Sentinel Gold - can we reclaim if this was mis-sold?

superbmum

Whilst helping my mother in law apply for a new credit card so she could transfer her balance to a 0% card, I noticed that not only has she been paying PPI (which I'm now reclaiming on her behalf), but she's also been paying Sentinel Gold. I wrote to Barclaycard to cancel the Sentinel Gold and to ask for a refund. My mother in law has received a letter confirming the policy has been cancelled, with no mention of a refund. I stated in the letter that the policy was not needed. Has anyone claimed on mis-sold Sentinel Gold cover?

[Deleted User]

superbmum wrote: »

I wrote to Barclaycard to cancel the Sentinel Gold and to ask for a refund. My mother in law has received a letter confirming the policy has been cancelled, with no mention of a refund.I stated in the letter the policy was not needed

It's not PPI so I can't see the Bank offering to refund the policies so far paid. What reasons would you give for a mis-sell? Saying it was not needed is only reason for cancelling in this case, not for refunding. Can you show you had other cover in case of identity theft or your card being stolen? If not, I doubt you'd even have a case.

Tightasaducksarse

I have just had a letter from Sentinel Gold to say that they are removing the "Fraud Cover for Losses on Lost or Stolen Cards - Up To £100,000" from their policy, because UK Banks are responsible for covering this.

While checking on this forum I see that another company, CPP, have been slammed by the FSA for mis-selling this type of protection, and MSE recommends claiming your money back.

SO my question is: Are Sentinel Gold Policies also mis-sold? SHould I be claiming my fees back?

NeverEnough

I have had a similar letter, although I had contacted them years ago to cancel the policy, it seems they did not do so and they now claim they "had to track me down via experian" to get my "updated address" -pack of disingenuous lies, as I have lived at the same address for 15 years!!

They have cancelled and promised a refund, will check and see what materialises as a refund - as its only renewed every three years I must have overlooked it after cancelling it.

As their product is essentially the same as CPP, I would think there may be a case for misselling just as with the PPI cases.

dazza12

Tightasaducksarse wrote: »

While checking on this forum I see that another company, CPP, have been slammed by the FSA for mis-selling this type of protection, and MSE recommends claiming your money back.

CPP trade as several company names, and are also behind Sentinel Gold (Sentinel used to be their brand name). CPP are also behind a few banks own products - Barclays/Barclaycard use CPP's service rebranded as their own for instance.

I've not looked into CPP reclaims as yet, but I would think that as they're the same company the same course of action would be relevant.

doz123

I have just been in contact with the CPP and Sentinel Gold is a different company. I started paying Barclaycard protection over 20 years ago but apparently after 2004 we continued to pay but the name changed to Setinel Gold. The CPP said you could only claim if you took out CPP after 2005.

dazza12

I was mistaken in the previous post prior to yours - at the time my SAR from Barclaycard had referred to Sentinel and CPP in the same way, also a product attached to my Barclays account is actually CPP, so I was a little confused about the relationship. its only in the last couple of weeks I realised they were in fact 2 companies.

There is actually nothing stopping you from complaining to Barclaycard about the entire period, including prior to 2005. Barclaycard will consider your claim and will either uphold or refuse. You then have the option to take it to the FOS. This is at no cost to you apart from the time taken (and the delay with the FOS could be up to 2 years).

Both Sentinel and CPP prior to 2005 can be complained about. What has happened here is that enough complaints were received about CPP to trigger an investigation into its sales processes. As a result, it has been deemed that its sales processes were at fault, so all policies are deemed to have been mis-sold. The cut off of 2005 has been decided to make the process easier to administer (and to put some limit on automatic payouts). The process has been designed in this way to make the claim process as easy as possible - if you're identified you'll be written to and to confirm that you would like to complain.

It may be possible that the same could happen to Sentinel. The arguments against CPP's processes also apply to Sentinel, but as yet no investigation against Sentinel has been instigated.