Mbna Ppi - I Want My Money Back!

[angry cat]

I have been battling with MBNA for several years now over matters various and...it is now time to reclaim the useless PPI premiums that I paid to them.

You will see from the following letter that I did make a claim on the PPI back in 2002, which was frought with problems. However, I continued to pay the insurance premiums all through the claim but factually I would never have been able to make another claim on said insurance, due to the Limitation and Exclusion clauses written into the policy.

The alleged debt that MBNA purport that I owe, are made up entirely of useless PPI premiums and interest that accrued on the premiums.

I sent the following letter on;
June 13, 2008

Mr. William Wareing
MBNA (Europe) Bank Limited
Chester Business Park
Stansfield Road
Chester
CH4 9YR

REQUEST FOR REPAYMENT OF PAYMENT PROTECTION INSURANCE PREMIUMS

Dear Mr. Wareing

Re: MBNA Account Number: XXXXXXXX
I believe that I was mis-sold a payment protection insurance policy and would like to request a full refund of my premiums, plus interest paid to MBNA (Europe) Bank Limited after the acceptance, by London & Edinburgh, of my initial claim on said policy dated 25 July 2002. It is clear that these further payments paid to you in relation to the PPI/PPC after 25 July 2002 were indeed useless, unsuitable and limited by unfair ingeniously written ‘Limitation and Exclusion’ clauses. Factually it would have been impossible for me to make a further claim (unlike car insurance, for example) as I suffer from a long term illness, of which there is not cure. Therefore, I could not return to work and after six months make a further claim. Furthermore, as I was self employed I was also restricted from making a claim for unemployment, yet another unfair clause under the insurance’s exclusions and limitations, which were not explained to me.

I take the view that MBNA has not treated me fairly for the following reasons;

I was not provided with information, in ‘clear intelligible language’ what-so-ever, appertaining to the PPI/PPC. Therefore, I was not made aware of any of your ingeniously written ‘Limitation and Exclusion’ clauses.

I was self employed at the time of taking out the PPI arranged by MBNA (Europe) Bank Limited, you were aware of this but I was not asked about this.

I was not asked about any pre-existing medical conditions I suffered from, or warned that pre-existing conditions could affect said insurance. Insurance that has been deemed over priced by the Competition Commission. Your PPI/PPC insurance offered me no alternative choice of cover, which ultimately failed leaving me unprotected and vulnerable.

I note that one of your subsidiaries Loans.co.uk (LCUK) has been fined by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) for failing to treat customers fairly, as laid down by the FSA Handbook, Principles 3 and 6. I do not believe that the aforementioned PPI was sold in my best interest or in accordance with the General Insurance Standards Council (GISC) code of conduct/practice, or with the Association of British Insurer’s (ABI) code of practice at that time.

Unless you can prove that the PPI was fair and reasonable, that I was treated fairly by MBNA (Europe) Bank Limited in relation to said insurance, I demand a full refund of the premiums and subsequent accrued interest on these insurance premiums, which are clearly shown on the Schedule of Claim (attached).
I therefore request a refund in the total amount of £5,538.06, this will continue to compound daily.

A full breakdown of this amount is attached as a ‘Schedule of Claim’, and shows the total of charges and PPI premiums taken, along with the interest charged against them. In reciprocity to your terms and conditions, I am claiming contractual interest at your unauthorised borrowing rate of 27.9%.
Additionally, I have been served a default notice. This default occurred wholly or mainly partly in respect of Unlawful charges and PPI premiums levied was the result of impecuniosities caused directly by the taking of penalty charges and unsuitable PPI premiums, which were applied to the account. In addition to full payment of the sum mentioned above, I require that the default entry be removed from the Credit Reference Agencies and the records of MBNA and that of MBNA’s chosen agents. It will not be acceptable to merely correct or amend the entry/record. For your information, case law exists supporting and upholding that any data supplied in a default or adverse credit report, reporting erroneous data (be-it financial amounts, or any notice failing to conform to prescribed form or content) has no legal standing and can/will be challenged successfully.

I hope that you will enter into a sincere dialogue with me about this matter, rather than merely respond with standard letters or leaflets.

I will give you 14 days to reply, unconditionally accepting in principle my request, and advising by what date I will receive full payment.

Yours faithfully,


AC

[angry cat]

Today, I received a response:

"Thank you for your letter which we received on 16 June 2008 regarding your MBNA Credit Card account. We are currently investigating your complaint and will provide you with a full response by 14 July.

Yours sincerely
Andrew Donnelly
Workflow Co-ordinator-MBNA

AC

[adamski]

Excellent letter

[alanalana]

Hello angry cat,

I would keep the letter and if they fail to produce the promised full response it may be time for a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) with the fee unless you have all the original documents already.
The good thing about S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) is that for a £10 postal order you can ask for every little bit of data they have against you as a subject of their organisation and legally they have to supply you with copies of that data.

So if the full response is less than you hope for GO FOR IT.

Good luck

aa

[miss muppet]

yeah, and guess what they won't comply - I have a complaint with the Information Commissioner about this right now, well thats not quite right, they did send me some unreadable tosh and the smallest screen print out with completely the wrong account number, can't complain to FOS because my account dates from 1998

[angry cat]

Thanks alanalana & Miss Muppet,

I actually did make a full S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) some time ago to both MBNA & London & Edinburgh their chosen insurer at the time; circa 2000.
MBNA sent me many docs, including statements but failed to provide me with the PPI details that I requested. London & Edinburgh ignored my request!

Just about to have another go a Mr Vernon, MBNA as technically my S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) has not been fully complied with, together with making a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office.

Thankfully though, I have all my original documentation

T be frank, I do not expect to receive a full response by 14 July 2008, feeling that any further communication from MBNA will be that they are still investigating and then they will use the old get out...complain to the FOS.
I will not be taking that route.

angry cat

[alanalana]

Good luck angrycat,

I will follow your thread to see how you progress.

aa

[angry cat]

Hi Guys, well I received a response from MBNA...eventually.

"Dear AC

Thank you for your letter regarding the Payment Protection Cover (PPC) on your MBNA Credit Card Account.

I note from your letter that you feel that the PPC on your account was mis-sold. You state that your employment and pre existing conditions were not discussed, and despite you benefiting from a successful claim with the insurer, London & Edinburgh, you feel that the cover was not suitable. You also state that the PPC premiums that have been paid since your claim ended were unjust, and that these premiums and the associated interest incurred has contributed to the default of your account. Therefore, you have requested a refund of these amounts.

(I WAS FINED 25 TIMES; UNLAWFUL PENALTIES DURING THE PPI CLAIM!)

As you are aware, we have previously received a complaint from you regarding these issues. We have explained that the PPC was requested at the time that you applied for your credit card in 2001, and the terms and conditions were issued with your original card giving you the opportunity to check that the cover was appropriate.

As you are aware. previously received a complaint from you regarding these issues. We have explained that the PPC was requested at the time that you applied for your credit card in 2001, and the terms and conditions were issued with your original card giving you the opportunity to check that the cover was appropriate.

We advised that we are satisfied that the cover was sold correctly, your claim was paid in accordance with the terms and conditions and that the premiums charged since the end of your claim were paid to ensure that you were provided with continuous protection, including life cover. Therefore you were advised that you were responsible for the balance that remained.

I understand that you were dissatisfied with our decision and pursued your complaint with the Financial Ombudsman Service; however, during April 2006, we were informed by the Financial Ombudsman Service that they had contacted you to confirm that your complaint had not been upheld. They stated that they had found that the PPC had not been mis-sol; therefore, no refunds were due.
(tHE FOS DID NOT UPHOLD MY COMPLAINT, BUT THIS WAS AT A TIME WHEN THEY WERE NOT UPHOLDING COMPLAINTS ABOUT PENALTY CHARGES EITHER, THE FOS IS NOT THE LAW)

I am aware that my response may not meet with your expectations, however, I believe this issue has been fully addressed. It therefore appears that we have exhausted our internal complaints procedure. Consequently, this is out final response.

I understand that you may decide to pursue your complaint, however, I must advise you that as your complaint regarding the sale of PPC RELATES TO A PERIOD OUTSIDE OF TIME-LIMITS FOR REFERRAL TO THE FOS, THEY WILL BE UNABLE TO DEAL WITH YOUR COMPLAINT.

We will not enter into any further correspondence regarding this matter.

Sincerely,

Gail Powell.

AC

[alanalana]

Hello angrycat,

I must make sure that I never deal with mbna and pass on the word to as many people I know to do the same.

These people are a law unto themselves.

frightening really.

aa

[angry cat]

[quote] by alanalana:

"These people are a law unto themselves"

How Right You Are! However, MBNA do NOT frighten me.

The above is simply just their play, their game The show is NOT over until the fat lady sings...

AC

[angry cat]

Just to clarify, I did after a lot of trouble make a successful claim on the PPI back in 2002 when I became unwell and I continued paying the PPI premiums all through the claim and up to 2005 when I discovered that the insurance had not cleared the balance; no transactions other than the PPI were added to that balance as MBNA withdrew my card in 2003, MBNA also changed the insurer without informing me and cancelled my insurance without informing me;
In 2002 my balance was £10,000 approx and after the PPI insurance payments came to an end I was left with a balance of £5,000 approx. However, at this time I complained to the FOS (and to date I remain unwell) because even though I had continued to pay my PPI premiums I was precluded from making another claim on the PPI because of the Limitation and exclusion clauses, unlike car insurance for example;
I could not claim again for disability, as the policy stated that you had to return to work before you could claim again, I couldnt return to work as my illness had become long term.
I could not claim under unemployment, as I was self employed, one had to become insolvent/bankrupt, in order to claim and I am not a bankrupt.
I couldn't claim under the life cover, as I am not dead!

So, I found myself in a position with a debt of £5,000 and I had purchased PPI cover but could not make a further claim and was not able to work, but the FOS refused to uphold my complaint...Because they are biased, their opinion was flawed

Anyhow, the way in which MBNA designed their PPI was to leave one in debt.
The MBNA PPI only paid 3% monthly of the outstanding balance but the interest is constantly accruing and of course, interest was being added onto the continuing PPI premiums. I believe that this sort of interest is described as negative amortisation.
Recently, MBNA have been made to increase the monthly PPI benefit to 5%.

I have been left in debt solely because the PPI put me at risk and left me in debt, and now I am being chased by Link Financial for a debt that I do not acknlowledge

Therefore, I decided to write to MBNA re their mis-selling of PPI, but of course my complaint has been rejected.

I feel sorely aggreived.

AC

[angry cat]

I intend sending this letter back, is it good enough, any suggestions?

DISPUTE: Account Number XXXXX

Thank you for your letter dated 18 July 2008, which fails to address all of the points as laid out within my letter to Mr. William Wareing dated 13 June 2008 and ends with the following statement: “We will not enter into any further correspondence regarding this matter”

I would remind you of the ‘New Banking Code’ that MBNA have signed up to: 2. “The Fairness Commitment”. I would also remind you of; “The Association of British Insurers Code of Practice 2000/2001 and “The General Insurance Standards Code 2000/2001” (GISC) which MBNA subscribed to:
1. Our Commitments
2. Marketing
3. Helping you find the insurance to meet your needs.
3.1 Explaining our service
3.2 Matching your requirements
3.3 Information.

I am convinced that I was mis-sold the PPI (PPC) for the following reasons and if you cannot deal with this matter, then I insist that the matter be escalated to a more senior member of MBNA (Europe) Bank Limited

• Responsibilities When Underwriting a Policy of Insurance; MBNA/London & Edinburgh failed to check my personal circumstances at the time of the sale which they are under obligation to do when underwriting a Policy of Insurance. If they had done so, they would have realised that the PPI/PPC policy was not suitable for me. At no time was any attempt made to ascertain if the product provided was fit for purpose, suitable for my needs; the policy’s overall complexities were not orally explained to me. MBNA should have ensured that a customer only buys a policy under which he/she is eligible to claim benefits Emphasis should be placed upon the fact, that at this point in time General Insurance was unregulated.

• Alternative Insurance Cover: MBNA failed to ask me if I had any alternative arrangements for insurance cover, In fact I was asked nothing, MBNA queried nothing even though I made it clear that I was self employed and I was totally unaware that I could have shopped around for other more suitable and cheaper insurance policy. Basically, it was MBNA’s insurance policy or none! Furthermore the underwriter should have ascertained my position to assess whether such a product was suitable, in its entirety. If any assessment had taken place it should have considered: GISC 3.2. We will make sure as far as possible that the products and services we offer you will match your requirements; if we cannot match your requirements we will explain the differences in the product or service we can offer.”

• Failure to Supply Important Information with Regard to Significant Policy Exclusions: I was most definitely not informed, made aware of in clear intelligible language (orally) that, the PPI/CRP policy would contain certain exclusions which could affect my ability to claim on the policy. Additionally, I was not informed that an exclusion that could have invalidated any claim was the fact that, I was self employed at the point of sale; MBNA did not make me aware of the exclusions that relate to self employed applicants that could invalidate a claim. The cleverly written MBNA/London & Edinburgh summary certificate of insurance that was supplied to me is full of; ‘Waffle & Jargon’, difficult to understand by a member of the public with no understanding of contract law and at a time, 2001, when PPI was not understood by vulnerable applicants, who were; [quote] by MBNA ‘strongly recommended to buy’ allegedly providing ‘Peace of Mind’, when in fact and in my case, they were not fully protected by your very expensive insurance.

• Widespread PPI Miss-selling – Employee Bonuses: I understand that some employees are paid higher bonuses if they get prospective creditors to take out PPI with loans and credit cards. How can the best interests of the customer possibly be met, if there is clear conflict of interest between your responsibilities to me, and the drive of your employees to sell Payment Protection Insurance?

• Unfair attachment of PPI with no competition involved: I now believe that PPI policies attached to credit card and loan accounts were both extremely unfair, totally unreasonable and your PPI/PPC offered me very little protection. Furthermore I believe in the light of the preliminary findings by the Competition Commission that the PPI was unfairly attached as there was no opportunity for me to seek competitive insurance: [quote] “Consumers who buy PPI are being overcharged by £1.4bn a year”.
I will now turn back to paragraph 4 of your letter that relates to my complaints to Mr. Mark Huggins, Head of Insurance Services, MBNA, about the PPI/PPC in 2005: “We advised that we are satisfied that the cover was sold correctly, your claim was paid in accordance with the terms and conditions and that the PPC premiums charged since the end of your claim were paid to ensure that you were provided with continuous protection, including life cover.”

My initial claim, registered with London& Edinburgh 05 July 2002 was for Sickness/Disability, and all PPC premiums paid to you after that date, most certainly did not ensure continuous protection, please explain as to how you think that I was fully protected. My PPI/PPC premiums were paid up to June 2005, at which point you changed the insurer without informing me, MBNA cancelled my insurance without either MBNA or London & Edinburgh informing me. Further more, at this point not only was I in dispute with MBNA over the miss-selling of PPI but also, about the levying of unlawful penalty charges.
Once again I will ask you, why do you consider that I was provided with continuous protection? I was prevented from claiming again under disability again, as I could not return to work for the required period before claiming again. I could not claim under unemployment as the unemployment was not due to involuntary insolvency (Bankruptcy) and I could not claim under life cover as I was not a deceased.
I am of the opinion that your ingeniously designed PPI/PPC was simply a purely for profit product and have noted that the monthly benefit; 3% of the balance will not be less than £10 or more than £1,000 was created in order to keep a claimant in debt to MBNA and not for any protection. [quote] by Competition Commission May 2007: “MBNA was recently required by the US Office of Comptroller of Currency to increase the minimum monthly repayment on its credit card products to £25 to avoid negative amortization. (Neg Am) As a result, MBNA’s minimum PPI claim payment is in the process of being increased to 5% or £25, whichever is the higher (it currently stands at 5% or £10 to reflect the existing approach).

I note your comment regarding the Financial Ombudsman’s ruling, however that opinion, two years ago was flawed and prior to various investigations into the ms-selling of PPI. You know full well that the FOS is not a regulator and therefore does not make the law.

• I am therefore again requesting a full refund of all premiums that have been paid, the interest that has been added to these premiums.

I await your due diligence in this matter, in order that any protracted litigation can be avoided.

Yours sincerely,

AC

[alanalana]

Hello angrycat,

excellent letter! I seem to have used similar terms in mine.

It is time to make these PPI sellers sit up and realise they are facing a massive revolt into their mis-selling practices.

Keep up the good work.

I will follow with interest.

aa

[angry cat]

Thanks Alanalana!

I just have to fine tune the letter, just to make sure that my points hit the spot!

I, thank you for your support and will keep you posted.

Love
AC x