Whole-of-Life Decision Reference 2026-0001

• Case Outcome: Partially upheld
• Year: 2026
• Reference: 2026-0001
• Date: 14 January 2026
• Subject Matter: Whole-of-Life
• Finantial Sector: Insurance
• Conducts Complained Of: Lapse/cancellation of policy (life),Dissatisfaction with general customer service

Decision Ref:

2026-0001

Sector:

Insurance

Product / Service:

Whole-of-Life

Conduct(s) complained of:

Lapse/cancellation of policy (life)

Dissatisfaction with general customer service

Outcome:

Partially Upheld

LEGALLY BINDING DECISION OF THE FINANCIAL SERVICES AND PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN

Background

The complaint concerns a Life Assurance Policy taken out in 2003.

The Complainants’ Case

The Complainants state that they took out a life assurance policy with a third-party insurer

in 2003, through an independent insurance intermediary (the “Intermediary”), and

assigned the policy to their bank in respect of a mortgage loan.

The Complainants state that the initial term of the policy was for 15 years from July 2003.

The Complainants state that the policy contained within its terms, an option enabling the

Complainants to convert the cover under the policy, into a new policy, running for a longer

period of time, without them having to undergo a medical examination or supply evidence

of good health to the Provider at the time of the conversion. The Complainants submit

that the conversion option was required to be exercised prior to the “end date” of 1 July

2018.

The Complainants state that “at some point between 2003 and 2018”, the third-party

insurer was taken over by the Provider. The Complainants say that that the changeover

- 2 -

/Cont’d…

passed “without issue…. Except in Aug/Sept 2011” when correspondence from the third-

party insurer to the Complainants was returned to the third-party insurer undelivered

because the Complainants’ correspondence address was not up to date. The Complainants

have submitted a letter from the third-party insurer to the insurance intermediary, dated

21 September 2011, asking the intermediary to furnish it with an updated address for the

Complainants.

The Complainants state that they contacted the Provider on 1 June 2018 to advise that

they wished to avail of the conversion option. The Complainants submit that the Provider

did not confirm the Complainants’ address in this telephone call. The Complainants state

that the Provider told them that it would contact the Intermediary in relation to the

conversion request, and that the Intermediary would then contact the Complainants. The

Complainants state that they received “no contact” from either the Provider or the

Intermediary.

The Complainants state that when the Provider received their telephone call on 1 June

2018 the Provider knew that there were communication issues. The Complainants state

that the Provider did not confirm their address in this telephone call. The Complainants

say it would also appear that the Provider never updated the Second Complainant’s date

of birth.

It is the Complainants’ position that nowhere in the policy terms and conditions does it say

that any input or advice is required from a Financial Advisor in order to exercise the

conversion option. The Complainants say they did not require a financial review but did

require to extend the policy, that is, to exercise the conversion option. The Complainants

state that there was no obligation on them to consult with a Financial Advisor in order to

exercise the option.

The Complainants state the policy terms and conditions specifically set out that the

conversion option may be exercised by contacting the Company “in writing”. The

Complainants state when they telephoned the Provider on 1 June 2018 this is exactly what

they should have been told to do by the Provider.

The Complainants’ position is that no reasonable attempt was made to obtain a new

correspondence address for them and even though their business (their original

correspondence address) was placed into voluntary liquidation a cursory enquiry would

have yielded their home address. The Complainants state that the call of 1 June 2018 was

the opportunity for the Provider to update its records as regards a contact address which

the Provider knew was erroneous.