PensionBee Limited · DRN-6096860

The complaint Mr E complains that PensionBee Limited will not provide him with the details of the other discretionary beneficiaries to whom it has paid death benefits from the pension savings of his partner. What happened Mr E’s partner (who I will call Mr X to protect his identity) sadly passed away in October 2024. Mr X’s death was unexpected, and he hadn’t made a will or provided PensionBee with any expression of wish for the beneficiaries of his pension savings. I understand that Mr X’s estate is being managed by his sister. In July 2025, after making what it described as a thorough review, PensionBee decided that it would exercise its discretion and pay part of Mr X’s pension death benefits to Mr E. It made a payment of £4,780.46 to Mr E in August 2025. Mr E asked PensionBee to provide him with further information about the recipient(s) of the remainder of the death benefits. When PensionBee told him it was unable to provide that information he asked that the matter be treated as a formal complaint. PensionBee didn’t agree with Mr E’s complaint. Whilst it had great sympathy for the position Mr E was in, it explained that it wasn’t able to provide him with information about any third parties. But it said it was satisfied that it had reasonably identified all those who were potential beneficiaries of Mr X’s death benefits. And it thought it had been correct to award a portion of the death benefits to Mr E. PensionBee told Mr E that it had no involvement with the distribution of any other assets that formed Mr X’s estate. Unhappy with that response Mr E brought his complaint to us. Mr E’s complaint has been assessed by one of our investigators. She said she hadn’t seen any evidence that would suggest the discretionary decision reached by PensionBee was unreasonable. So, she didn’t think PensionBee should be asked to reconsider its decision. And she thought that PensionBee had acted correctly in not providing Mr E with information about any other beneficiaries it had chosen. So, the investigator didn’t think Mr E’s complaint should be upheld. Mr E didn’t agree with that assessment. So, as the complaint hasn’t been resolved informally, it has been passed to me, an ombudsman, to decide. This is the last stage of our 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.

-- 1 of 3 --

In deciding this complaint I’ve taken into account the law, any relevant regulatory rules and good industry practice at the time. I have also carefully considered the submissions that have been made by Mr E and by PensionBee. Where the evidence is unclear, or there are conflicts, I have made my decision based on the balance of probabilities. In other words, I have looked at what evidence we do have, and the surrounding circumstances, to help me decide what I think is more likely to, or should, have happened. At the outset I think it is useful to reflect on the role of this service. This service isn’t intended to regulate or punish businesses for their conduct – that is the role of the Financial Conduct Authority. Instead, this service looks to resolve individual complaints between a consumer and a business. Should we decide that something has gone wrong we would ask the business to put things right by placing the consumer, as far as is possible, in the position they would have been if the problem hadn’t occurred. I would like to start this decision by expressing my profound sympathy for Mr E and the circumstances that have led to this complaint. I understand how distressing this whole matter will have been for him, following the sudden death of his partner. And I am very sorry that the decision I am giving him on this complaint is unlikely to alleviate any of that upset. In line with many pension plans, the payment of benefits following the death of a policyholder is made at the discretion of the pension trustees. That generally means that the pension benefits do not form part of the estate of the deceased, and so are not liable for inheritance tax. Pension providers will encourage policyholders to complete an expression of wish document. Whilst not binding, that document does provide the pension trustees with an indication of where pension benefits should be paid. PensionBee says that it didn’t hold documentation of that nature in relation to Mr X’s pension savings. The trustees have a wide discretion on who should receive benefits following the death of a policyholder. They will seek to establish whether any potential beneficiaries are financially dependent, or interdependent, on the policyholder. And they will consider other circumstances such as family relationships when making their decision. In order to gather sufficient evidence to reach those conclusions they will sometimes need to ask for information that appears to be personal and intrusive. But I am satisfied that the requests PensionBee made of Mr E were reasonably necessary to form a picture of the living situation between him and Mr X. As a result of the enquiries PensionBee concluded that Mr E should receive a part of the death benefits due from Mr X’s pension savings. It made him aware of that decision in July 2025 and the proceeds of his share of the death benefits were paid to him the following month. Mr E is keen to understand who the other beneficiaries of the death benefit payment were. He asked PensionBee for that information. But sadly, I agree with PensionBee that it would not be appropriate to provide that information to Mr E. To do so would mean that PensionBee would be most likely in breach of its responsibilities under the General Data Protection Regulations (“GDPR”) as it would be disclosing to a third-party personal information it has been given for very specific reasons. In line with its complaint handling responsibilities PensionBee has provided me with some additional information about the beneficiaries of the death benefit payment. I haven’t seen anything in that information that would lead me to a conclusion that its decision was in some way perverse. I think it important to stress at this stage that, even if I didn’t agree with the decision PensionBee had reached (which for the avoidance of doubt isn’t the case), my powers would be limited to simply asking that the decision be reconsidered. And given any

-- 2 of 3 --

new decision would be made based on the same evidence, I think it most unlikely that it would be different. PensionBee has no other responsibilities towards the distribution of any other assets of Mr X. I understand that Mr X died without having left a will. So, the rules about how his estate should be distributed are set out in the regulations relating to intestacy. I understand that Mr X’s sister has taken on responsibility for his estate, and so she is responsible for the management of Mr X’s debts and assets. As I said earlier, I understand how disappointing my findings will be for Mr E. But PensionBee (or us) is simply unable to provide him with the information that he seeks about any other recipients of the remainder of Mr X’s death benefits. I sincerely hope that, given time, Mr E is able to put this matter behind him. My final decision For the reasons given above, I don’t uphold the complaint or make any award against PensionBee Limited. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr E to accept or reject my decision before 17 April 2026. Paul Reilly Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --