However, the adjudicator agreed Mr R had experienced an unnecessary delay in being provided with adequate information on how to access the plan and therefore upheld this part of the complaint.
Ombudsman Anthony Arter agreed with the adjudicator that Mr R had received confusing information from Prudential but agreed the provider was correct to stand its ground and request proof the client had received advice.
Mr Arter said: “I consider that in the circumstances. It would have been reasonable for Prudential to have taken more care to clarify the instruction being given to Mr R and his understanding of those instructions.
“It was clear that a miscommunication had occurred, and Mr R was distressed as a result.”
Prudential was told to pay Mr R £500 to compensate for the unnecessary delay.
What do you think about the issues raised by this story? Email us on firstname.lastname@example.org to let us know.