Whole-of-Life Decision Reference 2024-0139

• Case Outcome: Partially upheld
• Year: 2024
• Date: 24 June 2024
• Reference: 2024-0139
• Finantial Sector: Insurance
• Conducts Complained Of: Results of policy review/failure to notify of policy reviews,Value of policy at surrender less than expected or projected

Decision Ref:

2024-0139

Sector:

Insurance

Product / Service:

Whole-of-Life

Conduct(s) complained of:

Results of policy review/failure to notify of policy

reviews

Value of policy at surrender less than expected or

projected

Outcome:

Partially Upheld

LEGALLY BINDING DECISION OF THE FINANCIAL SERVICES AND PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN

The Complainant held a unit-linked whole-of-life Life Plan with the Provider from 17 May

1996 to 20 August 2021 and he was named as the sole life assured.

Sadly, after this complaint had been made to this Office, the Complainant died in late 2022

and since that date and for the purposes of this complaint, it is the Estate of the late

Complainant which maintains this complaint on his behalf.

This complaint concerns the Provider’s administration of the late Complainant’s policy and

in particular, the policy review it carried out in April 2021.

The Complainant’s Case

The Complainant says that the Provider had written to him on 13 April 2021 to advise that

the monthly premium for the life cover benefit of €45,528.00 was, from 17 May 2021, to

increase from €136.52 to €143.35.

The Complainant said that the Provider then wrote to him two days later, on 15 April

2021, to advise that it had carried out a policy review and it presented him with the

following four options:

• to maintain the life cover benefit of €45,528.00 until the next five yearly review, he

would need to increase the monthly premium from €143.35 to €427.52;

- 2 -

/Cont’d…

• to maintain the life cover benefit of €45,528.00 until the next ten yearly review, he

would need to increase the monthly premium from €143.35 to €436.11;

• to retain the monthly premium at €143.35, he would need to reduce the life cover

benefit from €45,528.00 to €11,886.00; or

• to maintain the life cover benefit of €45,528.00 and retain the monthly premium at

€143.35, his policy was then estimated to continue for just one more month, at

which point the policy and its benefits would cease.

The Complainant said that he emailed the Provider on 21 April 2021 to complain about the

significant premium increase it was seeking to maintain the policy benefits.

The Complainant said that following its complaint review, the Provider sent him its Final

Response on 18 June 2021, wherein it advised that if he did not make the necessary

changes to the monthly premium and/or the life cover benefit, his policy would cease.

The Complainant said that he stopped his monthly direct debit premium payment to the

Provider, and his policy subsequently lapsed with effect from 20 August 2021.

The Complainant submitted in the FSPO Complaint Form he completed to this Office in

July 2021 that:

“I thought I was going to leave some money to my wife in the event of my death

and now find that I will be leaving her without any money from the Policy which we

have paid into for 25 years”.

The Complainant questioned whether the premium increase sought by the Provider in

April 2021 was “acceptable or moral?”

The Complainant advised in the FSPO Complaint Form that in order to resolve this matter,

he wanted the Provider to allow him to continue with the policy with modest premium

increases that he could afford and if this could not be done, he wanted the Provider to

refund some or all of the almost €25,000.00 he had paid into the policy since its inception.

The Complainant says the Provider later wrote to him on 18 May 2022 to explain that the

reason the April 2021 policy review had proposed a monthly premium increase from

€143.35 to €427.52 to maintain the life cover benefit of €45,528.00 until the next five

yearly review, was because when the Complainant had furnished it with a certified copy of

his passport in April 2016, it came to light at that point that the Complainant was one year

older than he had stated in the Application Form he had signed in May 1996.

The Complainant says the Provider said that because he was a year older than initially

stated, the cost of providing the life cover from commencement was, based on the correct

rates, more expensive than had been previously charged. It said that when this premium