Forester Life Limited · DRN-6077106

The complaint Miss H complains that Forester Life Limited, trading as Foresters Financial, did not disclose details of the fees she would be charged when encashing her matured Child Trust Fund (CTF) investment. She states that the charges have been applied unfairly and are disproportionate for someone of her age. Miss H also states that Foresters closed the withdrawal process off prematurely. What happened Miss H, who now lives overseas, contacted Foresters and asked them to close her matured CTF investment that she held with them and asked for the proceeds to be sent to her foreign bank account. When Foresters sent Miss H the monies from the CTF which amounted to £497.81, she was surprised to see that fees had been debited from her funds. Those charges were AU$19.35 to make the payment and AU$44.83 in foreign currency, often known as ‘FX’ charges. Shortly afterwards, Miss H decided to formally complain to Foresters. In summary, she said that she was unhappy that a number of charges had been taken from the £497.81 encashment. In addition, she also said that she was unhappy with the way that they’d handled her withdrawal request, particularly the money laundering check, closing off her withdrawal request early. After reviewing Miss H’s complaint, Foresters concluded they were satisfied they’d done nothing wrong. They also said, in summary: • When Miss H had requested the encashment on the ‘My Plans’ portal, it states the following: “Charges may apply for international payments and the exchange rate may affect the final amount you receive”. • On 29 May 2025, they had emailed her about the closure and also included a warning about the transaction: “Please be advised account fees and bank charges will apply to all international payments. Foresters are not responsible for paying the charges on non-UK payments. Foresters are not able to provide information on what fees and charges may apply. Please contact your bank for more information”. • They went on to say that their message at that time explained the encashment had not yet been processed and as she was informed of the possibility of additional charges that Foresters do not have control over, if she did have a query surrounding the bank charges before the encashment was processed, she had the opportunity to raise this. • They were sorry for any miscommunication in relation to her ID verification being approved.

-- 1 of 4 --

Miss H was unhappy with Forester’s response, so she referred her complaint to this service. The complaint was then considered by one of our Investigators. She concluded that Foresters hadn’t treated Miss H unfairly as she was informed about the potential for charges to be applied to the proceeds. In respect of the withdrawal process, she said: • The Mitek check was successfully completed on 29 May 2025 and the funds were sent to Miss H’s bank on 3 June 2025. • Whilst Miss H received multiple automated emails due to a technical error on 29 May 2025, the firm has acknowledged this issue, apologised and confirmed that it has been flagged with their IT team for resolution. • Furthermore, after the successful check was completed, she received an erroneous email from Foresters stating that a new Mitek link had been sent to her. The firm has acknowledged that this email was sent in error. • Given that the errors were promptly addressed and steps had been taken to prevent reoccurrence, our Investigator considered this response sufficient. Our Investigator also stated that she had seen no evidence that the process stopped prematurely. Miss H, however, disagreed with our Investigator’s findings. In summary, she said: • She had sent very clear emails asking about all and any fees associated with the encashment. • Not only were they not transparent about the fees, they also refused to provide third party contact information in order for her to obtain these amounts to be able to make an educated decision on whether the encashment was now worth it or it was better to let it grow. Our Investigator was not persuaded to change her view as she didn’t believe Miss H had presented any new arguments she’d not already considered or responded to. Unhappy with that outcome, Miss H then asked the Investigator to pass the case to an Ombudsman for a decision. 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. I have summarised this complaint in less detail than Miss H has done and I’ve done so using my own words. The purpose of my decision isn’t to address every single point raised by all of the parties involved. If there’s something I’ve not mentioned, it isn’t because I’ve ignored it - I haven’t. I’m satisfied that I don’t need to comment on every individual argument to be able to reach what I think is the right outcome. No discourtesy is intended by this; our rules allow me to do this and it simply reflects the informal nature of our service as a free alternative to the courts. My role is to consider the evidence presented by Miss H and Foresters in order to reach what I think is an independent, fair and reasonable decision based on the facts of the case. In deciding what’s fair and reasonable, I must consider the relevant law, regulation and best industry practice. Where there’s conflicting information about what happened and gaps in what we know, my role is to weigh up the evidence we do have, but it is for me to decide,

