Whole-of-Life Decision Reference 2022-0268

• Case Outcome: Rejected
• Reference: 2022-0268
• Date: 16 August 2022
• Year: 2022
• Subject Matter: Whole-of-Life
• Finantial Sector: Insurance
• Conducts Complained Of: Mis-selling,Delayed or inadequate communication, Failure to provide product/service information, Fees & charges applied , Premium rate increases , Results of policy review/failure to notify of policy reviews

Decision Ref:

2022-0268

Sector:

Insurance

Product / Service:

Whole-of-Life

Conduct(s) complained of:

Mis-selling

Delayed or inadequate communication

Fees & charges applied

Failure to provide product/service information

Results of policy review/failure to notify of policy

reviews

Premium rate increases

Outcome:

Rejected

LEGALLY BINDING DECISION OF THE FINANCIAL SERVICES AND PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN

The complaint concerns a “Living insurance Plan” life insurance and investment policy, (“the

policy”) which the Complainants have with the Provider.

The Complainants’ Case

The policy commenced on 1 May 1989, initially with Provider A, which became Provider B,

and which in turn was subsequently acquired by the respondent Provider in 1999. A

representative was formally authorised on behalf of the Complainants in August 2018.

The complaint was initially referred to this Office in July 2019. The complaint was the subject

of a jurisdictional assessment, and it was determined that the following two elements of the

complaint made, could progress to investigation. The conduct complained of is that the

Provider failed to comply with the policy terms and conditions in that it:

A. wrongfully continued to collect premiums after the 25-year policy term had ended

in 2014

B. wrongfully applied fees and charges from 2002 to 2019.

The Complainants summarised their complaint as follows:

“on reviewing the Policy and its over inflation price rises we became aware that …

[w]e had believed that the policy was for 25 years but discovered we had now been

paying premiums for 30+ years…That the charges (we believe there are three

different ones) were never explained fully to us and that these charges have been

used to divert premiums away from the investment fund overtime to a

disproportionate degree”.