Help! - Policy valuation disappears in puff of smoke as a backdated lapsed policy

RoughRook

Holly,once again, thanks so much for your help. Will follow the route you discussed for sure. Makes a lot of sense.

RoughRook

After being provided with a copy of the 2001 letter, Royal London replied that they do not doubt that such a letter was issued stating confirmation of a plan’s policy number and its 2001 value, but have no record of it.

They go on to quote their terms and conditions, stating that the policy lapsed without value in 1987.

They state that referral rights to the Ombudsman remain unchanged.

Any further advice much appreciated.

holly_hobby

Hi Rook,

Ok ... thanks for letting me know you've posted up developments.

Its important for me to say again, that as I have prev advised I do agree with RL, there would not be an SV for only 6 mths premiums paid (if their T&Cs follow those of other providers, which as discussed in my earlier post is crica 24/36 mths before an SV starts accumulating) - however, your argument is that they sent Dad a letter in 2001 in which they quoted the correct policy details, with a SV of circa £464.68 - which several yrs later they claimed, if issued, was done so in error, and that the policy has a nil SV (as per their t&cs).

Indeed you confirm, that you have provided them with a copy of the 2001 letter, which they say they "don't doubt was issued", but they "have no record or it" and their original response therefore remains unchanged - referring you to your rights to have FOS look at the matter. (which seemingly suggests they don't believe the letter to be genuine ? ).

As I have prev stated, you are not going to receive the £464, as the policy would have lapsed without value given the short period it was prem payable.

You have reached the end of the road with RL (altough surprised they didn't offer a small D&I in the circs) - what is it that you would hope to achieve by pursing this, ie referring to FOS ?

Hope this helps

Holly

dunstonh

I had something similar to this a number of years ago. Someone was getting a value on a pension but when it went to be commenced it was found the value was wrong (by a significant amount) as the provider had failed to stop the premiums being added to the policy when in reality the person had stopped paying many years earlier.

The insurer rejected the complaint. It went to the FOS and the FOS rejected the complaint as well. The problem was the person was never entitled to that money. So, a clerical error showing an amount did not give an entitlement to it. The FOS awarded an inconvenience payment only.

holly_hobby

Thanks Duns. ...

Yep as I say, D&I payment is the best OPs Father can hope for, and I doubt that FOS would award this even if he referred this to them, unless OPs Dad could evidence distress or financial loss due to the firms 2001 error in the policy valuation. Which to be fair doesn't appear to be the basis of complaint in the first place, bur more one of annoyance at the error than anything else.

Anyhoo, hopefully the OP will appreciate and understand why I don't feel there's any real merit in taking this any further ... unless they're are hoping for a FOS D&I instruction to the Firm, which of course isn't a forgone by any means.

Holly x

RoughRook

Thanks Holly and Dunstonh for your replies.

The annoying thing is the contempt they appear to have for not 'really'acknowledging, or apologising for issuing the 2001 letter. My Dad really wasled to believe that the £464 actually existed. The letter states:

"I can assure you that your details are correct on our system and bonuscertificates will be issued to you each year"………………”I can however confirmthe current status of the above plan. The current value is £464.68”

Now they tell him that details were never correct on the system, and likeHolly appears to allude to, they don't really believe such a letter mayactually exist.

An apology for the inconvenience that letter caused would be the very leastexpected, but doesn’t look like that’s going to happen.

If Royal London really did believe that such a letter was issued, thensurely an apology for their flawed system is justified? But, no point in askingfor one because the end of the road has been met dealing with them directly.

What is entailed to take the matter further to FOS?
Thanks.

holly_hobby

Hi Rook,

Whilst mistakes do happen, and I'm not excusing this, it is a fact of life.

RLhave stated that whilst they don't dispute you may have recd the letter, they don't have it only file - which is neither here nor there in the greater scheme of things, as TBH even if the copy was on file and admitted as an admin error (which they have stated it would have been), we know that LCEs maintained for less that at least 24 mths (longer with some providers) will lapse without value, (indeed they have confirmed that this is what occurred in Dads case).

So the fact remains that whether you hold this letter of not, the funds were not and never in Dads policy pot regardless .... so essentially you can not be compensated for losing something you never had (little bit like the loss of expectation we discuss when looking at poor performance of investment policies) - hppe you can understand the reasoning behind that.

However, you say following the posting of myself & Duns. that you now wish to refer the matter to FOS – baring in mind what has been discussed, what remedy would you hope FOS to deliver ?

Holly

RoughRook

Hi Holly, Thanks for the reply.

Clarification from FOS that in response to a letter from my father, asking if a policy exists as valid and its value, RLs response letter not being deemed as an inconvenience when it assures that details held on the policy are correct. Of course, we would expect the opposite, hoping for a conclusion that such misinformation has led to inconvenience. Mistakes happen, yes, but would be nice to know for sure if FOS would let them walk away without actually acknowledging such inconveience their mistakes cause.

holly_hobby

If inaccurate info given to Dad wasn't an invconvenience, what is Dad claiming it caused ?

RoughRook

Sorry, may have worded that badly.
Inaccurate info given WAS an invconvenience
He would claim an inconvenience, but seeking clarification as to whether FOS deem it to be so (or not).