Sorry to tell you but the FOS rejected my calculations as per the FOS running sheet from this site and accepted Barclaycards calculations which were approx 50% less than the FOS running sheet !

Thank you for your reply however as i said the FOS will not accept on a Credit Card any PPI refund calculated with compound interest. I had two recent credit card PPI claims and compound interest as calculated with your template forms were rejected by the FOS. After rejections by two FOS Adjudicators i passed one over to an FOS Ombudsman and again he rejected any compound interest redress. Despite my protests that Barclaycard compound PPI premiums the FOS Ombudsman did not agree and accepted the Barclaycard calculations were correct.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?443589-Monument-PBP-refund-**WON-£16k!!**&p=4935529#post4935529 I notice you refer to compound interest when settlement on PPI redress is expected. Can you explain therefore that the FOS do not expect Companies to pay 'associated interest '' compounded ?

UPDATE Both FOS adjudicators have now asked Barclaycard and M&S to re-calculate my compensation. Understand my files have not been passed to the Ombudsman (yet)

ok put forward your argument about the compound interest /associated interest and received following replies from the 2 FOS adjudicators :- a) as you do not accept my original findings i have now passed your claim to the Ombudsman this refers to the Barclaycard claim.. b) will look into this further and come back to you. this refers to M&S claim. will let you know how this develops.

Many thanks for your reply. The problem I have is I have two PPI credit card claims with the FOS :- M&S - dating back to 1991 Barclaycard - dating back to 1989 Both adjudicators are 'singing from the same sheet' and because of the way they calculate the 'associated interest' the FOS are reducing my claims by thousands of pounds. Please see my earliers posts for the explanations from the two adjudicators.

Your suggestion on how best i should tackle the FOS would be appreciated.

What can i present to the FOS to contradict their interpretations of associated interest (compound interest) One thing i do know is that my credit card PPI refunds do not put me back in the same position as if PPI had not been charged (as should be the case quoted by FOS on their website)

And on another PPI credit card claim i have received another explanation from a different FOS Adjudicator as follows : Quote '' I can see you have sent though a calculation for the interest charged due to the PPI. As I have explained the additional interest added to your card because of the PPI will not be charged on a daily rate. Your calculations show the interest rate charged in each month as a result of the PPI. Therefore the interest should be worked out on the amount of the PPI in the balance for each particular month. As an example in March 2000 the balance of your account was £1,188.02. The interest charged on your balance was £17.95. Your PPI charge was £7.91 we would expect the refund od associated interest to be proportional to the amount that was caused by the £7.91 PPI charge '' Unquote

How has Barclaycard calculated the 'associated interest'' of £1038.00 FOS Adjudicator has finally put in writing answes to the above :- Quote '''You told me that Barclaycard haven't refunded you the compound interest you're owed You sent me a compound interest calculator to show hom much you feel Barclaycard's refund should be on each premium. you've highlighted 3 examples of instances where this hasn't been done on Barclaycards schedule. Dec 94, Dec 20, and Mar 04. You have also included the Barclaycard purchase rate for each premium paid. I've looked at the compound interest calculator you sent and i can see that you have taken the amount charged for PPI on a specific month and looked at how many months have passed since then and applied the interest of 21%(average) to work out the compound interest due to you on that PPI charge. I'd like to clarify that when refunding the associated interest due we'd expect a business to only refund the extra interest you've paid because of the PPI. I've taken March 2004 as an example. The known PPI payment you made that month was £3.95. In you email you sent you feel that on this month you should be refunded £44.86 in associated interest.The total interest you were charged on the credit card that month was £9.08. So we would expect Barclaycard to calculate the proportion of that £9.08 you paid because of the PPI. The amount Barclaycard have worked this out to be £3.98 '' Unquote'' So after 2 years of asking i have now received an explanation from the FOS to my question of how do you calculate associated interest in respect of credit card PPI refunds. or have I ?

Sorry but i don't understand the link between bank charges and mortgage arrears ?

Here is a link to a previous case which was lost in court :- http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?440434-Orge-Vs-Barclays-Woolwich-Arrears-Charges

Any thoughts

UPDATE FOS Adjudicator has rejected my claim. Despite asking Barclaycard 5 times and the FOS 8 times i still await an answer to the following questions :- How has Barclaycard calculated the 'associated interest'' of £1038.00 As my PPI premiums attracted 'compound interest' at what rate was the associated interest refund calculated.? Herewith are examples of the Barclaycard redress :- 1.3.94 PPI premium paid £2.00 - Barclaycard associated interest refund = £0.78 - Barclaycard purchase interest rate in March 1994 was 18.10% - I calculate compound interest refund should be £71.91 25.5.99 PPI Premium paid £3.52 - Barclaycard associated interest refund - £5.89 - Barclaycard purchase rate in May 1999 was 18.6% - i calculate compound interest refund should be £48.15 Should i take this to the Ombudsman or have i been 'barking up the wrong tree' in respect of compound interest refunds and putting me back into the same position as if Barclaycard had not charged me PPI ? What exactly is your take on 'Associated interest'? As Barclaycard have stated their charges for PPI attracted compound inetrest at the card purchase rate the PPI refunds should also be compounded ? Your views would be appreciated.

The law on Penalties after Parking Eye v Beavis was clarified yesterday in the Supreme Cout. This gave the Supreme Court the first opportunity to review the law on penalties since the famous case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v New Garage (1915) Following yeterdays hearing which agreed and allowed Parting Eye to charge £85.00 penalty fees it looks like The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations (1999) UTCCR and its successor The Consumer Act 2015 are now 'blown out of the water' and are done away with at a stroke of a pen. I don't know how this will effect your case with Barclays ?