-- 2 of 4 --

based on the available information that I've been given, what's more likely than not to have happened. And, having done so, I’m not upholding Miss H’s complaint - I’ll explain why below. I can well understand Miss H’s disappointment at having charges taken off her investment’s proceeds. And, I do appreciate that navigating international payments from overseas can be more difficult and that uncertainties about charges can be frustrating. However, from what I’ve seen, the charges that Miss H is referring to were unknown at the point she wanted to make her transfer. Whilst I accept that Miss H was prudent in asking Foresters what costs might be applied when liquidating and remitting her monies, in light of the fact the funds would likely have to be passed through several parties first, I don’t think it’s reasonable for them to have known precisely what those costs might be. Indeed, most of the charges that have been applied to the transfer proceeds, the AU$44.83 FX fee, came about purely because the funds needed to be converted from GBP to Australian dollars. That cost would’ve been avoided had the monies been transferred to another GBP account. When converting one currency to another, firms generally recover their costs in one of two ways. They may charge an explicit fee for carrying out the conversion, which is what happened here. Alternatively, they may apply a currency “spread”, meaning they offer an exchange rate slightly less favourable than the market rate so their costs are built into the conversion itself. Had that second approach applied, Miss H would simply have received a lower final amount rather than seeing a separate charge deducted. And, as Foresters are only able to send monies in GBP, a conversion was inevitable and in such circumstances, it’s not unusual for banks to apply a fee to change monies into the foreign currency. Although Miss H asked Foresters for full details of all the charges that might be applied, I don’t think it would have been reasonable to expect the firm to provide precise figures. Foresters say that they can’t provide exact costs because the same fees aren’t levied against every payment. Also, international payments often pass through one or more intermediary or receiving banks, each of which may apply their own handling or FX charges. These fees vary between banks and depend on the route the payment takes, which Foresters can’t control or reliably predict in advance. So, while I accept that Miss H wanted greater certainty before deciding whether to proceed, I don’t think Foresters failed in their duty by being unable to give exact amounts. And, based on the emails Foresters sent her before the encashment was processed, I’m satisfied they did explain that international and bank-applied fees may be deducted, that they were outside their control, and that they couldn’t provide exact figures. In my view, this was a fair and proportionate response to her request for information, given the nature of the charges involved, so I can’t reasonably conclude that they didn’t do enough to make her aware of some costs being levied. Turning to Miss H’s concerns about Forester’s approach to signing off her identity check prior to releasing any monies; from what I’ve seen of the timeline, the original closure request was submitted on 5 May 2025, Foresters reviewed that on 12 May 2025 and a Mitek link was issued within their service level agreement window. On 15 May 2025, Miss H asked for a new link to be sent which was provided. Miss H explained that her passport had expired so wanted to understand what alternatives were available. On 21 May 2025, Foresters sent Miss H a message explaining that certified ID documents would be accepted. And, on 29 May 2025, she submitted the correct documents to Foresters and the checks passed the same day and funds were paid out on 3 June 2025 (there was a weekend in between) which was a reasonable period of time.

-- 3 of 4 --

So, whilst there were some errors that occurred, I’m satisfied that they didn’t really affect the overall outcome. I know that Miss H has stated that had she not flagged the ID check to them, Foresters wouldn’t have completed it but from what I understand, they have an additional security step that’s completed by their finance team who, when carrying out the transfer of funds, would flag the case if there was a lack of verified ID. On this occasion, this didn’t happen as the ID check was successfully completed beforehand. Although Miss H believed the process might have been halted, the system timeline shows continuous progression from submission to payment, with no gaps or cancellations indicating the request was closed early. Taking everything together, I’m satisfied that Foresters acted in line with what I would expect of a firm handling an international encashment request. They highlighted the potential for charges and acted promptly once Miss H completed the ID. The fees that reduced the final amount arose because the funds were sent overseas and converted into a different currency and are unpredictable. I don’t think Foresters treated Miss H unfairly. My final decision I’m not upholding Miss H’s complaint and it therefore follows that I won’t be instructing Forester Life Limited, trading as Foresters Financial, to take any further action on the matter. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss H to accept or reject my decision before 27 April 2026. Simon Fox Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --