Your not alone Miaspa, Read my final decision and feel free to make any comments. I have had the same ombudsman make the final decision as you. I am sure you will notice the exact same wording in the standard letters he uses. The final decision has been made and MBNA are; 1. Still paying 8% on a debt balance 2.Have not answered my questions with support from the ombudsman in that it is not their job role to punish MBNA and only interested in what they have done to put things right. I have got half of what i wanted as the ombudsman advised that they were paying back my PPI at 28% though i can,t see how that is in the calculation sheet sent to me and the calculation sheet i sent them i was told was running at 300% (i wish it was !) there is no way the sheet was. My main gripe is the no acknowledgement of compound interest.In the decision letter the ombudsman advises that compound interest would not take into account payments on the account and how they reduced the outstanding balance. (page 2 paragraph 8 of letter) Correct if i am wrong though i thought compound interest on the premiums applied in the same way as any card purchases and unless you made a full payment (which i never did and still to this day owe money on the account) would incur interest on first month after being charged and would continue to compound having a cumulative effect until the account is cleared ? This would apply irrespective of your payments and if they reduced the balance.It would only be the amount would reduce I.E the 79p per £100 of the balance collected as PPI ? I have until this Thursday to accept or reject and would welcome any comments . I have battled for nearly 5 years and have gone from owing nothing to a recalculation of £70 and then another recalculation of £400. I have questioned this to FOS saying does,t this seem strange to you ? how each recalculation changes and amount increases? though have not seemed to get anywhere. Apologizes for the slanted scan. I have also posted the last and final calculation sheet MBNA sent the FOS FOS final decision doc.PDF

I have been busy last few days now the weekend is here I can give this more time miaspa the months you raised have serious flaws the payment of July 09 of 153.20 does not have a PPC payment on my statement though it shows an estimated interest amount on my June statement of 93.43 most important is the statement balance to this month of 5608.55 is not on the statements . I have the 153.20 to balance amount 5761.75 and then Sept 09 of 128.62 to 5705.23 a.Also I realize that this method is set for mins or full payments only as they put an assumed surplus redress when there is no reconstructed surplus payment to it which is a nonsense proven by surplus redress amounts staying the same on between min payments made. Once the adjudicator gets my statements for a full investigation I will go over these points in the meantime I appreciate your input and I hope others are finding things to use in their own case. QUOTE=Miaspa 2010;4680702]This is how MBNA are working out the monthly associated interest see my early post 634 , the rate on the PPC should be the rate prescrided for purchases at the bottom of the statement. There minor rounding differences purely as we are only rounding to whole pence. I haven't finished the sheet as supposed to be doing tax returns. 31.07.09 has no interest charged on the original statement so there is no monthly associated interest, the formula doesn't work not sure if this is an omission from MBNA but check your statement. Oh if you check your minimums from 30.09.09 they should be what you have paid plus the missing payment from 31.08.09. Why does the calculation stop 31.01.13 it should run until todays date. Can't copy and paste will attach PDF.

Sorry i have rushed this post a bit as i am busy. I meant to say as you know that MBNA Ltd are still using the alternative method despite the FOS ordering a recalculation and again there are still flaws which glady my adjudicator has picked up on some and asked MBNA for answers.Also the analysis given by ken was not put to MBNA by my previous adjudicator because it was at the time when Vicki made her investigation into the MBNA method in response to the mass complaint. I will put ken review to my new adjudicator and ask MBNA to reply to it.When FOS recieve the remaing statements i will show what Vicki said in her letter of assumptions being fair if a pattern of payments are as mine clearly show a consistent overpayments of the minimum amounts for nearly 3 years showing this alternative method is not approiate in my redress and does not return me to a position if mis-selling had not happened.All comments as usual welcome.

I have recieved the recalculation MBNA are again at it and complying with PS10/12 app2 ex 6. They have recalcuated to a poultry extra of some £70 They have only reconstructed the minimum payments and left the overpayments blank and not being reconstructed. Also they have changed the overpayments they classed as minimums and made them overpayments with no reconstruction of the account balance. There also some overpayments still classed as minimums on the recalculation Another interesting point that my adjudicator has picked up on is the example that ken gave me (page 18 of this thread) now reads as £0.00 with no contribution to PPI when the May 2009 payment showed a minimum of £75.00 (it was not minimum payment) and a surplus of £1.72.The surplus redress stays the same until a minimum payment is made and then it is reconstructed which is impossible when you see the account balance decreasing with monthly payments.statement.There is also a minimum payment made which has not been reconstructed and not classed as a minimum amount when it should have been.Please read and advise my adjudicator wants an answer on this and also what the card rate used on my recalculation and if it changed. I also will be sending in all my statements as i only sent in the ones they clamimed as minimums which were not to prove they were manipulating figures.Please compare this with the orginal on page 18 of this thread and advise.As usual all comments welcome.

AMN & everyone I have been looking at this calculation method supplied by rib. I must say I don't understand how the method works but the columns and titles do appear to fall in line with PS/10/12 app 2 ex 6. The point i want to make is that if this method is acceptable in being compliant with FCA/FOS guidelines then the question can be put to MBNA as to why they stopped using this method and started using the methods under the V20 builds which people on this thread have and have found to be purposely inaccurate in redress calculation.No doubt if this method was used on calculations as opposed to the V20 builds the redress amounts would differ. Is it possible the geek could advise how this method works and is complaint with guidelines? If this method is and as our are cases are being looked at individually.It may be worth each person putting to the FOS a method of proper redress calculations used by MBNA previously asking for redress to be run by this method and not the V20 builds to see the likely different redress amounts to rubbish the V20 builds Leaving MBNA to explain and justify adopting the V20 builds .I wonder what they would come up with ? Your comments please QUOTE=AfterMidnight;4673880]If I recall correctly from earlier posts, this was a calculation undertaken in late 2011, S'Rib. MBNA have, according to anecdotal evidence, been doing "funny" things twice - once were originally caught and prevented a few years back, then towed line for a while, then had a go at a Mark II more devious bespoke version a couple of years back, which is the latter one that most posts here refer to. Can't speak for original "variation" but your calculation does not feature any of the later shenanigans, and at first appearance looks like it would have little to obviously complain around in terms of obvious known MBNA "methods". I would guess your calculation was in the intervening period where they were calculating far more in line with known normal expectations...

Congrats angry cat you now stand in much the same position as I did early last year .As ken rightly said if the statements show a different minimum payment amount to the ones on the redress calculation you have blown the type M out of the water and provided indisputable evidence.It can only be a recalculation recommend in response to your evidence. My adjudicator (not anymore at present) sent me an email to advise that my statements were in my file for the ombudsman when my case finally got there.I guess they were embarrassed having vigorously stood by MBNA redress calculations telling me it was correct that looking at indisputable evidence made them try to get out of having to deal with this evidence.I remember getting a call from their manager having invoked the letter copied to me by my MP that the adjudicator would deal with my case right up to the time of ombudsman and in response to that their manager advised adjudicator would have to deal and if required change their decision. Which brings me to where I am now still waiting on the recalculate offer I just received another email from my new adjudicator to advise they are still in talks with MBNA and to apologies for the delay. Lets hope the new year brings at last the right things to all on this thread ! QUOTE=angry cat;4669667]Just for the record, I have been going through my original MBNA statements and can confirm that only 2 out of the 12 MBNA alleged Minimum (M) payments are correct. Meaning: 10 out of the 12 were NOT minimum payments...! HAPPY NEW YEAR to ALL MBNA Victims X

I always knew this would happen and to be quite frank needs to. As you are already aware I have fought a battle along with everybody else on this thread and I am sure many others who have secretly been following events on this thread and achieved the goal that everyone wants of a recalculation. Though for me the battle still continues as I try to pre-empt what MBNA will come up with next. I hope my battle will end with my recalculation and hopefully bring good news to this thread and my MP. Though the battle I have been fighting leaves me totally at a loss as to why I have had to do this in the first place. I am not alone of course and the advise and support I have received on this thread is unmeasureable. Though make no mistake I have done the job of the FOS as so many of us on this thread have done. I have spent a year proving to an adjudicator that the alternative redress method is not in FOS guidelines and cheated me out of thousands a adjudicator who from day one after having asked if MBNA had followed FOS guidelines was fully convinced what I had been given is correct when MBNA blatantly lied and told them guidelines had been followed. For me the biggest mistake being made by the FOS Also taking as gospel answers from a lender who you have allowed to use an alternative method of redress calculation, and not carrying out checks on a percentage of their cases calculated to ensure fairness given that you openly admit that you do not carry out redress calculations yourself allowing the lender to correct themselves and redeem themselves to that individual ? a recipe for disaster Let the battle commence !! QUOTE=angry cat;4651880]It has been released!

