Reclaim Sentinel insurance on Lloyds Platinum packaged account?

matt20uk

Hello everyone


I had a Lloyds Platinum packaged / added value bank account for five years. Sentinel Card Protection was one of the benefits provided by the account.


As the Sentinel AI Scheme does not deal with packaged bank accounts, I recently complained directly to Lloyds on the basis that the Sentinel element of the Platinum account was mis-sold (for the usual reasons that the bank is responsible for transactions after the bank is reported lost or stolen).


For the avoidance of doubt, I applied for the account online and I accept that I wanted some of the benefits that came with the account (eg travel insurance). However, I also expected that the Sentinel product would provide financial cover, should I have needed it.


Lloyds phoned me today and advised that they declined my complaint. I await their full written response, but verbally they do not think that the account was mis-sold, on the basis that I applied for the account online and could have made use of the other benefits.


I do not agree with Lloyds' position.


I believe that Lloyds should provide at least a proportionate refund for the effectively useless Sentinel product that was part of the Platinum account fee. Regardless of whether I applied for the account online or not, Lloyds still sold me a dodgy product every month for five years.


What is the correct position on this??

-taff

Sounds like they think you're complaiing about the bank account, not the Sentinel.

dunstonh

I recently complained directly to Lloyds on the basis that the Sentinel element of the Platinum account was mis-sold (for the usual reasons that the bank is responsible for transactions after the bank is reported lost or stolen).

That is not a valid reason on a packaged account.

For the avoidance of doubt, I applied for the account online and I accept that I wanted some of the benefits that came with the account (eg travel insurance). However, I also expected that the Sentinel product would provide financial cover, should I have needed it.

So, it was not sold to you by anyone. You chose to buy it.

Lloyds phoned me today and advised that they declined my complaint. I await their full written response, but verbally they do not think that the account was mis-sold, on the basis that I applied for the account online and could have made use of the other benefits.

Which seems logical and fair and matches what you have said.

I believe that Lloyds should provide at least a proportionate refund for the effectively useless Sentinel product that was part of the Platinum account fee. Regardless of whether I applied for the account online or not, Lloyds still sold me a dodgy product every month for five years.

Lloyds did not sell you a dodgy product. You chose to buy it being aware of cost of features. A package of features will often include things of value and things of little value. However, you are buying the package.

If you buy an electrical item, you often get a UK plug and a european plug. You cant claim mis-sale and get your money back pro-rata for the cost of the european plug. It is part of the packaging.

Sentinal was not just about responsibility for transactions. it did other things as well. However, that doesnt matter as it is just one part of the package and you chose to buy it. Nobody sold it to you.

What is the correct position on this??

Based on what you have said, their rejection seems fair and reasonable.

1 - you bought it (it wasnt sold to you)
2 - sentinal was part of the package and wast not the only thing.

matt20uk

Thanks for the replies.

My fundamental problem lies with the Sentinel product. One of the reasons that I chose the Platinum account was for the fraud cover that the Sentinel product purported to provide. To me, this was the main feature of the Sentinel product. As has been well documented elsewhere, the fraud cover element of the Sentinel product was effectively useless as the banks were liable for losses after cards are reported lost or stolen.

In terms of whether redress should be available for the Sentinel product, I do not see the difference between:

1. Buying the Sentinel product directly from a bank (where in some cases redress is available); and

2. Buying the Sentinel product as part of a packaged bank account (where apparently no redress is available).

Correct me if I’m wrong, but one could validly claim on the AI Scheme if the Sentinel product was bought directly from a bank, because the fraudulent cover element of the policy was effectively worthless. That doesn’t change just because Sentinel was part of a packaged bank account, rather than a standalone product.

@dunstonh – using your analogy of buying an electrical item and receiving a UK and European plug. I would at least expect that the European plug would work if I took it to the continent! Going back to Sentinel, I would have been unable to benefit from the financial protection/fraud element of the insurance as I would already be covered bythe bank (assuming I reported the card lost or stolen). It turns out that the main benefit of the Sentinel policy – which at the time of upgrading to the Platinum account I thought would pay out if required - was worthless.

Just to reiterate – I’m not suggesting that the entire Platinum account fee should be refunded. Only an amount relating to the Sentinel protection.

Perhaps mis-selling is not the right term. In any case, I put a certain level of trust in my bank (Lloyds) to provide products that do what they say they will. Because of this, I feel that Lloyds has let me down.

dunstonh

My fundamental problem lies with the Sentinel product. One of the reasons that I chose the Platinum account was for the fraud cover that the Sentinel product purported to provide. To me, this was the main feature of the Sentinel product. As has been well documented elsewhere, the fraud cover element of the Sentinel product was effectively useless as the banks were liable for losses after cards are reported lost or stolen.

None of that matters.

I do not see the difference between:

1. Buying the Sentinel product directly from a bank (where in some cases redress is available); and

2. Buying the Sentinel product as part of a packaged bank account (where apparently no redress is available).

There is a world of difference. A package is a price for a collection of products. Some of which may be more useful than others. Some of which you may have no call to use. However, they are a package with a package price.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but one could validly claim on the AI Scheme if the Sentinel product was bought directly from a bank, because the fraudulent cover element of the policy was effectively worthless. That doesn’t change just because Sentinel was part of a packaged bank account, rather than a standalone product.

Yes it does change as you are not independently priced for Sentinal.

However, the bottom line is that even if you had a 100% cast iron case for wrongdoing, you are timebarred.

matt20uk

@dunstonh - although I don't agree with your view I appreciate your contribution to my question.