Phoenix Life Limited · DRN-6194351

The complaint Mr S complains that Phoenix Life Limited (Phoenix) lost his former workplace pension. While he believes he retains a pension with Phoenix, its systems search failed to locate it. What happened Mr S said he had a workplace pension which started in December 1979 with his then employer. I’ll refer to the pension scheme as scheme K throughout my decision. Mr S has provided this service with a document dated 14 December 1979 which stated he was eligible to become a member of scheme K. The document stated that the policy was set up with a business I’ll refer to as provider R. It said that if Mr S chose to join scheme K, his normal pension date would be the date he turned 65. And that his pension on his normal pension date would be £439.29 each year. But there’d be no widow’s pension or death in service benefits. The document also said that Mr S wouldn’t need to contribute towards the cost of the benefits. The document also provided further details about what would happen if Mr S left service before reaching his normal pension date. I understand that he joined scheme K in late 1979. In 2022, Mr S wanted to know the value of his scheme K pension. He contacted a provider I’ll refer to as provider N. On 3 June 2022, he received a response from provider N. It noted that his scheme K policy had started more than 40 years ago. And said that it had only been established as a workplace pension scheme in 2010. It asked him to speak with The Pension Tracing Service (TPTS) to help him find his policy. Mr S contacted Phoenix in June 2023. He said he would be retiring in March 2024. He wanted to take the monies he was owed from the pension he thought he held with it. On 21 June 2023, Phoenix told Mr S that it couldn’t trace his pension with the information he’d supplied. It asked him to supply further details so it could locate his policy. Mr S provided Phoenix with the policy information he held. It received this on 23 June 2023. He asked it to provide him with a value for his pension. On 18 September 2023, Mr S complained to Phoenix as it couldn’t trace his policy. He said after writing several emails to it about the administration of his pension, he’d been told it’d been moved to Phoenix in 2006. On 5 January 2024, Phoenix issued its final response to the complaint. It apologised for the time it’d taken to respond to his concerns. And said it would pay him £250 to apologise for the delay and the inconvenience this had caused. Phoenix said that it had previously administered the policy. But that it was now administered by provider N. It said it’d sent a copy of Mr S’s email to provider N, which it felt might contact Mr S separately. It also provided Mr S with provider N's contact details. Phoenix also suggested that Mr S contacted the employer with which scheme K was linked, stating it

-- 1 of 5 --

might know more. On 15 January 2024, Mr S shared provider N’s response about his policy with it. That provider said it didn’t administer his policy. He asked Phoenix to investigate further. On 31 January 2024, Phoenix wrote to Mr S. It said it had tried to find more information on scheme K. And that it’d looked through the historic documents it held and found that the scheme was wound up in 2004. However, it had no other information on this. Phoenix acknowledged that provider N hadn’t been able to help Mr S. It said that TPTS listed suggested contact details for a few places with schemes linked to his previous employer. It suggested Mr S tried to contact those places for further information about scheme K. On 4 February 2025, Mr S contacted TPTS. He explained the steps he’d already taken to find his policy. He said he couldn’t locate provider R. TPTS replied to Mr S. It said provider R was now administered by Phoenix. Mr S then wrote to Phoenix on 4 February 2025. He said that although it’d told him it wasn’t connected to provider R, TPTS had told him that Phoenix administered it. On 19 February 2025 Phoenix wrote to Mr S. It said it’d received his response. And that it had referred the complaint to a Senior Complaints Officer to do a full review. On 13 May 2025, Phoenix replied to Mr S’s 4 February 2025 email. It apologised for the time taken to respond to the complaint. It offered Mr S £100 compensation. Phoenix said that it did service some plans originally taken out with provider R. But it reconfirmed that while it had administered his policy in the past, it no longer did. It said provider N now looked after the policy. Phoenix also said that having looked through all of the information it held, it could only say that scheme K had been wound up in 2004. It said that under General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) it couldn’t keep personal data longer than necessary. It said that this was likely the reason it only held minimal information on the scheme. Unhappy, Mr S brought his complaint to this service on 24 May 2025. He said that TPTS had confirmed to him on 4 February 2025 that Phoenix administered his pension. But Phoenix had denied this in its final response letter. Mr S said that while Phoenix had referred him to provider N, he’d contacted that provider on 3 June 2022. But it had told him it’d only been established in 2010. And that as he’d joined scheme K before then, he should speak to TPTS. To put things right, Mr S wanted Phoenix to either pay him his pension, or advise him who administered it. Phoenix told this service that it’d carried out an extensive search of its systems. But that it hadn’t been able to locate a policy for Mr S. It said it’d contacted another provider (provider S) which had confirmed it administered an Executive Pension scheme under the same employer name as scheme K, But Mr S wasn’t listed as a member of that scheme. Phoenix said that provider S had also found records of two plans for Mr S, although neither were active. It said it was possible that the scheme K policy had been transferred into one of those plans in 2007. It also shared additional information it’d received from provider S.

-- 2 of 5 --

Phoenix said it was sorry it couldn’t locate a policy for Mr S. It suggested he contacted HMRC, which it said might be able to identify what had happened to the policy in question. On 2 October 2025, an investigator issued a view in which she felt that this service didn’t have the power to look into the merits of the complaint. This was because the 13 May 2025 final response letter was incorrectly dated 13 May 2024. As Mr S had brought his complaint to this service on 24 May 2025, our investigator felt that the complaint had been brought to this service more than six months after the final response had been issued. However, she later realised that the complaint had been brought to this service in time. A new investigator then considered the merits of the complaint. Our investigator didn’t think the complaint should be upheld. She said it was often difficult to locate older pension policies. She noted that in this case, neither Mr S or Phoenix had any documentation to evidence who now administered his policy. Instead, Mr S only had the original document from the time his pension started in 1979. Our investigator said we’d expect Phoenix to use Mr S’s details to search its systems for live policies and for any data it still held. And to use the results of that search to determine what had happened to the policy. She felt Phoenix had carried out this search but hadn’t found anything. She didn’t have any reason to think the search had been carried out incorrectly. As such, she couldn’t fairly say that Mr S’s pension was still with Phoenix. Our investigator acknowledged that Mr S had used TPTS and taken the steps it’d suggested to try to find his policy. But she felt Phoenix had provided the only information it still held. And that Phoenix had made considerable efforts to look for Mr S’s policy. She was satisfied that it had no other information available. Our investigator felt that the £350 Phoenix had paid Mr S in compensation was reasonable under the circumstances. Mr S didn’t agree with our investigator. He simply wanted his pension. He said he couldn’t accept that Phoenix couldn’t find it. He thought it was unfair for it not to honour the contract. He said that Phoenix had confirmed it’d administered the policy in the past. He felt it shouldn’t have referred him provider N as it must’ve been aware that was only established in 2010, many years after his pension was taken out. Mr S also felt that Phoenix should’ve notified him about any changes of administrator. He felt if it had, he’d know who held his policy. As agreement couldn't be reached, the complaint has come to me for a review. 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’m not going to uphold it. I’ve reached the same conclusion as the investigator, for similar reasons. I know this will disappoint Mr S. I’ll explain the reasons for my decision. I first want to acknowledge the frustration that Mr S must feel about the difficulties he’s faced in getting a clear picture about which provider holds his pension. I also acknowledge that Mr S feels that his pension should still be with Phoenix. However, there is a lack of definitive evidence as to what happened here. In the absence of such evidence, I need to decide the case on the balance of probability. In other words, what I think

-- 3 of 5 --

is more likely than not to have been the case. Having done that, I’m persuaded that it’s more likely than not that Mr S transferred his pension away from Phoenix. I understand why Mr S feels his policy couldn’t be with provider N, as it only began in 2010, long after his policy was set up. But I can’t fairly agree that this means Phoenix shouldn’t have referred him to that provider. I say this because it is possible that the benefits from his policy were transferred into provider N after 2010. And based on the evidence I’ve seen, Phoenix believed that the policy had been transferred to provider N. I also appreciate that Mr S can’t accept that Phoenix can’t find his pension. However, based on the evidence I’ve seen, I’m satisfied that Phoenix has carried out the searches that it could reasonably be expected to. Unfortunately, those searches haven’t identified that it still holds a pension in Mr S’s name. The search result isn’t something that this service can independently check or verify. We don’t hold pension records. That’s the role of TPTS. While Phoenix can’t provide much detail about Mr S’s pension, which it acknowledged that it had administered in the past, it isn’t required to retain records indefinitely for private pension arrangements if the individual has effectively ceased to be a customer many years ago. As it noted in its May 2025 final response letter, Phoenix has to work under GDPR, which only allows it to keep personal data for as long as necessary. As it had confirmed that scheme K was wound up in 2004, more than 20 years before the complaint was brought to this service, I consider that it’s understandable that it now only holds minimal information on the scheme. And I couldn’t reasonably expect it to retain any more detail than it holds under the circumstances. While I understand why Mr S is concerned that Phoenix has lost his policy, it’s also true to say that pension providers don’t routinely delete pension policies. I say this because they have system safeguards in place to ensure that this doesn’t happen. I’m therefore satisfied that the reason Phoenix has no records of a pension for Mr S is that it has been transferred away to another provider. I appreciate that Mr S considers that Phoenix should’ve notified him about any changes of administrator to his policy. However, it’s not possible to be certain whether Phoenix did this at the time it ceased to administer the policy, as it no longer holds records. I agree with Mr S that if every provider that had ever administered his policy had notified him about any new administrator, he would now know where his policy was. But I’ve not been provided with enough evidence to say that it was Phoenix which failed in this regard and that it was this failure which led to Mr S’s pension going missing. I’ve also considered the total compensation of £350 that Phoenix has paid Mr S. It said the £250 it offered Mr S in its 5 January 2024 final response letter was based on £100 compensation for the poor service. And £150 for the delay in dealing with the complaint. The additional £100 Phoenix offered Mr S in its 13 May 2025 final response letter was offered in respect of the delay in dealing with the complaint. This service doesn’t have the power to consider complaints about complaint handling, so I can’t comment on the total of £250 Phoenix has paid Mr S for its delayed complaint responses. But I can comment on the £100 compensation it paid him for the poor service it provided. Phoenix said it couldn’t locate Mr S’s previous requests for information. But it had located reference to those on its system. As such, it felt it could’ve sent him an explanation sooner. I

-- 4 of 5 --

agree with Phoenix here. And I’m satisfied that the £100 compensation it paid Mr S was fair for the poor service it provided. So I won’t be asking Phoenix to pay Mr S additional compensation in respect of the distress and inconvenience its poor service caused him. I understand how frustrating it must be for Mr S to not receive a definite answer about where his pension is from any of the parties he’s contacted. But this service can’t directly help him in trying to trace his missing pension policy. I note that Phoenix suggested that Mr S contacted HMRC, which might be able to identify what happened to his policy. If he does this and HMRC states that his policy is still with Phoenix, it could re-open the complaint and investigate it again. It’s disappointing that Mr S’s hard work in tracing the pension hasn’t found it yet. But that doesn’t mean I can fairly hold Phoenix responsible for the fact that it is missing. All this service can do is consider the complaint against Phoenix. Having done that, I agree with our investigator that it has carried out the searches I would’ve expected it to carry out to find Mr S’s pension. And that despite doing that, it hasn’t been able to find a pension held with it. I know Mr S will be disappointed by my decision. But I hope he understands why it wouldn’t be fair or reasonable for me to require Phoenix to pay him the benefits from his pension in the circumstances I’ve outlined. I therefore don’t uphold the complaint. My final decision For the reasons explained above, I don’t uphold the complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr S to accept or reject my decision before 6 April 2026. Jo Occleshaw Ombudsman

-- 5 of 5 --