Phoenix Life CA Limited · DRN-6255403

The complaint Mr J complains that Phoenix Life CA Limited (Phoenix) caused avoidable delays to the transfer of his pension to another provider – which I’ll refer to as provider L - so he could buy an annuity. He feels this led to a financial loss. He also feels Phoenix failed to communicate clearly with him. Mr J also has a linked complaint with provider L. But my decision here only covers his complaint with Phoenix. What happened Mr J had three personal pension plans with Phoenix. He wanted to take tax-free cash lumps sums from his pensions. And then use the remaining funds to buy annuities. Phoenix directed him to provider L. On 12 February 2025, Mr J completed a phone quotation with provider L. He provided his pension values as at 29 January 2025. During the call, Mr J told provider L that he wanted to receive the first annuity payment in the 2025/2026 tax year. He eventually asked provider L to request the funds from Phoenix on 10 April 2025. Provider L sent Mr J quotes dated 12 February 2025 for his three pension plans. The quotes stated a “Start date” of 10 April 2025. But said: “This date is provisional and may be subject to change.” Mr J completed the application form for the annuities and signed the declaration on 1 March 2025. It then issued three Origo pension transfer requests to Phoenix on 6 March 2025. Each Origo request asked for the funds to be taken on 10 April 2025. Phoenix 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. On 11 March 2025, Mr J called Phoenix to ask for help in completing the form. He then completed and returned the required form on 12 March 2025. Phoenix diarised the transfer request to nearer the requested transfer date. On 14 April 2025, Phoenix started to process the Origo request using unit prices from 10 April 2025. On 16 April 2025, Phoenix paid Mr J his tax-free cash lump sum. And sent the remaining funds to provider L. On 16 April 2025, Phoenix wrote to tell Mr J that it’d transferred his funds to provider L. The total value of the funds had decreased since 29 January 2025. I understand that provider L 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 Phoenix and provider L. He felt it’d delayed his transfer. And that this had caused a financial loss. He also felt that Phoenix’s 16 April 2025 confirmation letters hadn’t been clear as they hadn’t stated the date used for the unit pricing.

-- 1 of 4 --

Phoenix issued its final response to the complaint on 30 May 2025. It didn’t think it’d done anything wrong. It said it’d made the transfer payment within its usual service standards and on the date provider L had instructed it to use. It explained this was why there had been a gap between its receipt of Mr J’s Individual Lump Sum Allowance form and the processing date of the transfer. It said that if provider L had provided the wrong date, Mr J should complain to it. Phoenix acknowledged that its payment confirmation letters didn’t confirm the unit price date used. It said this was in line with its standard process. But said it would feed Mr J’s comments about this back for further consideration. Mr J didn’t agree with Phoenix. So he brought his complaint to this service in November 2025. He said that the amounts Phoenix had transferred to provider L on 16 April 2025 were substantially lower than the initial quotes he’d received. He felt Phoenix was responsible for this loss. Mr J also felt that Phoenix shouldn’t have passed on the annuity process to provider L. He said he didn’t have a relationship with provider L. To put things right, Mr J felt that Phoenix should honour the amounts detailed in his original quotations. Our investigator first explained that she didn’t have the power to consider one of Mr J’s complaint points. While she acknowledged that he was unhappy that Phoenix had transferred responsibility for arranging the annuities to provider L, she hadn’t seen any evidence that he’d previously raised that specific complaint point with Phoenix. She said that Mr J would first need to raise that point with Phoenix. Our investigator didn’t think Phoenix had caused any delays to the transfer of Mr J’s funds. She set out the service standards this service considers reasonable. And felt that Phoenix had actioned the transfer request within those standards. While she acknowledged that Mr J’s fund values had decreased between February and April 2025, she couldn’t fairly say that Phoenix was responsible for this. Our investigator considered the 16 April 2025 confirmation letters. She agreed that they weren’t clear about the date Phoenix had used as the transfer valuation date. And said she was pleased that Phoenix would consider Mr J’s feedback on this point. She said Mr J had been able to get the information he needed about the transfer valuation date from Phoenix when he’d called it on 28 April 2025. As the information Mr J wanted had been available to him – albeit in a different method – she said she couldn’t ask Phoenix to do anything further. Mr J didn’t agree with our investigator. He felt Phoenix had failed to provide sufficient support and advice. And that it should’ve advised him when to disinvest his funds, rather than allow him to disinvest at a low point in the market. He felt there’d been a lack of communication and follow-up from Phoenix which had led to his transfer being delayed. And to his financial loss. 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.

-- 2 of 4 --

Before I start, I’d like to say that I agree with our investigator – and for the same reasons – that I’m unable to comment on Mr J’s unhappiness that Phoenix passed the annuity process to provider L. However, Mr J can still raise this point separately with Phoenix if he wishes to. I went on to consider whether Phoenix caused any avoidable delays to the transfer process. Did Phoenix cause avoidable delays to the transfer process? I agree with our investigator, and for the same reasons, that there’s no evidence that Phoenix caused an avoidable delay to the transfer of his funds to provider L. I say this because the evidence shows that Phoenix actioned the transfer request within a reasonable timeframe, as detailed by our investigator. While I understand why Mr J is unhappy that his fund values fell between his first annuity quote in February 2025 and April 2025, I can’t reasonably say that Phoenix was responsible for this. I say this because the evidence shows that provider L’s Origo requests for the funds asked for them to be taken on 10 April 2025. Phoenix then diarised the request to ensure it was actioned in line with that instruction. And the evidence shows that it went on to send the requested funds on 16 April 2025, using unit prices from 10 April 2025. I’m therefore satisfied that Phoenix acted on provider L’s instructions. I acknowledge Mr J’s point that Phoenix’s failure to act led to his transfer being delayed. And I understand his disappointment that his funds reduced in value between 12 February 2025, when he received his first quotes, and April 2025. But I can’t reasonably say that Phoenix caused any delays. And therefore I can’t fairly hold it responsible for any potential financial loss. I went on to consider whether Phoenix provided Mr J with the level of support and advice he should’ve expected. Did Phoenix fail to provide sufficient support and advice? In this case, Phoenix acted as Mr J’s pension provider and administrator. It didn’t have any responsibility to provide him with advice. Instead, it was required to carry out his instructions to transfer his pension once his chosen annuity provider had requested his funds. I’ve not found any evidence that Phoenix 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 Phoenix’s role. And while I also noted that Mr J didn’t feel that Phoenix had provided sufficient support, the evidence shows that it did what I would’ve expected it to do when processing his transfer request. As our investigator noted, this service doesn’t have the power to tell a business to change its process – that’s the role of the regulator. Phoenix has acknowledged that its 16 April 2025 transfer notification letters didn’t confirm the unit pricing date used for the value calculation. It has also confirmed that it used its standard letter format, so it didn’t make an error. I’m pleased to see that Phoenix has said it will further consider the points Mr J has made. But I can’t ask it to change the notification letters in the manner Mr J has suggested. Overall, Phoenix acted as I would’ve expected it to. I’ve found no evidence that it caused avoidable delays to the transfer process. Or that failed to provide Mr J with sufficient support. I therefore can’t fairly say it did anything wrong. And I don’t uphold the complaint.

-- 3 of 4 --

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

-- 4 of 4 --