Scottish Widows Limited · DRN-6177891

The complaint Mr M complains that Scottish Widows Limited did not acknowledge receipt of a form he returned to them and is unhappy about the method of communication used in issuing annuity confirmation documentation. Prior to this complaint, Mr M raised other complaints with Scottish Widows, which were forwarded to this service and dealt with under their own complaint references. What happened Mr M held a pension with Scottish Widows which reached its Normal Retirement Date (NRD) in September 2025. Due to the existence of a valuable Guaranteed Annuity Rate (GAR), Mr M decided to take his pension as an annuity, and following a number of contacts with Scottish Widows, on 20 November 2025 he returned the claim forms to them by email. Within the email, he requested an acknowledgement of receipt of the email. He did not receive this. On 24 November 2025, Mr M’s annuity was set up, and on 28 November 2025, Scottish Widows sent a letter to Mr M confirming the annuity details. On 1 December 2025, Mr M complained to Scottish Widows. He was unhappy that he had not received an acknowledgement to his email of 20 November 2025, which specifically requested confirmation of receipt. He was further concerned that the letter dated 28 November 2025 confirming the set up of his annuity had not arrived and wished to understand how it was sent. Scottish Widows provided their final response to Mr M’s complaint on 3 December 2025. They apologised for not having sent an acknowledgement to the email received on 20 November 2025, and sympathised with the impact that this would have had on Mr M. They confirmed that a letter had been issued on 28 November 2025 confirming the set up of Mr M’s annuity, and within the complaint response they confirmed the details of the annuity which was by then already in payment. In recognition of the inconvenience caused, Scottish Widows paid Mr M £25. On 23 December 2025, Mr M forwarded his complaint to this service. On 13 February 2026, having completed an investigation, our investigator provided his view. He concluded that Scottish Widows failed in providing an acknowledgement to Mr M following his email of 20th November 2025 however he did not agree that Scottish Widows had made an error in sending out post via Royal Mail second class post. Considering the time and impact that the errors would have had on Mr M, the investigator believed that the £25 already paid was fair. Mr M did not agree, therefore the complaint has been forwarded to me for a final decision.

-- 1 of 3 --

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 am in agreement with the investigator. In reviewing Mr M’s correspondence to this service, I note that his concerns do not relate to the establishment of, or his annuity itself, but rather to the standard of customer service he received in connection with it. Mr M complains firstly that Scottish Widows did not provide acknowledgement to the email he sent on 20 November 2025, which he explicitly requested. Scottish Widows have not provided a reason that this acknowledgement was not sent, however they have confirmed that an acknowledgement was not sent and have apologised for the omission. Whilst I understand that this would have been frustrating given Mr M’s earlier customer service experiences with Scottish Widows, I have not been provided with any evidence to suggest that this would have had a material impact on him. I therefore uphold this element of Mr M’s complaint. Mr M is unhappy that Scottish Widows issued the letter confirming the details of his annuity by second class post. Scottish Widows have confirmed that this is their standard practice for sending mail. Second class post is used extensively for everyday business mail, including standard notifications and administrative correspondence, therefore I am satisfied that it was reasonable for Scottish Widows to write to Mr M using this postal method. Regardless of this, it is not within the remit of this service to instruct Scottish Widows to change commercial decisions such as this. I do not uphold this element of Mr M’s complaint. I note that Mr M is unhappy with the payment of £25 in recognition of the inconvenience caused. At the time of the errors complained about as part of this complaint, Mr M had previously experienced poor customer service, and is of the opinion that the previous events should be taken into account when considering what is fair compensation in this case. I have taken into account that in relation to his previous complaint, a full investigation has been carried out and a payment made to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused. It would not be fair or reasonable to revisit matters that have already been investigated and compensated under a separate complaint. I must therefore consider this complaint on its own merits, and reach an outcome that is fair and reasonable for both parties. Whilst frustrating to Mr M, I have found no evidence that the customer service issues encountered in November 2025 resulted in any financial detriment, or inconvenience that was ongoing for more than a short period of time. Scottish Widows have paid Mr M £25, which they state recognises temporary uncertainty, the limited severity and short duration of the impact of their errors. I have considered whether the award is reasonable and I am satisfied that it is. I note that within Mr M’s submissions to this service he has referenced the fact that this level of compensation has been awarded for a number of years, and does not take into account any effects of inflation. He therefore believes that a higher award is justified. It is important to recognise here that awards made by this service in 2026 are impact based – therefore consider the impact that an error has had on a customer. Typically, an award for distress or inconvenience is only appropriate where the impact goes beyond the level of frustration and minor annoyance expected as part of every day life. I have considered that the customer service failings experienced by Mr M fall at the lowest level of severity therefore am of the opinion that the £25 payment already made to Mr M is reasonable. Given

-- 2 of 3 --

the short duration and limited impact of the errors, I consider the £25 already paid to be in line with awards typically made for low-level inconvenience. In the context of the earlier problems he had encountered, it is understandable that the further customer service failings would have felt particularly frustrating for Mr M, however because he has already been compensated for these, it would not be fair to further penalise Scottish Widows by increasing the award to him disproportionately. It therefore follows that I partially uphold Mr M’s complaint however will not be asking Scottish Widows to do anything further. My final decision I partially uphold Mr M’s complaint against Scottish Widows Limited. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr M to accept or reject my decision before 22 April 2026. Joanne Molloy Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --