Legal General Annuity Policy · CAS-68103-N0K0

CAS-68103-N0K0

Ombudsman’s Determination Applicant Mr E

Scheme Legal & General Annuity Policy (the Policy)

Respondents Legal & General Assurance Society (L&G)

ReAssure Limited (ReAssure)

Outcome

Complaint summary

Background information, including submissions from the parties and timeline of events The sequence of events is not in dispute, so I have only set out the salient points. I acknowledge there were other exchanges of information between all the parties.

1 CAS-68103-N0K0

• L&G had issued Mr E with details of the monthly annuity payments he would receive, and payment would be backdated to 27 August 2020.

• The first annuity payment should have been made on 25 September 2020. It asked Mr E to send it evidence of any charges he had incurred due to the payment not being made on time.

• It was sending £100 to his bank account. This was in respect of interest resulting from the late payment of his annuity and a payment in respect of any inconvenience caused by the delay.

• He queried whose decision it had been to not inform policy holders that a mistake had been made in transferring their policies to ReAssure. 2 CAS-68103-N0K0 • He asked who discovered this error and when.

• He said that the error in transferring the Policy to ReAssure had demonstrated that L&G did not have the correct procedures in place.

• He asked if any authorities had been informed of this situation.

• He referred to his name having been incorrect on a letter L&G had sent him and a return envelope it had advised was enclosed not being provided.

• Mr E’s funds had been transferred to L&G who was putting his annuity into payment. Going forward, L&G would be responsible for the administration of his annuity.

• ReAssure had purchased all mature savings policies from L&G. Whether the Policy was terminated at the start of September 2020 or active, the Policy records would have been transferred to ReAssure.

• L&G had written to affected customers in July and August 2019 to tell them about the transfer. They were told how they could submit any objections.

• His letter of 30 September 2020 and email of 15 October 2020 had been passed to ReAssure as the terms of the transfer meant ReAssure was responsible for dealing with the complaint.

• It had paid £100 into Mr E’s bank account. It advised this was in recognition of his name being incorrect on a letter it had sent him and a return envelope it had said was enclosed not being provided. The payment was not in respect of any delay in the payment of the annuity, as this had been addressed by ReAssure with the payment of £100 in respect of lost interest and distress and inconvenience suffered by Mr E (see paragraph 17 above). 3 CAS-68103-N0K0

• His personal details should not have been sent to ReAssure as this was a breach of the data protection regulations. It was unacceptable that ReAssure would now keep the information for at least six years.

• He questioned whether the £100 already paid to him by L&G was adequate given he had budgeted for receipt of £477.18 on time. Also, L&G had made no attempt to contact him to explain the reason for the delay in paying his annuity.

• It had been correct in sending Mr E’s personal details to ReAssure. At the time of the transfer, the process of setting up Mr E’s annuity had not been completed. So, he was still a pensions customer and the Policy was therefore included in the transfer. Payment of the annuity had been referred back to L&G as it was ReAssure’s preferred annuity provider. Its privacy policy states:

“Additionally, we may disclose your personal information to third parties:

In the event that we sell or buy any business or assets, in which case we’ll disclose your personal data to the prospective seller or buyer of such business or assets.”

• Mr E had not missed out on any pension income. The £480 figure he quoted was received by him on 20 October 2020 when the first instalment of his annuity was paid.

Adjudicator’s Opinion

• Mr E was due to be paid an annuity from his SRD of 27 August 2020. He had been notified by L&G in July 2020 that he would receive his first annuity payment within 15 to 20 working days of his SRD. So, it was reasonable for Mr E to consider that the first payment would be made by 25 September 2020.

• In fact, Mr E did not receive the first instalment of his annuity until 20 October 2020.

• ReAssure had paid Mr E a sum of £100 which included interest in relation to the late payment of his annuity. It also gave him the opportunity to provide evidence of any additional costs he had incurred as a result of the delay and no such evidence was provided. In the Adjudicator’s opinion, Mr E had been adequately compensated for the financial loss he suffered due to the delay.

4 CAS-68103-N0K0 • The Adjudicator also reviewed any non-financial injustice that Mr E had suffered. The Adjudicator acknowledged that, between 25 September and 20 October 2020, Mr E would have been uncertain when he would receive his first annuity instalment.

• In looking at this, the Adjudicator took into account the relatively short period of uncertainty. He took the view that, while some poor administration had taken place, this did not amount to maladministration. In the Adjudicator’s view, the award offered was sufficient in the circumstances.

• Mr E had questioned whether it was necessary for the Policy to be transferred to ReAssure and then back to L&G. When part of a business is purchased by another provider, it is necessary for the personal details of those whose policies were included in the transfer to be passed across. The Adjudicator was satisfied that, as Mr E’s benefits had not been settled at the time of the transfer, it would have been necessary for his personal details to be sent to ReAssure as part of the transfer.

• In relation to the transfer back to L&G, not all providers set up annuities themselves. Some have preferred annuity providers that they partner with to ensure that, where appropriate, annuities for their policy holders are put in place. In the case of Mr E, ReAssure’s annuity provider of choice was L&G and so it asked L&G to set up his annuity. It was a coincidence that the Policy had originally been with L&G and ReAssure’s preferred annuity provider was also L&G.

• In the Adjudicator’s opinion, there was nothing of concern in relation to the transfer of the Policy to ReAssure and the subsequent setting up of Mr E’s annuity with L&G.

Mr E provided some further comments in response to the Opinion. In summary he said:-

• The Adjudicator had referred to the relatively short period of the delay in setting up his first annuity payment. However, during the delay, he had not been notified when the first payment would be made. Without this information, he had to assume it would be months before he received it.

• He was surprised that the financial authorities allowed L&G to be ReAssure’s preferred annuity provider when L&G had sold the Policy to ReAssure. He said that this sounded unethical and questioned whether it was done to cover up their mistake.

I have considered the additional points raised by Mr E, however they do not change the outcome, I agree with the Adjudicator’s Opinion.

5 CAS-68103-N0K0 Ombudsman’s decision

I do not uphold Mr E’s complaint.

Anthony Arter CBE Deputy Pensions Ombudsman 15 May 2023

6