Mrs E approached us with concerns regarding her Free Standing Additional Voluntary Contribution (FSAVC) policy she held prior to retirement with Aviva. She wanted to understand if the policy had been mis-sold, so we agreed to initiate an information request on her behalf to investigate further.
Armed with the letter of authority, we promptly sent the information request to Aviva, who responded quickly with some very basic information.
With this information and after a further discussion with Mrs E, we prepared and submitted an initial complaint to Aviva and soon after received their response, informing us that they were not actually the original sellers of the policy.
The policy had originally been sold by a company called Nobel Lowndes (now Sedgwick Nobel Lowndes), which is currently under the ownership of Mercer. To proceed with the complaint, we needed to redirect it to Mercer. We required a newly signed form from Mrs E to proceed with this fresh complaint against Mercer.
Mercer then posed several additional questions to gain more information for their investigation. Mrs E promptly addressed and signed these, enabling us provide Mercer with everything they needed.
Mercer issued a “Timebar” response, asserting that Mrs E was outside the allowed timeframe to file a complaint.
They claimed that Mrs E had three years to complain from the date on which she became (or ought reasonably to have become aware) that she had a cause to complain. They cited a date in 2011 when Mrs E retired and vested her FSAVC as the date at which she should or ought reasonably to have become aware of any issues.
After discussing with Mrs E, we collectively decided not to accept the timebar decision and opted to escalate the complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). With extensive experience in challenging these decisions, our senior claims manager was confident in our grounds to proceed.
The investigator at the FOS gathers information from both the consumer and the financial business, they assess the details and then aim to resolve the dispute informally.
The investigator on Mrs E’s case concluded that the events of 2011 (retirement) would not have caused Mrs E to have a cause to complain about the sale of the FSAVC back in 1991. He then went on to assess the merits of the complaint and investigate how the FSAVC was sold. He then concluded that it had not been sold correctly and that Mercer should carry out a calculation to establish the losses that Mrs E may have suffered.
He issued his recommendation, which both parties can choose to accept. If both agree, the case is closed but, in this case, Mercer continued to disagree with the decision and requested an official ombudsman review, which is a more formal process.
An ombudsman will then take a fresh look at the case and make a final decision, which is legally binding on the financial business if the consumer accepts it. This is typically the final stage of the complaint process within the FOS.
It was not surprising to us that in this case, the Ombudsman also upheld the complaint, confirming that Mercer needed to acknowledge the claim and begin calculations to determine if Mrs E was owed any compensation.
Mercer duly completed the calculations and made a compensation offer of £2,763.31 to Mrs E. While the case took some time to resolve due to the multiple steps and necessary escalation to the FOS and Ombudsman, Mrs E was extremely pleased with our dedicated and professional handling of her case.
Mrs E’s journey reflects the challenges and persistence often required to resolve mis-selling complaints, especially when ownership of policies shifts over time. Our team’s commitment and understanding of the process were crucial in achieving a successful outcome for her, reinforcing our commitment to delivering excellent client service in every case.