Vitality Corporate Services Limited · DRN-6262961

The complaint Mr T complains that Vitality Corporate Services Limited trading as VitalityLife caused him undue distress during a call regarding his serious illness policy claim. What happened Mr T took out a life and serious illness insurance policy with Vitality in July 2017 and made a successful claim on the policy which was paid in 2024. Mr T raised a complaint with Vitality in June 2025 as he was unhappy with the way in which it had handled his claim. Specifically, he complained about a call he had with Vitality on 5 July 2023 in which it questioned the validity of his claim. He said the call was unexpected and he was asked questions about the answers he originally gave when taking out the policy, as well as about a GP appointment which took place some years prior. He said that during the call he was told by Vitality that his blood results indicated he could have celiac disease, which was something he was unaware of and found very worrying. He said he’s just been diagnosed with Inflammatory Bowel Disease, a condition which is highly sensitive to stress and felt the call caused stress due to the questions having the potential to invalidate his policy and by informing that he may have another medical condition that he was unaware of. Vitality provided a holding letter but didn’t provide a final response letter within eight weeks of Mr T complaining and so he referred his complaint to this service for an independent review. One of our investigators considered Mr T’s complaint. They noted that since referring the complaint, Vitality had offered him £100 for the distress and inconvenience, and they explained why they felt the offer was fair and reasonable. In summary, they said: • They listened to the call and didn’t find Vitality’s questions to be unreasonable. • They acknowledged the difficult time Mr T was going through when taking the call, but explained that from the supporting evidence it’s clear that the information provided by the GP was incorrect – which is what led to the confusion and the worry. • They didn’t think Vitality was at fault for relaying this wrong information. • They noted that some incorrect dates were given on the call and that Vitality delayed responding to a data subject access request and so they felt the £100 offered fairly reflected the impact of these errors. T didn’t accept the investigator’s findings. In summary, he said that whilst he recognises that Vitality was entitled to review his claim, there were a serious of compounding issues during the call that means his compensation should be increased. These include: • Being questioned during a key call without a clear explanation at the outset that the validity of the policy could be affected. • Confusion caused by incorrect and unclear dates provided during that call. • The disclosure of medical results in an unnecessary alarming manner, without

-- 1 of 3 --

appropriate context. • The resulting distress was caused at a time when he had been diagnosed with Inflammatory Bowel Disease. As Mr T remained unhappy, the complaint has been passed to me to decide. 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. I’d like to start by acknowledging how difficult it must have been for Mr T during the time he received his diagnosis and I’m conscious his condition was highly sensitive to stress. That said, having considered the circumstances of the complaint and the impact of Vitality’s errors, I’m satisfied its offer is fair and reasonable. I’ll explain why. The purpose of the call at the centre of this complaint was for Vitality to run through some details with Mr T, as during its investigation into his claim it had noted parts of his medical history that ought to have been disclosed when he took out the policy. I must stress that calls of this nature are a standard practice, especially where parts of a customer’s medical history have not been disclosed at the outset. I’ve listened to the call in full and I agree with the investigator’s findings that the questions asked to Mr T were reasonable and I don’t think it was Vitality’s intention to cause him any undue stress. When the call started, Vitality explained the nature and reasons for the call before going on to ask him questions regarding his past medical history. Whilst I appreciate Mr T found the questioning to be stressful, I’m satisfied Vitality was able to pose these to him and if he didn’t feel comfortable answering at the time he could have explained that he would contact it at a more convenient time and when he’d had an opportunity to think about his answers. Vitality then went on to obtain some clarity on some abnormal values related to coeliac disease which was provided in the initial GP report. I understand this caused Mr T some considerable concern as he was unaware of this information. Whilst I appreciate this must have been distressing for him, especially considering his recent diagnosis, I don’t think it was unreasonable for Vitality to question this when it hadn’t been disclosed at the point of taking out the policy. Furthermore, I understand that the GP later retracted this information as it was provided in error, but nonetheless I don’t think it would be fair and reasonable to hold Vitality responsible for the GP’s error. However, I do acknowledge that Vitality referenced a date in 2015 instead of 2017 during the call which caused some confusion for Mr T and exacerbated his stress. From listening to the call and understanding the full circumstances of the complaint, I feel this is the only error caused by Vitality during the call. As such, whilst I think the impact of the error was compounded by Mr T’s difficult circumstances at the time, I don’t think further compensation beyond the £100 offered is required. Our service’s awards for distress and inconvenience are modest and are not punitive in nature. I’ve considered the impact of Vitality providing incorrect dates during the call, along with its delay in responding to a data subject access request and I’m satisfied the £100 offered fairly reflects these errors. I also note that Mr T is unhappy that Vitality failed to provide a full response to his complaint within the eight-week deadline. However, I note that a holding letter was provided with referral rights to our service and so he wasn’t prevented from raising his complaint with our

-- 2 of 3 --

service despite not receiving a full response from Vitality. Whilst it’s not ideal for a consumer when this happens, as there is no outcome Putting things right Vitality should pay Mr T the £100 offered if it hasn’t already. My final decision My final decision is that I uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr T to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. Ben Waites Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --