Baigrie Davies must pay £100 for wrongly telling a client it had a recording of a call she said could back up her complaint about cover.
A client, referred to as Mrs H, said that when she discussed a policy on the telephone with a representative of Baigrie Davies & Company Limited in March 2006 she was told it would run for the whole of her life.
She has since discovered it actually has a 18-year term and took her complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service.
While investigating the complaint an adjudicator asked the business for call recordings from 2006 to determine what happened at the application stage but it said the calls were not available.
It explained its call recording system hadn’t been set up until November 2006 but Mrs H said when she initially raised the complaint she’d been told 2006 calls would be available.
The adjudicator discussed this with the business and it confirmed Mrs H had been incorrectly informed.
To apologise for providing this misleading information the business offered Mrs H compensation of £100.
Mrs H wasn’t happy with the offer or the adjudicator’s assessment of the complaint so ombudsman James Harris reviewed the case.
In a final decision, Mr Harris said: “Because much of Mrs H’s recollections of the sale relate to what she was told on the phone it’s unfortunate that recordings of the calls aren’t available. But it was 10 years ago and I accept what the business has said about only introducing a system that retained calls in late 2006.
“It’s also unfortunate Mrs H was initially told that the calls would be available. But this seems to have been a genuine mistake on the part of the person she spoke to. And I think it probably stemmed from the fact it was in 2006 – albeit late in the year – the new system was introduced. So I can see how the confusion might have arisen.”
Mrs H was recommended a level term assurance policy with a sum assured of £45,000 over an 18-year term and a similar policy which also included critical illness cover.
The adviser wrote to Mrs H to summarise the conversation and recommendations and this documentation explained the main purpose of the cover was to provide a lump sum of £45,000 in the event of her death over the next 18 years, to protect her family.
The adjudicator felt if Mrs H had been unhappy with the term she could have sought clarification or declined to go ahead with the applicationAfter the letter was sent out Mrs H spoke with the adviser again and an application was processed for the life and critical illness option.
But in 2016, following a policy review, Mrs H – having been under the impression the policy’s term was for the whole of her life – became aware the policy only provided cover for 18 years, so she complained.
The business didn’t uphold the complaint, mainly because all the original documentation had made clear the policy had a fixed term. Unhappy with this, Mrs H referred the matter to the Fos.
An adjudicator rejected the complaint because all the documentation and discussions showed the term of the policy was 18 years.
The adjudicator felt if Mrs H had been unhappy with the term she could have sought clarification or declined to go ahead with the application.
Baigrie Davies must pay £100 to Mrs H for misinforming her about the telephone call recording.
