Lloyds Bank PLC · DRN-6260559

The complaint Mr G has complained that Lloyds Bank PLC (“Lloyds”) mis-sold him a fee-paying Premier account in August 2010. Mr G says that he approached the bank to request an overdraft, and was explicitly told that the only way to obtain one, or the specific limit he needed over £1000, was to open a fee- paying packaged bank account. Mr G says he was not made aware of a suitable alternative fee-free current account that offered an overdraft facility, or he was wrongly told that he would not be eligible for an overdraft with a standard free account. What happened After Mr G complained, Lloyds issued its final response letter to the complaint on 24 December 2025 and didn’t uphold the complaint. After referring his complaint to this service, one of our investigators assessed Mr G’s complaint and they didn’t think that the packaged account had been mis-sold. As Mr G didn’t accept the investigator’s assessment, the complaint was referred for an ombudsman’s decision. 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. We’ve explained our approach to complaints about packaged accounts on our website and I’ve used that to help me decide this complaint. I think it may also help to explain that where evidence is incomplete and matters are in dispute, as is the case here, I need to decide what I think most likely happened, based on everything that is available. And having considered everything, I am not upholding this complaint. I will explain why. Mr G says that the account was mis-sold, as he says he was told that the only way to obtain an overdraft was by having a fee-paying Premier packaged account. Whereas Lloyds says that fee-free accounts were widely available and the availability of overdrafts was not dependent upon the type of account held. So Lloyds says it’s staff wouldn’t have said this to Mr G. I have considered Mr G’s testimony that he says he only agreed to the fee-paying Premier account to get an overdraft. But if it was the case that he didn’t want a Premier account, and only agreed to it in the mistaken belief that he must have it for an overdraft, then I would reasonably expect him to have applied for an overdraft either during the sale or a short while after. But Lloyds has provided Mr G’s overdraft history, and I can’t see that Mr G applied for an overdraft either during the sale or in the months after. From what I have seen, it seems

-- 1 of 3 --

that Mr G first applied for an overdraft in December 2012 – so well over a year after he’d opened the Premier account. I note that in 2010, one of the benefits of the Premier account was a £250 interest free overdraft benefit, as well as lower interest rates (compared to a fee-free account) on overdrawn balances above that amount, up to the arranged limit. So, I think it’s possible that, if Mr G did mention wanting an overdraft during the sale, Lloyds told him about this feature of the account and this is what he recalls being told about regarding ‘needing’ to have the account for an overdraft. Lloyds has also provided evidence that Mr G extensively used the breakdown cover included with the account over the years he had the account. There is evidence that Mr G registered phones and made claims on the mobile phone cover. There is also evidence that Mr G occasionally travelled overseas too, so was potentially able to benefit from some of the travel benefits from the account too. I can also see that Mr G had opened a fee-free account in January 2011, so there is no doubt that Mr G was aware that fee-free accounts were also available to him too. Therefore, when weighing everything up, I’ve not seen enough evidence to conclude that Mr G was in all likelihood given misleading information that he must have a Premier account to obtain an overdraft. Based on what I have seen, I think it's more likely that Mr G agreed to the Premier account because he was told about and was interested in the benefits it included – some of which were overdraft benefits. Based on what I have seen, I don’t think that the account was sold on an advised basis. This means that Lloyds didn’t need to check if the insurance benefits were suitable for Mr G’s circumstances. But Lloyds was still required to provide Mr G with all of the important information about the account so that he could make an informed decision about whether the Premier account met his needs. Due to the lack of evidence available from the time. I can’t be sure if Lloyds did give Mr G all of the important information that it was required to provide him with during the sale. But having said that, I can see that Mr G was able to claim on the breakdown cover. And he was able to register phones and make claims on the mobile phone insurance too. So I’m satisfied that Mr G was given at least enough information to have a good appreciation about what benefits were included with the account and how to use them. It seems to be the case that Mr G was aware of the monthly fee to have the account too. I’ve also not seen anything about Mr G’s circumstances in 2010, that leads me to think that he would’ve acted any differently, had he been given even more information about the Premier account during the sale. So overall, based on the evidence I have been provided with, I’m unable to conclude that the account was mis-sold. Finally, Mr G says that he’d asked to downgrade his account a number of times, and each time Lloyds staff told him he’d lose his overdraft if he did. However, I can’t see evidence of this in any of the contact notes that Lloyds has provided. On the contrary, it seems that Lloyds sent Mr G a number of letters and annual eligibility statements over the years he held the account. These invited Mr G to check if the Premier account was a good fit for his circumstances and if not, he should consider changing accounts. But I can’t see that Mr G ever did this. So in summary, based on everything, I have seen, there is not enough evidence here for me to conclude that Mr G’s Premier account was likely to have been mis-sold.

-- 2 of 3 --

My final decision Because of the reasons given above, I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr G to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. Thomas White Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --