Aviva Life & Pensions UK Limited · DRN-6271914

The complaint Mr W complains that Aviva Life & Pensions UK Limited (referred to as ‘Aviva Life’) unfairly cancelled his life insurance policies. He further complains that Aviva Life failed to effectively communicate with him when his policies were being cancelled, and that the business refuses to reinstate these policies. What happened Mr W had three products with Aviva Life. A level term life insurance policy, a level term life insurance policy with total permanent disability cover, and an income protection policy. A trust was also set up for Mr W’s level term insurance policy. Mr W changed his bank account details in late 2019. Mr W was also paying his partner’s life insurance policies, which were also with Aviva Life. Mr W expected Aviva Life to amend his bank details for all the policies he was paying for. However, in 2025, Mr W says he first became aware that not all accounts had been correctly transferred. The premiums he had been paying since late 2019 were for his partner’s insurance policies only. And upon further investigation it came to light that when his bank account details changed in late 2019, the bank details for his own policies were not set up correctly by Aviva Life. Aviva Life had failed to input his new sort code correctly. Mr W says that Aviva cancelled all insurance policies in his own name in 2020 after premiums weren’t paid. When he complained to Aviva about what happened, the business explained that letters had been sent in 2019 and 2020 to Mr W attempting to reach out to him about the issue with his monthly premium payments. But as no reply was received to any correspondence sent, his account information couldn’t be amended and verified. As such, Mr W’s own policies were all cancelled. Aviva Life further explained within its complaint response to Mr W that it wrote to him, his financial adviser, and the Trustees of the trust set up for his level term assurance policy; seeking engagement so the business could amend Mr W’s bank details and continue to draw down monthly premium payments to allow his policies to continue. However, as no replies were received to any letters sent the policies lapsed. And by May 2020, Mr W’s three policies were all cancelled due to non-payment of premiums. Aviva Life accepted that its service caused some problems by inputting incorrect account information. And as such, the business offered Mr W £200 compensation for this failing in its service. However, the business didn’t agree that it should reinstate Mr W’s policies because there had been no engagement from Mr W to all the contact sent attempting to put this situation right. And as per its terms and conditions, a policy won’t be reinstated more than 30 days after notice is given about missed premium payments. Mr W was unhappy with this reply, so escalated his complaint to our service. An investigator looked into this complaint and found that the offer by Aviva Life of £200 was fair and reasonable to reflect the business’ service failings in this matter of failing to input

-- 1 of 4 --

new account details for Mr W correctly. She said that, when an error occurs, it is reasonable to expect a business to take steps to try and put matters right. And she could see Aviva Life had done this by sending three letters to Mr W, two letters to Mr W’s financial advisor, and sending a letter to each Trustee. This is a total of seven letters all sent explaining that contact was needed from Mr W. And failure to engage would result in policies being cancelled. Mr W says that he, his advisor, and/or the Trustees didn’t receive these letters. However, our investigator explained how, on balance, it is more likely than not that letters from Aviva Life were correctly delivered. So she couldn’t agree that Aviva Life were entirely responsible for what happened. Mr W disagreed with our investigator’s view. He says there were multiple direct debit payments from his account each month. So it is reasonable to assume these related to his policies (not just his partner’s). Furthermore, he emphasised that he lives remotely and contact was sent during a difficult time (Covid) which should have been taken into account. Primarily, however, he is frustrated with the lack of other methods of communication by Aviva Life. He says had phone calls been made, or emails sent, instead of just relying on the post (when no contact was received to the first letters sent) would have resulted in him taking the steps needed to make sure his policy premiums were up to date. He is also unhappy that his offer to pay all premiums missed over the last five years has been rejected by Aviva. Our investigator was not persuaded to change her view. And as the complaint couldn’t be agreed upon, the case was escalated to an Ombudsman for a final decision. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. I have summarised this complaint and what has happened linking back to the crux of what Mr W says went wrong. The purpose of my decision isn’t to address every single point raised by all of the parties involved. If there’s something I’ve not mentioned, it isn’t because I’ve ignored it - I haven’t. I’m satisfied that I don’t need to comment on every individual argument to be able to reach what I think is the right outcome. No discourtesy is intended by this; our rules allow me to do this, and it simply reflects the informal nature of our service. Instead, I will focus on what I find to be the key issues and evidence relevant to this complaint. Having considered the facts and information presented in this case, I agree with the view reached by the investigator. I will explain why I agree, and address Mr W’s objections, within this decision. When administrative errors occur, it is important to consider the context and impact of what happened. Sometimes a small error can cause large problems further down the line. In Mr W’s case, the difference in changing his bank account, Aviva Life recording incorrect account details, and Mr W not receiving contact about his missed premium payments; meant not only did he not receive the correspondence sent by Aviva Life, but it took several years for what happened to come to light. By which time, his policies had already been cancelled. Mr W’s main objection to the investigator’s view is the lack of alternative contact attempts made by Aviva Life. So I’ve looked at this first. I’ve read through the terms and conditions for all three policies Mr W had with Aviva Life. These set out the terms Mr W and Aviva Life agreed to when he signed up for his insurance policies with the business and are a good basis for considering what conditions and precedents were set. Essentially, these terms detail what both parties can expect when

-- 2 of 4 --

managing Mr W’s policies. Mr W says that Aviva Life should have communicated with him through more methods than simply writing to him. He says that with any other type of policy he would receive numerous contact attempts through varying methods. So simply writing by letter, during a time of uncertainty (during the pandemic) was unreasonable. Aviva Life says it wrote to Mr W several times, his financial advisor, and also the Trustees of the trust that was set up for one of his policies; in an attempt to engage Mr W and seek further clarification from him as to his new bank account details so it could continue to draw down his premiums. It says that these attempts were reasonable at that time. And as correspondence was sent in good faith, the business cannot be responsible for the fact that correspondence wasn’t received/passed on/responded to. Within the level term assurance terms and conditions (called the ‘Life Cover handbook’), it says: ‘Written communication We will send any letter to you to the address you last gave us. If you change address you must always write and tell us… …You and we can assume that a letter has been received three days after it was sent by first class post’ The same term also appears within Mr W’s policy documents for his other policies. I cannot see, within any policy documents provided, any reference to communication from Aviva Life to Mr W being sent in any other method than written communication. That doesn’t mean there is no option to communicate by other methods. Aviva Life has online chat services, email addresses, and telephone numbers available for customers to use to contact the business. Rather, the expectation set was that Aviva Life would write to policy holders, at their last known address, when contact is necessary. As such, I cannot be critical of Aviva Life for choosing to write to Mr W by letter because this is the precedent set within the terms of his policies. Furthermore, regulator guidance says businesses should act in good faith. And acting in good faith includes a business taking appropriate action when it identifies that it has caused loss or harm to a customer. Looking at the copies of correspondence provided of letters sent by Aviva Life to Mr W, his financial advisor, and the Trustees connected with this trust, these correspondences are clear attempts by Aviva Life to try and mitigate any impact as a result of Mr W changing his bank details. The letters are clear, fair, and not misleading. Mr W is encouraged to contact the business as soon as possible to confirm his correct account information, or risk his policies being cancelled. The business then didn’t cancel Mr W’s policies for several months, when it could have cancelled these sooner (as per the terms of each policy), all in an attempt to engage with Mr W and give him ample opportunity to reach out to the business to resolve this matter at that time. On balance, I do agree that Aviva Life acted fairly and reasonably in its communication attempts with Mr W. Mr W also says how, when it came to light in 2025 that his policies had been cancelled, he asked Aviva Life if he could pay the premiums for each policy, so they were up to date in order to have cover reinstated. Aviva Life declined this offer on the basis premiums had

-- 3 of 4 --

been missed for too long (around five years by this point) which meant there was no option to now reinstate his policies. I’ve again returned to the terms and conditions for each policy Mr W has with Aviva Life to decide whether the approach taken by the business is fair and reasonable. Mr W’s Income Protection handbook explains the following: ‘Your membership ends on the earliest of the following: - The expiry date - Your death - 30 days after the premium due date where you do not pay any premiums. We will allow your membership to continue if you pay any outstanding premiums within the 30 day period after it became due…’ The same clause also appears within the other policy terms and conditions. And based on what is agreed, there really is no scope for me to ask Aviva Life to reconsider its position. Despite all the reasons and explanations offered by Mr W, too much time has passed since his premiums were last paid for there to be any opportunity to reinstate any of his insurance policies with the business. I am therefore also not critical of Aviva Life for its decision to decline this request by Mr W based on the terms of his policies and the time that has elapsed. I understand how, for Mr W, this will be a really disappointing outcome. His policies were in place for a number of years prior to events that transpired in 2019 and 2020. And he was happy with the cover and protection each policy provided. He is now likely faced with the prospects of much higher premiums (considering factors such as age) along with the inconvenience of setting up new policies (and potentially another trust). Whilst I can completely appreciate his position, I cannot say that Aviva Life did anything seriously wrong here. The business’ failing is in the inaccurate recording of Mr W’s new account details. Which the business sought to rectify at the time, through communication methods it agreed to when the policies were set up. And in the offer of £200, which I consider to be fair in the circumstances. As such, I’m not recommending an increase on the offer already made by Aviva Life. My final decision I agree there has been some failing by Aviva Life, so I partially uphold this complaint. However, I also consider that the remedy already offered by Aviva Life of £200 compensation to be fair and reasonable to remedy this complaint. As such, I do not direct any further remedy on top of what has already been offered. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr W to accept or reject my decision before11 May 2026. Emily Bowyer Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --