Aviva Equity Release UK Limited · DRN-5986537

The complaint Miss I on behalf of the estate of Mrs I complains that Aviva Equity Release UK Limited didn’t act fairly when it granted Mrs I a Lifetime Mortgage that had been recommended by a broker. Miss I says that Aviva ought to have picked up on issues and anomalies with the application. What happened Mrs I applied for a Lifetime Mortgage through a broker in September 2022. The mortgage was agreed around November 2022. Mrs I sadly passed away in December 2023. Miss I is the sole executor of the estate of Mrs I. Miss I alleges that a family member (who is also a beneficiary under Mrs I’s will) committed fraud in relation to the setting up of the Lifetime Mortgage. Miss I has concerns about the role played by each of the broker, the solicitor and Aviva. A mis-sale complaint against the broker was considered by another Ombudsman in June 2025. The Ombudsman found that it wouldn’t be appropriate for the complaint to be considered by the Financial Ombudsman Service. Miss I’s complaint against Aviva is that she believes it failed in its duty of care when it granted the Lifetime Mortgage. She’s also unhappy that Aviva is pursuing repayment of the mortgage balance by the estate, given the concerns she’s raised. Aviva didn’t uphold the complaint. In summary, it said its records didn’t contain any information that would’ve raised concerns during the application process. It said it couldn’t indefinitely delay recovery of the funds where interest continues to accrue, as that could be detrimental to the estate. Aviva offered Miss I £200 for where its service could’ve been better during some phone calls. In February 2026 I set out my provisional findings to Miss I by e-mail: “The first thing to note is that there are multiple parties involved in what’s happened. Another Ombudsman has reached a decision on the complaint brought by you on behalf of the estate of Mrs I, against the broker. In short, the Ombudsman decided that considering that complaint would seriously impair the effective operation of the Financial Ombudsman Service, and that it would be more appropriate for that matter to be addressed through the courts. My focus is on the concerns you've raised on behalf of the estate of Mrs I, about Aviva’s role in what happened – as well as the concerns raised about Aviva’s recent activity in seeking repayment of the outstanding balance. I’ve thought about both what the information I’ve seen suggests about Aviva’s role in what happened, and also thought about the extent to which it would be appropriate for me to

-- 1 of 3 --

reach certain findings, given all relevant factors. Aviva has provided us with a copy of the Lifetime Mortgage application, and other documentation from around the point of sale. It has also provided us with a copy of correspondence between itself and the broker before the mortgage was agreed. Based on what I’ve seen, I can’t see that there were any ‘red flags’ that Aviva ought to have picked up on, and didn’t. I’ve noted particular concerns you've raised to do with Aviva not checking the electoral roll for the property being mortgaged and where the funds were paid to. But Aviva says it doesn’t carry out an electoral roll check as part of checks it carries out before agreeing to lend, and that doesn’t seem unreasonable to me here. In terms of where funds were released to, I’ve seen documentation indicating the funds were initially released to the solicitor, which is what I’d expect to happen. It’s important for me to set out though, that if I thought there were material flaws in Aviva’s approach (which as I’ve said, I don’t), I wouldn’t then consider it appropriate for me to reach such findings, for reasons similar to why another Ombudsman said that the broker complaint would be best dealt with through the courts. First, whilst I appreciate the will states that you are the sole beneficiary of the property, if I were to direct Aviva to reduce what is owed on the mortgage, that could still potentially benefit an individual who you've alleged has committed fraud. And, whilst I appreciate your position that you only want this Service to consider the concerns about Aviva’s actions – and not the allegations of fraud against the family member, the two issues are fundamentally linked. This is because you're essentially saying that Aviva ought to have picked up on ‘red flags’ that the transaction may not have been legitimate. It would not be appropriate for me to make a finding which could pre-empt the outcome of what I understand is an ongoing police investigation. It’s also the case that if the family member were to be prosecuted and convicted of a criminal offence, this could then result in them needing to return funds to the estate, which (if I were upholding this complaint) could lead to the estate being compensated twice. This leaves an evaluation of Aviva’s actions since you raised concerns about what happened when the mortgage was arranged. Whist I acknowledge you feel very strongly that Aviva isn’t acting fairly, I agree with the Investigator that Aviva’s actions have been reasonable. Aviva has considered the concerns you raised, and I can see that it delayed action for some time after the police investigation began. Aviva isn’t obliged to place a hold on enforcement actions indefinitely and all the while the balance remains outstanding, interest continues to accrue. With this in mind, I cannot see any grounds upon which I should uphold the complaint. Finally, the eligible complainant here is the estate, not you in an individual capacity. I note Aviva offered you £200 in compensation for where it considered that it could’ve handled some phone calls better. Aviva is entitled to make such an offer, but because it is the Estate, and not you as an individual that is the eligible complainant, I cannot comment on that award. You are free to accept it you want to. I don’t now intend to go on to issue a formal decision, given I’ve set out the outcome of your complaint here. I can do so if you wish, but the answer is unlikely to change unless you provide new evidence or other reasons why you think the outcome is wrong.” Miss I responded to say she disagreed with these findings and that she wanted me to proceed to issue a formal final decision.

-- 2 of 3 --

In summary, Miss I said that the complaint is about Aviva’s role in what happened and that she’s not asking us to determine criminal liability. She said that the Financial Ombudsman Service’s statutory role is to assess what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances of each case. Miss I raised concerns that I’d placed significant weight on Aviva’s own account of its processes, without seeking or considering the documentary evidence which she holds and believes is relevant to assessing whether appropriate safeguards were followed. She said I hadn’t examined in sufficient depth Aviva’s reliance on third parties during the sales process. 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’ve reached the same conclusion as set out in my provisional findings, which are set out above and which should be considered part of this final decision. First, I’m satisfied that both parties have had sufficient opportunity to make submissions in support of their case. I still haven’t seen that there were any ‘red flags’ that Aviva ought to have picked up on, and didn’t. But, in line with what I set out in my provisional findings, I still find that, in any case, it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to reach a finding to the contrary. As to do so would seriously impair the effective operation of the Financial Ombudsman Service. I appreciate Miss I’s view that the complaint about Aviva is distinct from the allegations of fraud against the family member. However, I still consider that the issues are fundamentally linked. Any finding that there were ‘red flags’ that Aviva should’ve picked up on could at the very least infer some wrongdoing on the part of the family member. That would put the Financial Ombudsman Service in an untenable position and it means that the issues would be better dealt with in a court. I also still find that if I were to direct Aviva to reduce what is owed on the mortgage, that could benefit the individual who Miss I has alleged has committed fraud as a beneficiary under the will. That wouldn’t be appropriate either. Whilst I note that Miss I still believes Aviva acted unfairly when it took steps to recover the funds after initially pausing, I still don’t agree - for the reasons set out in my provisional findings. I do understand and appreciate the difficult position that Miss I finds herself in, but Aviva is entitled to seek to recover the funds owed by the estate. My final decision My final decision is that I don’t uphold the estate of Mrs I’s complaint about Aviva Equity Release UK Limited. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask the estate of Mrs I to accept or reject my decision before 2 April 2026. Ben Brewer Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --