DRN-6160551

The complaint Mr W’s complaint concerns the length of time it took National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company (NatWest) to process the surrender request relating to his investment portfolio. Mr W says the delay in handling the surrender of his Canada Life Investment Bond resulted in financial loss. What happened The only complaint before me is how NatWest has handled Mr W’s surrender request. However, it is important to note that Canada Life Assurance Company (Canada Life) is a separate entity, and its actions or inactions are not part of the complaint that I am determining. If Mr W is dissatisfied with how Canada Life processed the surrender form, he will need to raise a separate complaint with them directly. The background to this matter is well known to all parties. A brief summary is as follows: On 4 December 2024, NatWest received a request from Mr W to surrender his Multi Asset Portfolio and the Canada Life Investment Bond (Bond). This was acknowledged by NatWest’s Wealth Manager Support (WMS) Team. On 10 December 2024, NatWest progressed the surrender request and referred the matter to its specialist team to complete the necessary chargeable event calculations for the Bond. At the same time, NatWest began the process to surrender the holdings within the Multi Asset Portfolio, which comprised a Main Capital Account and an Individual Savings Account (ISA). On 11 December 2024, NatWest, in accordance with its internal procedures, requested further information from Canada Life. On 19 and 20 December 2024, NatWest closed the Main Capital Account and ISA with £252,640.40 and £212,653 was credited to Mr W’s account respectively. On 23 December 2024, NatWest followed up with Canada Life regarding the outstanding information required for the Bond surrender. On 31 December 2024, Canada Life provided the requested information to NatWest’s specialist team, who subsequently forwarded it to NatWest’s WMS Team on 2 January 2025 however this information was incomplete. On 9 January 2025, the Bond was valued at £439,533.44. On 10 January 2025 NatWest’s WMS Team received the outstanding information from NatWest’s internal specialist team. On the same day NatWest then issued the surrender form to Mr W for signature. On 13 January 2025, Mr W signed and returned the form. On 17 January 2025 NatWest’s WMS Team received the surrender form and immediately

-- 1 of 4 --

sent to Canada Life. On this date, the Bond’s surrender value was £441,614.89. On 27 January 2025 Mr W was credited £446.124.70 into his account and his Bond was closed. Mr W subsequently raised a complaint about the length of time it took for his portfolio to be closed, including the processing of the surrender form. He also queried a £4,000 charge that had been applied to him and asked NatWest to reimburse this amount. On 7 February 2025, NatWest issued its final response. In that response, NatWest explained that the £4,000 charge related to the fact that Mr W had not invested prior to 1 January 2025. However, Mr W’s Independent Financial Adviser had successfully arranged for this charge to be waived, so it was no longer a matter in dispute. Mr W’s adviser also said that Mr W had missed out on growth of 5.57% in his new investment between 11 December 2024 and 22 January 2025 while his existing investments were being encashed. NatWest acknowledged that on 11 December 2024, the lack of clarity around what had been discussed reasonably left Mr W with the belief that he could expect all of his investment funds to be returned within 10 to 15 working days. NatWest accepted that it should have made clear that this timeframe applied only to the Multi Asset Portfolio, as the staff member involved was not handling the encashment of the Bond. NatWest also accepted that it had not informed Mr W that the Bond encashment would take between six to eight weeks, and that this should have been explained at the outset. NatWest accepted responsibility for the delay between 2 and 10 January 2025 and recognised that it could have issued the surrender forms seven working days earlier. This may have enabled Mr W to receive the value of his Bond seven working days sooner. However, once NatWest completed a loss calculation, and after applying tax and adding gross interest at 8%, Mr W had a net gain of £5,820.57. NatWest therefore concluded that Mr W suffered no financial loss arising from any delay attributable to NatWest. Mr W then referred his complaint to our service for an independent review. Our investigator issued a revised view on 16 January 2026, which stated that NatWest ought to have chased Canada Life after five working days. This meant NatWest should have followed up by 18 December 2024, and the Bond could therefore have been encashed five working days earlier than it was. The investigator recommended that a loss comparison be carried out again using a date five working days prior to 2 January 2025, applying the 8% interest rate and deducting any income tax if a loss was identified. The investigator also concluded that £250 should be paid to Mr W to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by NatWest. 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 thank the parties for their considerable patience whilst this matter has awaited review by an ombudsman, given the current demand for our service. This service’s role is to investigate disputes and resolve complaints informally, whilst taking into account relevant laws, regulations and best practice. In reaching my decision, I’ll focus on the issues I believe to be central to the complaint to decide what I think is fair and reasonable in all of the circumstances. We are not a court; and though there are rules I may rely on in respect of complaint handling procedures, I am not required to comment on each point or make specific determinations on every submission put forward by the parties. I might

-- 2 of 4 --

not refer to each and every argument but wish to reassure Mr W that I have reviewed his complaint in its entirety. For the purposes of my decision, I should make clear that the scope of this complaint is limited to how NatWest handled Mr W’s surrender request. Canada Life is a separate entity and if Mr W remains dissatisfied with the way Canada Life processed the surrender form, he would need to raise that matter directly with Canada Life. Canada Life was not acting as an agent or appointed representative of NatWest in this matter. Instead, Canada Life had a separate and distinct contractual relationship with Mr W, regardless of whether Mr W has had any direct dealings with them. As the bond provider, Canada Life would typically be the owner of the underlying life assurance policy taken out on Mr W’s life, placing it in an entirely independent legal and commercial position from NatWest. In light of this, there is no basis on which NatWest could properly be held responsible for the acts or omissions of Canada Life. Canada Life was not carrying out any activities on NatWest’s behalf, nor was it subject to NatWest’s control or direction. Taking all of this into account, I do not consider it fair or reasonable to attribute liability to NatWest for anything Canada Life did or failed to do. Having reviewed the information before me, I am satisfied that NatWest did not make clear to Mr W the timescales involved in the encashment of the Bond. NatWest ought to have clearly outlined the expected duration of the process from the outset in order to manage Mr W’s expectations appropriately. I do not consider it reasonable for a consumer in Mr W’s position to anticipate that the encashment of a Bond would take between six to eight weeks, particularly when he had been led to believe the process would conclude within 10 to 15 working days. Mr W provided clear instructions on 4 December 2024 to surrender his Bond, yet the full proceeds were not received by Mr W until 27 January 2025. I am of the view that the lack of clarity by NatWest in respect of the timescales materially contributed to Mr W’s dissatisfaction. On 2 January 2025, NatWest received information from Canada Life, but this was incomplete. It then took a further eight days, which was until 10 January 2025, for NatWest’s WMS Team to receive the outstanding material from NatWest’s internal specialist team. This internal delay had a material impact on extending the total time required to process the Bond surrender, and I am persuaded that this created an avoidable prolongation in the encashment of Mr W’s Bond. I also note that the investigator considered that NatWest should have chased Canada Life on 18 December 2024 rather than 23 December 2024. While I accept that it would have been reasonable for NatWest to follow up sooner, I also recognise that Canada Life ultimately controlled its own response times, and therefore an earlier chaser may not necessarily have resulted in a materially quicker outcome. Nonetheless, I believe that NatWest should have sought an update from Canada Life on 18 December 2024 would have been reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances. I say this because NatWest, in accordance with the Financial Conduct Authority’s principles and guidance, is required to have due regard to its customers’ interests and to treat them fairly. In particular: • Outcome 3: Consumers are provided with clear information and are kept appropriately informed before, during and after the point of sale. • Outcome 5: Consumers are provided with products that perform as firms have led them to expect, and the associated service is of an acceptable standard and as they have been led to expect. • Outcome 6: Consumers do not face unreasonable post sale barriers imposed by firms to change product, switch provider, submit a claim or make a complaint. Whilst there were service failings by NatWest which contributed to the delay in the encashment of the Bond, I am satisfied that Mr W did not suffer a financial loss, and no

-- 3 of 4 --

substantiating evidence has been provided that demonstrates that one occurred. Indeed, I note that as a result of how long the encashment process ultimately took, Mr W was financially better off by £5,820.57. Whilst NatWest ought reasonably to have chased Canada Life sooner, I do not consider that an earlier follow‑up by NatWest would have resulted in a materially faster response, as Canada Life was in control of its own processing times. I say this because the evidence shows that once NatWest followed up with Canada Life on 23 December 2024, Canada Life did not provide a response until 31 December 2024, over a week later. There is nothing to suggest that had NatWest chased at an earlier point, Canada Life would have processed or responded to the request any more quickly. In these circumstances, I consider it reasonable to assume that Canada Life’s response times would have been the same regardless of when NatWest followed up. As such, I do not think it can be fairly concluded that an earlier chase by NatWest would have resulted in the Bond being encashed materially sooner or that Mr W would have achieved a better financial outcome as a result. In these circumstances, I do not consider that undertaking a loss calculation would be appropriate nor necessary. However, I am satisfied that there were service failings by NatWest, particularly in relation to communication, delay, and the management of Mr W’s expectations. These shortcomings caused avoidable inconvenience and uncertainty. In light of this, I consider that an increased compensation payment is appropriate to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to Mr W. My final decision My decision is that I uphold the complaint and I direct that NatWest pay Mr W a total of £350 in compensation. As NatWest has already paid Mr W £250, it should only pay a further £100. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr W to accept or reject my decision before 14 May 2026. Abdul Elghedafi Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --