Legal and General Assurance Society Limited · DRN-6255376

The complaint Mr J complains that Legal and General Assurance Society Limited (L&G) caused avoidable delays to the set-up of his annuities. And that it provided confusing literature. He feels that the delays caused a financial loss. Mr J also has a linked complaint with a pension provider I’ll refer to as provider P. But my decision here only covers his complaint with L&G. What happened Mr J had three personal pension plans with provider P. He wanted to take tax-free cash lumps sums from his pensions. And then use the remaining funds to buy annuities. Provider P directed him to L&G. On 12 February 2025, Mr J completed a phone quotation with L&G. He provided his pension values as at 29 January 2025. During the call, Mr J told L&G that he wanted to receive the first annuity payment in the 2025/2026 tax year. L&G explained that the only date it had any control over was the date it requested the funds from provider P. It explained that he had two options. He could either ask it to request the funds as soon as possible, or he could choose a date for the funds to be requested within the next 90 days. Mr J asked L&G to request the funds on 10 April 2025. L&G sent Mr J quotes dated 12 February 2025 for his three pension plans. The quotes were guaranteed until 29 March 2025. They set out the annuity basis Mr J had chosen. And the potential income and tax-free cash he would receive. The quotes stated a “Start date” of 10 April 2025. But said: “This date is provisional and may be subject to change.” The quotes also stated that if Mr J wanted to secure the annuity rate shown, L&G would have to receive his completed application and his pension funds by the guarantee-date of 29 March 2025. The quotes explained that it usually took about a month for providers to send a pension fund. It said this should be considered when applying. And noted that if it received either the application or the funds after 29 March 2025, the rates then available would apply. And the amount of annuity could change. Mr J completed the application form for the annuities and signed the declaration on 1 March 2025. L&G received the completed application on 3 March 2025. It then issued three Origo pension transfer requests to provider P on 6 March 2025. Each Origo request asked for the funds to be taken on 10 April 2025. Provider P received the Origo requests. It then wrote to Mr J on 10 March 2025 to ask him to complete an Individual Lump Sum Allowance form. He completed and returned the required form on 12 March 2025. L&G provided Mr J with further quotes. On 25 March 2025, it provided a quote that was

-- 1 of 5 --

guaranteed until 9 May 2025. This still stated that the “Start date” of 10 April 2025 was subject to change. The guarantee periods for the quotes provided were always 45 days from the date of the quote. Provider P processed the Origo requests using unit prices from 10 April 2025. It paid Mr J his tax-free cash lump sum on 16 April 2025. And sent the remaining funds to L&G. On 16 April 2025, provider P wrote to tell Mr J that it’d transferred his funds to L&G. The total value of the funds had decreased since 29 January 2025. I understand that L&G received Mr J’s funds on 23 April 2025. And that Mr J decided to put his application on hold. On 28 April 2025, Mr J raised a complaint with provider P and L&G. He wasn’t happy with the disinvestment date of his pension funds with provider P, which he felt L&G hadn’t fully explained to him. He also felt the quotation wording hadn’t been clear about this. Mr J felt that L&G had caused avoidable delays which had led to a financial loss. L&G issued its final response to the complaint on 28 May 2025. It didn’t think it’d done anything wrong. It said it’d asked Mr J during the 12 February 2025 call when he wanted his annuity to start. And it’d explained that the only date it had any control over was the date it requested the funds from provider P. It said it couldn’t say when the annuity would start as it didn’t know when it would receive any funds requested. L&G said it’d received Mr J’s application on 3 March 2025. But it hadn’t requested his funds from provider P until 10 April 2025. This was because Mr J had chosen the date of 10 April 2025 during the 12 February 2025 call. It said once Mr J had chosen this date, it’d confirmed on the call that this would be the earliest date it could request his funds from provider P. It said it’d also noted that the fund value and rate wouldn’t be guaranteed. L&G felt that it’d clearly explained the disinvestment and start date to Mr J during the 12 February 2025 call. Mr J didn’t agree with L&G. So he brought his complaint to this service in November 2025. He said the call handler he’d spoken to on 12 February 2025 had a strong accent, so the conversation had been difficult. Mr J felt he’d made a simple request during the call to set up his annuities as soon as possible, as long as the first payment would be made in the 2025/26 tax year. He felt that instead of focusing on this request, the call handler had only considered the date L&G would ask for the funds from provider P. Mr J said the call handler had suggested the 10 April 2025 as the date the funds would be requested from provider P. He said he’d since found out they were requested much earlier. Mr J said that the quote documentation dated 12 February 2025 was confusing as it said the rates were guaranteed until 29 March 2025. He felt that the guarantees were worthless given L&G would go on to request the funds on 10 April 2025. He also felt that the fact that the quotes showed a start date of 10 April 2025 had been confusing. He said he felt this meant his income would start on that date, in line with his original request. Mr J said that when provider P sent him the 16 April 2025 notification letters for the transfers, the values of his pensions had substantially decreased from the values the original quotes had been based on. He said the total reduction to his funds was £11,494 when compared with the 29 January 2025 valuation on which the original quotes were based. To put things right, Mr J wanted L&G to compensate him for the financial loss he feels he’s suffered.

-- 2 of 5 --

Our investigator didn’t think that L&G had done anything wrong. She explained how the set- up of annuities worked. And that before it could start to set up an annuity, L&G needed to receive all relevant documentation and funds. But that it could then take a few days before the annuity can be finalised and payment made. Our investigator listened to the 12 February 2025 call. She felt that the call handler had provided Mr J with clear information and had then acted on his instructions to request the funds as at 10 April 2025. She said that if Mr J had found anything unclear, it was his responsibility to ask for more information or for it to be explained in an alternative way. Our investigator also felt that the paperwork L&G had provided had been clear. Our investigator acknowledged that Mr J’s funds fell in value between the original quote and the transfer date. So she understood why Mr J would’ve preferred to have transferred his provider P funds to L&G sooner. But she couldn’t say that L&G had acted incorrectly or caused a delay as she felt it’d followed Mr J’s instruction to request the transfer on 10 April 2025. Mr J didn’t agree with our investigator. He felt that L&G had failed to provide sufficient support and advice. For example, he felt it should’ve advised him to disinvest his funds earlier or later, rather than at the lowest point in the market. He still felt the call handler had provided inadequate information during the 12 February 2025 call. And that this had led to a significant financial loss. He wanted the process to be improved so that other consumers didn’t face the same problems. As agreement couldn’t be reached, the complaint has come to me for a review. 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. Having done so, I’m not going to uphold it. I know this will be disappointing for Mr J. I’ll explain the reasons for my decision. I first considered the issues Mr J raised with the 12 February 2025 call. 12 February 2025 call Mr J said that the call handler had been difficult to understand. He also felt that his request to start his annuity as soon as possible in the new tax year had been ignored. And that the call handler had himself suggested 10 April 2025 as the date to request the funds from provider P. I’ve listened to the 12 February 2025 call. I note that the call handler asked Mr J when he wanted to start his annuities. He replied: “I’d like the annuities to begin, let’s say, as soon as possible in the next tax year”. The call handler then said: “Okay, it’s up to you entirely, we’ve got no way of controlling the start date of the plan, the start date of the plan will always be the day we actually get the funds from your pension provider”. The call handler went on to explain: “The only thing we may have control over is the date that we ask your pension provider to start the process of disinvesting the funds”. He also said that Mr J could pick any date within the next 90 days, as long as L&G had received the application documentation. And that provider P could take up to two weeks to action the request and send the funds.

-- 3 of 5 --

The call handler said: “We can either do the quote on an as soon as possible basis which means as soon as we get your application form, we would request the funds from your pension provider. They normally take about two weeks to complete that process, it could be longer. …But the only date we have control over is when we make that request. …So with this in mind, what date do you want to select? Do you want the as soon as possible basis or do you want a set date within 90 days from now?”. Mr J replied: “let’s call it then April 10th”. The call handler then said: “we would ask [provider P] to disinvest your pension policy on that date and start the process from that date”. He also confirmed: “The pension will not start until we receive your funds and your policy is put into payment”. Before I consider the content of the call, I agree with our investigator that if Mr J had found anything unclear during the call, it was up to him to ask for an alternative or deeper explanation. Having listened to the call, I had no issues understanding what the call handler said. But, if this wasn’t the case for Mr J, he could’ve asked the call handler to either repeat the point or explain it again. And if he still didn’t understand, Mr J could’ve asked to speak to a different call handler. I understand how disappointing it must’ve been for Mr J to find out through provider P’s 16 April 2025 transfer notification letters that the values of his pensions had decreased since the original quotes had been provided. But I can’t fairly hold L&G responsible for the fall. I say this because I’m satisfied that the call recording shows that the call handler clearly explained that L&G only had control of the date it requested the funds from provider P, rather than the date the annuity would start payment. I’m also satisfied that he explained that provider P would only disinvest Mr J’s funds after it requested them. This meant that his funds would remain invested up to at least the date L&G requested them. And that their value could therefore change. I acknowledge that Mr J feels that L&G ignored his request to start his annuity as soon as possible in the new tax year. But I’m satisfied that it was Mr J who introduced the date of 10 April 2025. I say this because the call recording clearly shows that it was Mr J who selected the date of 10 April 2025 for the funds to be requested from provider P. And that he did this after L&G had explained that he could instead select an “as soon as possible basis”, under which his funds would be requested as soon as possible. I’m therefore satisfied that it was Mr J’s informed decision to defer L&G’s request to provider P for the transfer of his funds. I went onto consider Mr J’s complaint that L&G’s 12 February 2025 quote documentation was confusing. He said this was because the start date was after the guarantee-date. He’d understood that his annuities would start on 10 April 2025. L&G’s quotes I noted earlier that L&G’s 12 February 2025 quotes stated a “Start date” of 10 April 2025. And that they also stated that this date could change. I also noted that the quotes explained that to secure the annuity rate shown, L&G would have to receive Mr J’s completed application and his funds by the guarantee-date of 29 March 2025. Further, the quotes explained that it usually took about a month for providers to send funds. And said that if L&G received either the application, or the funds, after 29 March 2025, the guarantee would no longer apply. The amount of annuity could therefore change. Therefore, while I understand that Mr J found the quotes confusing, I’m satisfied that L&G’s quotes made it clear that the proposed start date of 10 April 2025 wasn’t guaranteed.

-- 4 of 5 --

I’d like to explain that the quotes L&G provided were each guaranteed for 45 days. This meant that if it received Mr J’s completed application and his funds by a stated guarantee- date, he would receive the annuity rate used in the quote. But as Mr J asked L&G to request the funds after the guarantee-date provided on the 12 February 2025 quotes, it was inevitable that the guarantee would expire. I finally considered Mr J’s point that L&G failed to provide him with sufficient support and advice. Did L&G fail to provide sufficient support and advice? In this case, L&G acted as Mr J’s potential annuity provider. It didn’t have any responsibility to provide him with advice. Instead, it was required to carry out his instructions to set up his annuity once it’d received his application and his funds. I’ve not found any evidence that L&G failed to provide Mr J with the service it was required to provide. While I appreciate Mr J may have valued more investment support, this was not L&G’s role. And while I also noted that Mr J didn’t feel that L&G had provided sufficient support, the evidence shows that it did what I would’ve expected it to do when processing his application. Overall, L&G acted as I would’ve expected it to. I’ve found no evidence that it failed to follow Mr J’s instructions. Or that it provided him with incorrect information. I therefore can’t fairly say it did anything wrong. And I don’t uphold the complaint. My final decision For the reasons I’ve set out, I don’t uphold Mr J’s complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr J to accept or reject my decision before 11 May 2026. Jo Occleshaw Ombudsman

-- 5 of 5 --