two Origo requests on 28 November 2024, and should have transferred the crystallised funds in full, paid the tax free cash from the uncrystallised funds to Miss W and the remainder of the funds to Provider A. They confirmed that the error was identified in January 2025 when Miss W’s adviser queried the tax free cash amount, which resulted in Provider A returning the funds to ReAssure in February 2025 before then sending the tax free cash of £23,501 to Miss W (calculated using 28 November 2024) and the remaining £116,284 to Provider A. ReAssure stated that in order to put things right, they used the initial Origo request date of 28 November 2024 to terminate the policy, and whilst the funds were returned in February 2025, the policy had been terminated and the same liability date was used to calculate the correct tax free cash and residual funds. ReAssure have apologised for their error in incorrectly sending the full value of Miss W’s pension to Provider A and made a payment to her in respect of the error. I have therefore not investigated this element further, and concentrated instead on what I understand to be the main crux of Miss W’s complaint, that is that she believes that she should be entitled to a higher value than that paid. I acknowledge that ReAssure sent a further valuation to Miss W on 13 February 2025, showing a higher valuation, and Miss W therefore believes that this higher amount should be the valuation used when ReAssure made the final payment to her. I have considered whether this is reasonable and am not satisfied that it is. Although regrettable, using financial services won’t always be hassle free and sometimes mistakes occur. When they

-- 3 of 5 --

do, we’d expect the business to put the consumer back into the position that they should’ve been in were it not for the error. From what I’ve seen, ReAssure have already done that, as Miss W’s pension value when the tax free cash was paid to her and the remainder transferred to provider A was calculated with the values as at 28 November 2024, which it would have been had the error not occurred. I would add that although the valuation was issued in February 2025, the pension was no longer in existence at that time, having previously been transferred out. ReAssure have paid a total of £650 to reflect the inconvenience caused, in addition to paying interest in respect of the delay in paying the tax free cash. Although I understand how frustrating this must be for Miss W, I cannot ask a business to make a payment to a customer for money that is not theirs. I think it is worth clarifying here that if the value of Miss W’s pension shown in the subsequent valuation in February 2025 had been lower than the value as at 28 November 2024, I would be asking ReAssure to honour the higher value. I have been made aware that Provider A received a total of £116,284 on 5 March 2025, which was backdated to an initial received date of 16 December 2024. Provider A have stated that this has resulted in Miss W receiving an annual income of £14,127 before tax, resulting in a monthly income of £1,177. Provider A have stated that they made a gross payment of £3,531 to Miss W on 19 March 2025, which represented the annuity payments which would have been made in December 2024, January 2025 and February 2025 had the error not occurred. I have considered the impact of ReAssure’s error on Miss W, and also taken into account the levels of compensation which this service would typically award for errors such as this. I am satisfied that the amount paid is in line with what this service would typically award for issues such as this. I understand that ReAssure have already paid this amount, in addition to £351 in interest for the tax free cash, (a total of £1,001) therefore there is nothing further to pay. Miss W has stated that she intended to use her tax free cash to repay her mortgage and has paid additional mortgage payments as a result of the delayed transactions. She has provided a mortgage statement showing mortgage payments being made on the third of each month until May 2025, when the mortgage was redeemed in full. The mortgage payments included interest and a repayment of capital, which would have had the effect of reducing the total outstanding when the mortgage was redeemed. I have been provided with evidence showing that Miss W redeemed her mortgage on 16 May 2025, this is 86 days after she received her tax free cash. And, I understand that Miss W used all of the tax free cash payment towards the repayment of her mortgage. In order to ascertain whether Miss W paid additional interest as a result of the delay, it is reasonable to conclude that had she received the correct tax free cash on 16 December 2025 (the initial received date stated by Provider A, and therefore when she would have received the tax free cash had the error not occurred), she would have repaid her mortgage on 12 March 2025, 86 days after the received date. Therefore, the delay in Miss W actually repaying her mortgage on 16 May 2025 that can reasonably considered to be due to ReAssure’s errors was 65 days, between 12 March 2025 and 16 May 2025. I am aware that ReAssure have already paid £351 to Miss W in respect of interest because of the delay in paying the tax free cash to her. This service can award interest when an error has occurred to reflect that fact that an individual has not been given money when they should have been, and so hasn’t had that money available to use, and it is in line with this that ReAssure have paid the interest to Miss W. Although I acknowledge that Miss W says she had to pay mortgage interest due to the delay in receiving her tax free cash, ReAssure have already paid interest to compensate Miss W

-- 4 of 5 --

for not being able to use that money during the delay which exceeds the mortgage interest paid as a result of the delay. I am therefore not asking ReAssure to make any further payment in respect of the mortgage interest. It is apparent that the annuity payments received by Miss W were received later than they should have been, therefore ReAssure should calculate the interest at 8%pa simple to the annuity payments, from the date each one should have been made, to the date they were actually paid and pay this interest to Miss W.” Responses to my provisional decision I have received responses from both Miss W and ReAssure confirming that they accept my provisional decision. Neither party have made any additional comments or provided further evidence for consideration. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. As no new information or evidence has been received from either party, I see no reason to change my decision. So I remain of the view I set out in my provisional decision – my findings as set out above should be considered as part of my final decision. It follows that I uphold this complaint in respect of the errors caused by ReAssure when transferring Miss W’s pension. Putting things right As I explained in my provisional decision, to fairly compensate Miss W, ReAssure should pay simple interest at 8% per year on the late annuity payments, calculated from the dates each payment ought to have been made to the dates they were actually paid. This is in addition to the £1,001 that ReAssure have already paid to Miss W in respect of interest and to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused. My final decision For the reasons explained above, I uphold Miss W’s complaint against ReAssure Limited, and they should pay the additional interest amount calculated as set out above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss W to accept or reject my decision before 22 April 2026. Joanne Molloy Ombudsman

-- 5 of 5 --