Published decisions
8,321
Product-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Product analysis
A public view of how Pensions and Annuities performs in the published Financial Ombudsman decisions dataset, including volume, outcome mix, firm exposure, and recurring complaint themes.
Page summary
8,321 published FOS decisions in Pensions and Annuities, with upheld-rate context, firm exposure, complaint themes, advisory patterns, and representative cases.
Published decisions
8,321
Product-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
53.7%
4,470 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 02 Feb 2026
Published decisions
8,321
Product-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
53.7%
4,470 upheld decisions
Leading firm
Aviva Life & Pensions UK Limited
604 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Delay In Claim Handling
888 tagged decisions
8,321 published decisions in this corpus sit within Pensions and Annuities. 53.7% of those decisions were upheld, which makes this a useful public category page for spotting where complaint outcomes have tended to land.
Aviva Life & Pensions UK Limited is the single biggest firm exposure inside Pensions and Annuities in the published decision set. Delay In Claim Handling is the leading complaint theme in the same category.
Pensions and Annuities has a multi-year decision trail in the corpus, which makes it possible to compare recent complaint pressure against earlier years rather than relying on a single snapshot.
In 2026, Pensions and Annuities recorded 13 published decisions with an upheld rate of 76.9%.
delay in claim handling, fraud or scam concern, non-disclosure or misrepresentation, and others are the strongest complaint-theme signals in Pensions and Annuities. For public analysis, those tags are the closest durable “type” layer available in the dataset.
The existing advisor model also points to recurring handling implications for Pensions and Annuities, including review cobs precedent (appears in 0.9% of cases), review fsma precedent (appears in 0.8% of cases), and others.
Representative cases
5 examples shown
I uphold this complaint in part. Scottish Widows Limited trading as Halifax Financial Services should pay Mr P a total of £700, allowing for any sums it has already paid.
View source decisionFor the reasons I’ve set out, I’ve concluded the offer made by Scottish Equitable Plc is fair. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs P to accept or reject my decision before 2 March 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons I’ve given above and in my provisional decision, my final decision is that I uphold this complaint against Evelyn Partners Investment Management Services Limited. I direct Evelyn Partners Investment Management Services Limited to calculate the compensation set out above and pay it to X.
View source decisionFor the reasons explained above and in my provisional decision, I uphold this complaint and direct Quilter Financial Services Limited to put things right as set out above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr P to accept or reject my decision before 2 March 2026.
View source decisionIn line with the rationale above I am not upholding this complaint and require no further action from Barclays Investment Solutions Limited. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr T to accept or reject my decision before 1 March 2026.
View source decision