Phoenix Life Limited · DRN-6181228

The complaint Mr L complains that Phoenix Life Limited (Phoenix) will not let him transfer his pension with it unless he provides proof that he has had advice from a regulated adviser. Mr L doesn’t think this is necessary in his circumstances. He is also unhappy with the service provided. What happened The investigator set out the background to the complaint in her letter of recommendation, for ease of reference I have included an amended copy of this below: On 12 February 2025, Mr L contacted Phoenix to enquire about the online portal as he could not view the policy online. Phoenix acknowledged the query and confirmed that the policy is not yet eligible for the online services. Phoenix also mentioned that Mr L’s policy could only be manually calculated and confirmed the pot value as of October 2024 as £31,245.15 which is valid for 6 months from the date of retirement pack being issued. Mr L then asked Phoenix to send him the retirement pack again. Once he had reviewed the pack, Phoenix asked Mr L to choose his options and get in touch with them for the next steps to execute the option of his choosing. On 21 February 2025, Mr L contacted Phoenix and expressed his concerns about being ignored by them. Mr L made Phoenix aware that after the last conversation, he had reviewed the retirement options and had decided to transfer his pension plan to Aviva Life. Following instructions from his end, Aviva Life sent the Origo transfer request to Phoenix. However, their request was not acknowledged by Phoenix. In response, Phoenix explained to Mr L that this request was closed due to non-receipt of Pension Advice Declaration (PAD) forms. On 1 May 2025, Mr L contacted Phoenix and explained his annoyance with the pension transfer process. He explained that he was trying to consolidate all his pension plans, and that he had been in touch with Phoenix since early February. Mr L also mentioned that whilst he was trying to fill in some documents for transferring the policy to Aviva Life, he was unable to get some required information from Phoenix’s online portal. Phoenix acknowledged this enquiry and provided Mr L with the details required to fill in the form. Subsequently, on 7 May 2025 Aviva Life had sent the Origo transfer request to Phoenix. On 28 May 2025, Phoenix acknowledged Aviva Life’s request. On 29 May 2025, the transfer value quote was issued to Mr L along with the transfer request forms. Mr L was also issued with the PAD form, which had to be completed by him and an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA) before Phoenix could complete the transfer. On 3 June 2025, Phoenix issued a letter advising that Mr L did not need to complete the transfer request forms but the PAD form needed to be completed and returned. On 6 June 2025, Mr L contacted Phoenix and expressed dissatisfaction on the requirement of the PAD form. He then sent a letter to Phoenix on 9 June 2025 and returned the transfer forms. Within these, Mr L said he didn’t want to get any advice from an IFA.

-- 1 of 4 --

Phoenix wrote to Mr L on 19 June 2025 confirming receipt of his pension transfer paperwork. However, they confirmed they were unable to proceed with the transfer until he had received appropriate advice. On 26 June 2025, Mr L wrote to Phoenix and raised his concerns about the completion of the PAD form and engaging an IFA. Mr L did not wish to incur fees for advice he did not want. He explained that he was consolidating all his pension plans to Aviva Life and had successfully transferred from other providers (which included other pension plans with Phoenix) without having to incur the fees for such advice. He asked Phoenix to consider this complaint and provide a resolution. On 2 July 2025, Phoenix sent their first final response letter (FRL) and explained that they cannot waive the requirement for a PAD form. They explained that Mr L’s policy has safeguarded benefits and as the transfer is worth over £30,000, the requirement to complete the PAD form cannot be waived. Phoenix understood that Mr L was confident about his retirement options, but legally they still had to follow the process which requires him to get advice. Phoenix further explained they also reviewed the service they provided as part of Mr L’s complaint. They noted that they received the Origo request from Aviva on 7 May 2025. However, Mr L was not informed about the requirement of the PAD form until 30 May 2025. They acknowledged that they had taken too long to inform Mr L of the requirements. Hence, they upheld this part of the complaint, apologised for the delay and provided Mr L with the compensation of £150 for the trouble caused. Phoenix also mentioned in their FRL that given the PAD form was still pending, they were unable to provide a loss assessment. However, they had agreed to do so once the PAD forms were submitted and the transfer was processed. On 8 July 2025, Phoenix issued their second FRL. This FRL was regarding the concerns Mr L had raised about the lack of access to Phoenix’s online portal. Phoenix were unable to uphold this complaint. Phoenix acknowledged that their retirement quotes do suggest customer’s go online and check their plan, however they also state that this is applicable only if the plan is eligible for such online service. Phoenix in their call with Mr L on 12 February 2025 had clarified that his plan wasn’t eligible for this online service. Phoenix confirmed that it is unlikely that the plan will be eligible for the online service anytime in the near future. On 19 August 2025, Mr L referred his complaint to our Service for an independent review. Our investigator looked into matters but she didn’t uphold the complaint. She explained that the PAD form was a legal requirement and so Phoenix hadn’t acted unreasonably in not allowing a transfer without it. With regards to the delay and the online access issue, the investigator felt Phoenix had offered suitable compensation for the delay and hadn’t made an error regarding the online access information. Mr L didn’t agree. In response he made a number of points regarding the requirement of a PAD form. In summary of these points, he felt that the intention of the law was to make sure policyholders understand the rights they are giving up. And the relevant section 48 poorly executes the intention of Parliament. He believes it is usual for courts/tribunals etc to allow for fair solutions. He believes Phoenix and the investigator’s view of this was wrong as it applies a literal interpretation of the law and created an unfair outcome for him.

-- 2 of 4 --

Mr L has said he’d be happy to sign a waiver that he accepts and understands the rights he would be giving up in transferring without advice. 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. And having done so I agree with the outcome reached by our investigator and for broadly the same reasons, I’ll explain why. Mr L has made a number of points as to why he disagrees with the legislation and Phoenix and our investigators interpretation of it – and why it is unfair. I haven’t set all this out above as my role is to get to the heart of the matter and this reflects the purpose of our service but I have considered all what he has said. But I’m afraid I don’t think it makes a difference to the outcome of this complaint. It is not within my remit to decide whether the law is fair or challenge it, that would be something for the regulator or Parliament to consider. Rather I need to decide whether Phoenix has acted fairly and reasonably in relation to Mr L. And so I need to decide whether refusing Mr L’s transfer due to the legal requirement of a completed PAD form is treating him unfairly. And I do not think that it is. I say this because the relevant legislation here, The Pension Schemes Act 2015 says that where a member has safeguarded benefits worth over £30,000 (as is the case here) they must have: ‘… Form of confirmation of appropriate independent advice 7. Confirmation from the member or survivor that appropriate independent advice has been received must be in the form of a statement in writing from the authorised independent adviser providing the advice confirming— (a) that advice has been provided which is specific to the type of transaction proposed by the member or survivor; (b) that the adviser has permission under Part 4A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000(c), or resulting from any other provision of that Act, to carry on the regulated activity in article 53E of the Regulated Activities Order (c) the firm reference number of the company or business in which the adviser works for the purposes of authorisation from the FCA to carry on the regulated activity in article 53E of the Regulated Activities Order; and (d) the member’s or survivor’s name, and the name of the scheme in which the member or survivor has subsisting rights in respect of safeguarded benefits to which the advice given applies.’ This is a legal requirement placed on Phoenix before they can transfer a plan that falls under this legislation. There is no allowance in the legislation for a customer to waive this legislation or to propose a different workaround. Free impartial guidance services such as Moneyhelper do not hold the relevant permissions, so this wouldn’t remove the need for an IFA. Neither does Mr L’s suggestion of signing something to waive any rights he would have to complain in the future.

-- 3 of 4 --

I understand Mr L’s view on the unfairness of this law, that he will have to pay for advice that he thinks he doesn’t need and he doesn’t want. And that this will reduce the value of his policy. I know he thinks the guaranteed annuity rate isn’t worth anything to him but this doesn’t change the fact that there is a legal requirement placed on Phoenix for it to certify that Mr L has received independent financial advice from a regulated adviser before releasing his funds on transfer. I think Phoenix has acted in line with the legislation and it is correct in saying it cannot waive this requirement. I therefore do not think it would be fair and reasonable to say it needs to do anything else here or that it has done something wrong. With regards to the other issues Mr L raised, whilst I note he hasn’t challenged the investigator’s view on this, I will summarise my thoughts for clarity. I agree that Phoenix Life doesn’t need to do anything with regards to his online access complaint point, the retirement quote only said he may be able to view information online. And Phoenix then did confirm that his policy wasn’t eligible for this, whilst I understand this might be frustrating, I don’t think it did anything wrong here. Phoenix admitted it had caused unnecessary delays in the transfer process where it didn’t inform Mr L as to why his transfer request hadn’t proceeded – as he hadn’t included the PAD form required. And offered £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused. It also said it would do a loss calculation when the transfer occurred to see if this delay caused a loss. However, the transfer has since been cancelled as Mr L doesn’t want to seek advice. So I am satisfied the offer of £150 is fair and reasonable for any inconvenience and distress caused by the initial delay. Ultimately the delay to the transfer has been caused because of the contention around the PAD form and not Phoenix’s initial poor service. Even if Phoenix hadn’t caused any delays, Mr L would still be in the same position. I note Phoenix sent Mr L a cheque for this amount, if Mr L hasn’t cashed this and it has expired, he should contact Phoenix for it to be re-issued. My final decision For the reasons explained above, I think the offer already made by Phoenix Life Limited is fair and reasonable and I make no further award. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr L to accept or reject my decision before 23 April 2026. Simon Hollingshead Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --