Countrywide Assured Plc · DRN-5937508

The complaint Mr M complains that Countrywide Assured Plc has taken twelve months to provide him with a calculation of his protected tax-free cash. It still hasn’t carried it out and this has delayed his plans to pay off his mortgage. What happened Our investigator set out the background to the complaint in his letter of recommendation, for ease of reference an amended copy of this is included below: Mr M had a pension policy with Countrywide. In 2024, Mr M was looking to consolidate his pensions and access the maximum TFC available. This included four policies held elsewhere. Mr M was using the services of Parker Kelly Financial Servies Ltd (PKFS) when considering what his next options would be. Mr M was 65 at the time. In early 2024, PKFS requested information from Countrywide on Mr M’s pension. They received some information but had further queries. Further information regarding Mr M’s A- Day values were requested on 30 May 2024. This information was required, as it looked like there was an enhanced/protected element to Mr M’s TFC. It wasn’t until 3 October 2024 that Countrywide provided more information, however this information lacked the necessary details required for PKFS to be able to properly advise Mr M. PKFS chased Countrywide for further clarity on 30 October 2024. Between October 2024 and June 2025, PKFS sent numerous chasers to Countrywide which went unanswered. On 4 June 2025, Countrywide issued the correct pension information to PKFS. PKFS had raised a complaint on behalf of Mr M in August 2024. In October 2024, Countrywide confirmed that eight weeks had passed and they wouldn’t be in position to provide a final response, so Mr M could approach our service for an independent investigation, whilst they continued with their own investigations. Mr M came to us in April 2025, as he was unhappy with Countrywide’s initial and continued responses to the information request and the complaint. Our investigator looked into matters and eventually Countrywide provided its complaint response. It told us that it didn’t have the required staff to carry out the calculation at the time and so were going through a training process to tackle this. But that meant in the meantime it had a big backlog of outstanding tasks. It offered £400 to Mr M for the distress and inconvenience caused. Our investigator considered that the £400 was broadly fair for the trouble and upset caused but said it didn’t cover the delays and potential loss that Mr M may have suffered because of this. He worked out that Countrywide had caused 221 days of delays in providing the correct

-- 1 of 3 --

information to Mr M. So, he said it should carry out a loss calculation if Mr M transfers and work out what the value would have been 221 days previously. Countrywide didn’t respond to the investigator’s view. Mr M’s representative PKFS did respond to accept the £400. And they also told us that Mr M had since decided to take his benefits and lose the protected tax-free cash as he needed the funds. The investigator checked with Mr M’s representative and they confirmed Mr M didn’t now want the loss assessment carried out. They were happy to accept the £400. 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. There is now nothing left in dispute as Countrywide offered the £400 and Mr M has accepted that as fair. I would usually then arrange for Countrywide to make that payment without the need for a final decision. However, Countrywide hasn’t engaged with the complaint, didn’t provide a final response within the 8 weeks it should have done and obviously the subject of the complaint was that it took over a year to answer information requests. So, in the circumstances it may be useful for Mr M to have a final decision clearly stating the award and parameters within which it should be paid. For the avoidance of doubt, Countrywide needs to pay Mr M £400 for the trouble and upset caused for the long delays it caused in providing him with information. I think this will have been very frustrating for him and it clearly led to him delaying decisions around his financial planning. We’ve been told Mr M doesn’t want to consider any potential further loss, so I am not including that in this decision. I hope that is because Mr M received a good amount of growth on his policy in the meantime. Countrywide’s administration and customer service here was of a very poor standard. Putting things right Countrywide should pay Mr M £400 for the distress and inconvenience it caused him due to the delays in providing him with information. If payment of compensation is not made by a deadline of 28 days from Countrywide receiving Mr M’s acceptance of my final decision, interest must be added to the compensation at the rate of 8% per year simple from that deadline date to the date of payment. Income tax may be payable on any interest paid. If Countrywide deducts income tax from the interest, it should tell Mr M how much has been taken off. Countrywide should give Mr M a tax deduction certificate in respect of interest if he asks for one, so he can reclaim the tax on interest from HMRC if appropriate. My final decision For the reasons explained I uphold this complaint and require Countrywide Assured Plc to put things right as set out above.

-- 2 of 3 --

Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr M to accept or reject my decision before 26 April 2026. Simon Hollingshead Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --