ReAssure denies existence of Mature Savings Plan

Jimbo_San2

In 2021 Experian confirmed the existence of a Mature Savings Plan as listed with the Unclaimed Assets Register. Traced to L&G the company asserted that the plan had been migrated to ReAssure along with all its other savings/investment book in 2020.  When Reassure was contacted in 2021 they flatly denied its existence and claimed that it had either been redeemed or had never been migrated to them in the first place. L&G then provided a screenshot of the product reference together with the confirmation that it had been migrated along with all its other business. Despite this evidence ReAssure have refused to accept any liability for its whereabouts let alone its potential value and simply reverted to bunker mode.

 As has been well-documented the migration of L&G's book to ReAssure resulted in serious IT systems failure with the latter receiving unprecedented numbers of complaints.  It is therefore entirely feasible that the plan was misplaced or corrupted.

Does anyone have an opinion as to the legal integrity of the screenshot as substantive evidence proving the existence of the plan and its transmission to ReAssure?

DullGreyGuy

Haven't seen the screenshot so have no idea what it shows. 

On the Part VII transfer I did (I worked with the Transferor) we created a new flag within the system and loaded the original scheme in to mark them all as transferring. Rules were setup so if a policy ended etc then the flag was automatically removed but there were some manual changes made too for a very small number of cases. 

It's always possible that just as the Transferee can mess up loading the policies into their systems that the Transferor can incorrectly mark a policy one way or the other. We did a period of parallel running which would spot errors by the Transferee but if we had messed up and incorrectly marked a policy as transferring/not transferring before the data transfer then it'd not be spotted by the parallel run. 

Jimbo_San2

Hi DGG

Many thanks for your response. Very informative and enlightening as it suggests, as I have been trying to maintain, the real possibility of a glitch which could have resulted in the misplacement of the policy. I've attached a copy of the systems output page for you to have a scrute if you would be kind enough to do so.