Ken & everyone I have had a call from a adjudicator at the FOS.I was told that she had been given my case by Vicki and that the previous adjudicator I ha been dealing with for nearing 2 years will no longer be involved with my case.I was also told that they have already instructed MBNA to recalculate my redress and that they would like to resolve my case without going to ombudsman.I was asked if there was anything I wanted to add in my case and the adjudicator commented on my knowledge of PPI redress (all thanks to this thread ) I asked the adjudicator to confirm the recalculation will be PS10/12 app 2 ex 6 having proven the alternative method used by MBNA is designed to cut compensation by showing many of my payments were not minimum amounts which MBNA claimed I also advised they had avoided paying compound interest.I was basically giving an overview of points previously made as a reminder of MBNA clever money saving tactics using the V20 build cal sheets. The response from the adjudicator was that she could not answer any of my querys until the recalculation is recieved. I have thoughts of MBNA still trying to be clever and not give proper redress.I will of course keep you posted.I have all my statements of 4 years paying PPI so I can check the figures.Though I have to be honest and say I do not know how.For example how do you work out the contractual rate of interest charged in a month ? Also prior to a April 2011 a minimum payment paid fees and interest and took next to nothing off the debt balance so does the PPI payment now go towards paying the debt balance ? this means MBNA should be offering additional funds.Also how overlimit fees compound greatly in interest. As mentioned i will keep you posted I just hope you can help me on checking the redress is correct. PS I have done the FOS calculation sheet based on PS10/12 I gave FOS this though the interest rate used is I know different to the one I sent them.I hope the redress comes out to this amount time tell............ QUOTE=ken100464;4644079]Missing the fact that in real life the account would have been having associated interest at the card rate being applied. Therefore associated interest would be higher. This sum remains within the calculation to MBNA's benifit. Doesnt matter if they are messing about with minimums etc (which I am sure we can all prove MBNA have been making these up aswell) this interest remains within the balance and therefore compounds over time. FOS is getting hooked by the enabling mechanism and missing the magicians trick just as the bank wanted them too. Therefore the consumer has not been put back into the position they were before the PPI was added. Shame on you FOS. Your guidance and bleating about being fair are being taken to the cleaners by this bank. Yes the one that is continually being fined for being rather naughty. Come on FOS simple maths. If you really cannot get this then I am afraid you really are not fit for purpose and would suggest you are going to looking rather sheepish that you just dont grasp this bank is fooling you all yet again.

Sadly I am of the opinion that a group or even individual response to the letter sent by Vicki will not get what we want.I agree with AMN that the FOS is set up to look at individual complaints and consider each case to be different and merit based.This no doubt suits MBNA . I for one would want to know why Vicki can not give an answer for the examples of incorrect redress calculations given as part of the group of complaints made.I would not be surprised if the answer was along the lines of each case is judged on its merits so one incorrect calculated case does not reflect on others on the scale we are suggesting. I am really of the opinion that it is time to go to the press and as suggested by ken I believe a good place to start is with the BBC. Micheal Johnston & Cliff D'Arcy who wrote the BBC article on O/Limit fees being missed off redress.I am sure they would reveal in this injustice to vulnerable people have suffered and the exploitation of them by MBNA and other banks in giving correct PPI redress.We need to bring there attention to this thread and from there I believe things we want to see happen will Comments please and if anyone agrees how best do we go about this?

Everyone, I managed to win a recalculation recommendation by proving that the type 'M' on my redress calculation sheet from MBNA was wrong having done a SAR with MBNA and providing the statements to the adjudicator. it was only then that the adjudicator was willing to accept that MBNA redress calculations were incorrect. Remember what Ken said on this on how if you pove the Type F or M is wrong then everything else such as surplus balance / surplus rederss / card redress 8% payable on a debt balance and the reconstructed balances can no longer be accepted and becomes null and void as the whole method is rubbished. An SAR from MBNA is a must for everyone if you have any hope of winning anything against MBNA. I was offered a overlimit redress of some £130 after i was told by MBNA that they owed nothing (never understood why they changed their mind or what made them) I questioned how they had worked it out to this amount to the adjudicator as we know there is interest applied and it compounds alarmingly. Again never had a answer. I am in possesion of all my statements for the 4 years of paying PPI and have the proof that the PPI was not the last charge made also it shows that it was charged on my balance which was over the limit amount in addition to the £12 when i struggled to pay the minimum amount on the card. Simple maths of taking the balance and x 79p per £100 [the rate PPI was charged to me] gives the balance total which was over limit and the PPI charge works out to that O/L total. Meaning they were charging PPI to the balance amount irrespective of whether or not the balance amount was within or over limit. In those months when i incurred O/L fees i know if PPI had not applied i would have been within my limit to not incurr charges in the first place. Any comments welcome

Hi everyone. I also share the disappointment in Vicki,s letter though I do agree with AMN that FOS are an individual complaint operation so maybe this is not so surprising.Though the matter of the samples given to the FOS to confirm purposely incorrect calculations to cut compensation payouts is a very very serious concern.I noticed in the letter that Vicki points out that she is unable to comment on calculations.This is unacceptable as she is the delegated officer for the FOS to answer the questions posed by the forum. Also she accepted that despite MBNA departing from PS10/12 and their own FOS guidelines on redress doesn't mean the methods of redress adopted by MBNA are not necessarily unfair, having acknowledged that PPI credit card redress is extremely complicated as stated in her letter. Correct me if I am wrong in my thinking on this PS10/12 guidelines on credit card redress derived from this very fact of complications on calculations and provides a method to use which will be the fairest and result in as close as possible returning the consumer to a position if PPI did not apply ? I would have expected Vicki and the FOS to have question why MBNA are using alternative redress methods on such a massive scale ? I accepted PS10/12 guidelines that there method on app 2 ex 6 is not exhaustive.Though I can not accept a lender departing from this method and applying their own method on every redress calculation. This contradicts the stance FOS have taken on this, for if they believe that each case should be taken on their own merits ? How can you accept MBNA redress method of grouping claims made at a certain point in time and making them subject to a build such as V20_B031 or in mine and many other victims build V20_B037 There was no individual merit based on the many tens of claims and they were all put through this build to cleverly cut the redress and cut their compensation bill. It is very serious matter to me that MBNA must be open and explain to the FOS and PPI redress claimants why they have departed from FCA/FOS guidelines on such an enormously big scale equally important the answer must be satisfactory for both FCA/FOS and the consumer. Sadly it appears that a proper investigation has not been carried out otherwise or concerns with MBNA would have been addressed.Keep your heads up people this is not over. QUOTE=ken100464;4624471]AC & AMN Well said both of you. Both organisations had the chance and the time. Disappointing they did not take it. This has not ended. A scandal upon a scandal while the Regulator and Ombudsman looked on. That is a good press story. Martin Wheatley knew about this as we wrote to him.

G/S AMN / Ken & everyone. G/S. IF your case it at the stage were the adjudicator has made an investigation and concluded there is nothing wrong with the calculations. Please look at pages 18/19/20 of this thread and remember without labouring a point that my case was turned down by the adjudicator REPEATEDLY ! they were convinced that MBNA redress calculations were correct even though they could not answer the questions i made having learnt so much on this thread on there redress methods such as surplus balances & 8% being paid on a debt balance. The adjudicator only decided to reverse their recommendation when i sent them copies of my statements having done a SAR which proved that type 'M' on their calculation sheet was a lie and that MBNA claimed i made consistent minimum payments to substantially cut my redress. I hope my case has been an infulence for others and also not to give up. There are so many pitfalls on MBNA redress methods. Keep the faith i to at one time had given up and thought MBNA had got away with it with the backing of the FOS. So please keep the faith you are in the right place with great help. Ken/ AMN / without reading too much into the recent publication on cases to be re-assesed by the FCA can we conclude that the FOS having had to get the go-ahead from the FCA will finally annouce what we have been waiting for ? Time certainly is up on this matter. I was also wondering if it would be the end of lenders in question being allowed to use alternative methods of calculations which has been the main root of this evil ? or i am doing wishfull thinking ? as usual comments welcome. Have received a reply from FOS about our complaint on first read it looks like they are agreeing with mbna . Sorry on phone so I can't post a copy without personal details GS

A couple of things i forgot to mention. I saw Martin Lewis on breakfast TV advising that Lloyds and some other banks had put aside extra millions of pounds for PPI redress. I did wonder if this was in response to getting ready for the likely explosion of credit card PPI shortchange.For the story going round is that most PPI cases had ben settled and that they were coming to the end of the mis-selling sacndal. Also i really hope Cliff D'Arcy is reading our thread as he has revealed the scandal of PPI credit card charges being missed of redress claims by the banks. I doubt if he would be at all surprised of what MBNA have been doing that we have revealed on this thread. Any comments on what i have said good or bad as usual are always welcome.

Ken /AMN. everyone Ditto. I have had the same letter. It is now over 6 months since the first letter from Vicki saying they were looking closely at MBNA calculation methods so I do believe a dismissal would have been made know to us by now. keep the faith everyone . I agree with AMN quote that this will all be over this year QUOTE=ken100464;4584598]Just got another two letters from FOS. They are still looking into MBNA's method of calculations. Have to hope the delay is because we are right and the regulator/ombudsman has a sniff of wrongdoing. If they had found nothing one has to think we would have been dismissed by now.