Good stuff here recently - thanks to all.

1) Current barrier to justice ... can be summarised as FOS (and FCA) having decided to look at claims purely individually only. Their half-derriered kinda-conclusion to mass complaint - was that MBNA can do what MBNA like (as long as MBNA think that is fair), and ... they were helpfully assisted to this conclusion by MBNA, when they asked if it was all OK.

2) Despite that conclusion going against entire tranches of industry regulator's and industry adjudicator's own publically accessible written and spoken words, it has a fundamental problem: Bank think fair.

3) The story is becoming a very interesting one indeed now. Several industry oversight personnel are on written record as saying that for PPI redress calculations, as long as the firm reports that the firm thinks it is fair and appropriate ... the firm can do whatever entirely takes their fancy. Talk about a licence for spreadsheet-fun from the like of MBNA. Talk about organisations that blissfully-ignorantly entirely miss the point as to why they are paid. You couldn't make it up.

I hear those fan blades starting to whir up...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/james-quinn/8274701/Martin-Wheatley-will-Hong-Kongs-loss-be-Londons-gain.html

Quote from the Telegraph 2011:

"It also appears that his time in the former British colony – he has been there for six years and will step down in the spring – was far from a walk in the park.

Reports at the time he announced his departure from the Hong Kong regulator pointed to the fact that locals were so dissatisfied with his work in relation to loss-making Lehman mini-bonds that they burnt his picture outside the regulator's offices and blasted Chinese funeral music outside.

Maybe Hong Kong's loss won't be London's gain after all?"

http://minibondsoctaveconstellation.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/mr-martin-wheatley.html

Looks like it is all happening, again!

So, clearly not London's gain after all...

Why aren't there any Bankers in Jail?

Good stuff here recently - thanks to all.

 

 

1) Current barrier to justice ... can be summarised as FOS (and FCA) having decided to look at claims purely individually only. Their half-derriered kinda-conclusion to mass complaint - was that MBNA can do what MBNA like (as long as MBNA think that is fair), and ... they were helpfully assisted to this conclusion by MBNA, when they asked if it was all OK.

 

 

2) Despite that conclusion going against entire tranches of industry regulator's and industry adjudicator's own publically accessible written and spoken words, it has a fundamental problem: Bank think fair.

 

 

3) The story is becoming a very interesting one indeed now. Several industry oversight personnel are on written record as saying that for PPI redress calculations, as long as the firm reports that the firm thinks it is fair and appropriate ... the firm can do whatever entirely takes their fancy. Talk about a licence for spreadsheet-fun from the like of MBNA. Talk about organisations that blissfully-ignorantly entirely miss the point as to why they are paid. You couldn't make it up.

 

 

I hear those fan blades starting to whir up...

Very well put, AMN!

That sounds great - we've given them enough time .....

 

When is it going out .

GS

It has been released!

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!

It has been released!

Excellent

A little light relief:

I think it was maybe William Shakespeare who wrote The Merchant of Chester:

Scene 1: A Hypothetical Courtroom

Judge: (accompanied by general cheers from the galleries): "So, generally-detested money-merchant, you have been comprehensively proven to have taken the good people's money through trickery and near-deceit, and should now payest this back - along with all the ill-gotten gains of interest - on this accursed ppi and charges. So says this court!".

Defendant: "Yes, yes, your Honour, yesh, yesh, although (shifts from side to side) ... we still don't believe that really we deserve such ..."

Judge: "Silence!". (much cheering from galleries).

Judge: "By the authority of the rule of the land, I sentence you to payback every penny of these premiums." (crowds break out into beaming smiles and shake each others hands).

Judge: "Furthermore you shall indeed pay back all such interest on this, when indeed miss-sold, and all charges invoked furthermore too". (claps from back of courtroom resound heavily).

Judge: "And to make sure you fully do, without further likely chicanery, given such past experience: we have scribed rules and guidelines for you to do so ... (waves arms with a flourish) ... bring forth PS10/12".

Defendant: (whispers to self ,gloatingly) : "But, I have indeed read this document, and I thinketh that there may be room for sweetest cold revenge: there are perchance things I can get my most devious clercs to twist around and alloweth to take place - should you ever perhaps hold this document in a certain way, in a certain light, in a certain frame of mind, and merely overlook an error or two of our own ... which could anyway be claimed a genuine honest mistake, in the unlikely occasion that anyone ever askedeth".

Defendant: (initially aloud) : "We will do our best to Serve!": (then to self in low voice): "... serve ourselves, that is".

Judge: (addresses entire room) "Well there we have it". (turns gravely to the dock) : OK defendant, in all cases where miss-sale accepted, I sentence you ... to do ... whatever the helleth you like with your ruminations and calculus parchment, report back only what you see fit to the good people; ... but please do try to do what your goodselves think is fair."

Galleries (gasps of shock disbelief) ... a few voices rise ... "But Sire...", "Your Honour", "But Surely"...

Judge: "BUT, and it is indeed a big but ...there will be checks involved!" (crowds sigh in relief).

Judge: "We shall expensively convert the old quay building into a tower of righteousness ... by adding floors and storeys and hundreds upon hundreds of extra workers to check!" (crowd, half-heartedly, hurrahs).

Judge (to astonished gasps from everyone else, winking at defendant) : " My hundreds of workers will not stop until they have, without any doubt whatsoever, discharged their duty as they see it." "That solemn duty has two parts." ... (clears throat) ... "Firstly slowly check if PPI was miss-sold, if in doubt." ... (pauses for effect) ... "And secondly ... if The Tower wants to, re- interpret as they like the rules - to mean that if called upon to check any strangely low subsequent redress, then they can do two things." "Firstly, should they choose to, they might uncritically, and without pause for actual thought - purely only just ask the defendant if the defendant thinks the defendant has been fair, in the defendants' own rather-too-complex-to-check alternative abacus-work." .. (final wink to defendant) ..." Then relentlessly, stoically and stoutly ... accept all the defendant's answers at face-value, if they so desire, without bothering to do anything beyond a mere-surface check, if that."

(to general groans all-round, except from the dock, curtain falls)

Suvin this is the arguement I used with MBNA which they were supposed to reply to by the 14th November.

Unfortunately they haven't replied and my adjucator I guess can't force MBNA's hand on getting a reply anytime soon.

MBNA's minimum payments are a set amount of the previous months balance, usually 10% of APR based on my own statements.

If you look at your restated payments the percentage of the minimum payments based on the oprevious months balance are very inconsistent, there is no set pattern.

On my statements I had a consistent minimum payment percentage when paying by DD, so would expect others to follow that pattern.

The ones hi lighted yellow I guess were at a time you were in some sort of payment plan. I would argue this were payments agreed with MBNA as payments you could resonably afford to make. Even if the balance had been lower the payments would have remained the same. MBNA woud of looked at maximising these payments and if you look at the percentage rate it's a lot lower than the other "minimum" rates.

I would still argue you disagree with the calculation method, but get them thinking about the minimums as being incorrect aswell.

I have attched a schedule of my own payments made by DD, which prove a consistent % rate on minimum payments to confirm the above.

Mbna's next arguement will be but you have missed payments so the minimums will fluctuate but my schedule of DD's also counter that arguement.

This is from my email to my adjudicator, and shows how great MBNA are rolling over the consumer and sticking it to them.

Finally we have the payments all by DD, as can be seen everything looks fine and also proves the relationship of minimum payment compared to prior months balance.

Apart from one issue, the December 2006 DD payment of £94.73 was never made. MBNA tried to take the DD on 25th November and it failed, reason for failure no system. Actually the 25th November was a Saturday and DD’s never take place over a weekend. Which leads me to my point, how can any payment between January 2007 and December 2007 be reclassified as a minimum payment as it was late payment of the previous month that had been missed. I can easily justify this point as each month between January 2007 and December 2008 I was charged £12 for late payment charges. £300 in charges because MBNA tried to take a DD on weekend. (my fault for not looking at statements in detail, but slightly excessive).

MBNA used this continued default as an excuse to to increase my APR from 27.5% to 35%. Look at the balance also I'm paying just over £100 a month but my balance increases by between £10 and £15 a month. The card hasn't been used since 2005.

Effectively if you take the PPI and the charges MBNA were adding an APR of 40% on the card during 2007

The next year 2008 it hits the heady heights of 44%.

All because MBNA tried to take a DD on a Saturday.

Hi Miasma

The payments you have highlighted were an agreed plan with MBNA. I have pointed this out to the adjudicator and await his response.

Englich was never my strong point, but didn't Shakespere write comedies or tragedies.

Not comic tragedies?

Amused me, though!

A little light relief:

 

 

I think it was maybe William Shakespeare who wrote The Merchant of Chester:

 

 

Scene 1: A Hypothetical Courtroom

 

 

Judge: (accompanied by general cheers from the galleries): "So, generally-detested money-merchant, you have been comprehensively proven to have taken the good people's money through trickery and near-deceit, and should now payest this back - along with all the ill-gotten gains of interest - on this accursed ppi and charges. So says this court!".

 

 

Defendant: "Yes, yes, your Honour, yesh, yesh, although (shifts from side to side) ... we still don't believe that really we deserve such ..."

 

 

Judge: "Silence!". (much cheering from galleries).

 

 

Judge: "By the authority of the rule of the land, I sentence you to payback every penny of these premiums." (crowds break out into beaming smiles and shake each others hands).

 

 

Judge: "Furthermore you shall indeed pay back all such interest on this, when indeed miss-sold, and all charges invoked furthermore too". (claps from back of courtroom resound heavily).

 

 

Judge: "And to make sure you fully do, without further likely chicanery, given such past experience: we have scribed rules and guidelines for you to do so ... (waves arms with a flourish) ... bring forth PS10/12".

 

 

Defendant: (whispers to self ,gloatingly) : "But, I have indeed read this document, and I thinketh that there may be room for sweetest cold revenge: there are perchance things I can get my most devious clercs to twist around and alloweth to take place - should you ever perhaps hold this document in a certain way, in a certain light, in a certain frame of mind, and merely overlook an error or two of our own ... which could anyway be claimed a genuine honest mistake, in the unlikely occasion that anyone ever askedeth".

 

 

Defendant: (initially aloud) : "We will do our best to Serve!": (then to self in low voice): "... serve ourselves, that is".

 

 

Judge: (addresses entire room) "Well there we have it". (turns gravely to the dock) : OK defendant, in all cases where miss-sale accepted, I sentence you ... to do ... whatever the helleth you like with your ruminations and calculus parchment, report back only what you see fit to the good people; ... but please do try to do what your goodselves think is fair."

 

 

Galleries (gasps of shock disbelief) ... a few voices rise ... "But Sire...", "Your Honour", "But Surely"...

 

 

Judge: "BUT, and it is indeed a big but ...there will be checks involved!" (crowds sigh in relief).

 

 

Judge: "We shall expensively convert the old quay building into a tower of righteousness ... by adding floors and storeys and hundreds upon hundreds of extra workers to check!" (crowd, half-heartedly, hurrahs).

 

 

Judge (to astonished gasps from everyone else, winking at defendant) : " My hundreds of workers will not stop until they have, without any doubt whatsoever, discharged their duty as they see it." "That solemn duty has two parts." ... (clears throat) ... "Firstly slowly check if PPI was miss-sold, if in doubt." ... (pauses for effect) ... "And secondly ... if The Tower wants to, re- interpret as they like the rules - to mean that if called upon to check any strangely low subsequent redress, then they can do two things." "Firstly, should they choose to, they might uncritically, and without pause for actual thought - purely only just ask the defendant if the defendant thinks the defendant has been fair, in the defendants' own rather-too-complex-to-check alternative abacus-work." .. (final wink to defendant) ..." Then relentlessly, stoically and stoutly ... accept all the defendant's answers at face-value, if they so desire, without bothering to do anything beyond a mere-surface check, if that."

 

 

(to general groans all-round, except from the dock, curtain falls)

A little light relief:

 

 

I think it was maybe William Shakespeare who wrote The Merchant of Chester:

 

 

Scene 1: A Hypothetical Courtroom

 

 

Judge: (accompanied by general cheers from the galleries): "So, generally-detested money-merchant, you have been comprehensively proven to have taken the good people's money through trickery and near-deceit, and should now payest this back - along with all the ill-gotten gains of interest - on this accursed ppi and charges. So says this court!".

 

 

Defendant: "Yes, yes, your Honour, yesh, yesh, although (shifts from side to side) ... we still don't believe that really we deserve such ..."

 

 

Judge: "Silence!". (much cheering from galleries).

 

 

Judge: "By the authority of the rule of the land, I sentence you to payback every penny of these premiums." (crowds break out into beaming smiles and shake each others hands).

 

 

Judge: "Furthermore you shall indeed pay back all such interest on this, when indeed miss-sold, and all charges invoked furthermore too". (claps from back of courtroom resound heavily).

 

 

Judge: "And to make sure you fully do, without further likely chicanery, given such past experience: we have scribed rules and guidelines for you to do so ... (waves arms with a flourish) ... bring forth PS10/12".

 

 

Defendant: (whispers to self ,gloatingly) : "But, I have indeed read this document, and I thinketh that there may be room for sweetest cold revenge: there are perchance things I can get my most devious clercs to twist around and alloweth to take place - should you ever perhaps hold this document in a certain way, in a certain light, in a certain frame of mind, and merely overlook an error or two of our own ... which could anyway be claimed a genuine honest mistake, in the unlikely occasion that anyone ever askedeth".

 

 

Defendant: (initially aloud) : "We will do our best to Serve!": (then to self in low voice): "... serve ourselves, that is".

 

 

Judge: (addresses entire room) "Well there we have it". (turns gravely to the dock) : OK defendant, in all cases where miss-sale accepted, I sentence you ... to do ... whatever the helleth you like with your ruminations and calculus parchment, report back only what you see fit to the good people; ... but please do try to do what your goodselves think is fair."

 

 

Galleries (gasps of shock disbelief) ... a few voices rise ... "But Sire...", "Your Honour", "But Surely"...

 

 

Judge: "BUT, and it is indeed a big but ...there will be checks involved!" (crowds sigh in relief).

 

 

Judge: "We shall expensively convert the old quay building into a tower of righteousness ... by adding floors and storeys and hundreds upon hundreds of extra workers to check!" (crowd, half-heartedly, hurrahs).

 

 

Judge (to astonished gasps from everyone else, winking at defendant) : " My hundreds of workers will not stop until they have, without any doubt whatsoever, discharged their duty as they see it." "That solemn duty has two parts." ... (clears throat) ... "Firstly slowly check if PPI was miss-sold, if in doubt." ... (pauses for effect) ... "And secondly ... if The Tower wants to, re- interpret as they like the rules - to mean that if called upon to check any strangely low subsequent redress, then they can do two things." "Firstly, should they choose to, they might uncritically, and without pause for actual thought - purely only just ask the defendant if the defendant thinks the defendant has been fair, in the defendants' own rather-too-complex-to-check alternative abacus-work." .. (final wink to defendant) ..." Then relentlessly, stoically and stoutly ... accept all the defendant's answers at face-value, if they so desire, without bothering to do anything beyond a mere-surface check, if that."

 

 

(to general groans all-round, except from the dock, curtain falls)

What a pity that it isn't real.

One can just visualise the miserable wretches being dragged out of Chester Towers and all the while being pelted with rotten fruit etc...

shacked to the stocks during their interrogations by the Judge!

We know full well that Banks do not tell the truth e.g. RBS this very week...

They still haven't learnt:

http://www.lbc.co.uk/bank-culture-reforms-will-take-a-generation-101001

MBNA are still dragging there heels two weeks since they were supposed to respond about restated minimums and fulls, and nothing. Maybe they need a bit more time to hoodwink the FOS.

Never mind my own adjudicator and Ms McAusland have now met Prof Bob, and also been shown fictitional full payments. I guess the answer will be it's ok cos MBNA said it is.

Duplicate posting deleted.

Sorry

http://web.orange.co.uk/article/news/fca_boss_gives_up_bonus_over_pension_gaffe

The damning report has been released and can be read in the Financial Times...!

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a55b80e8-7eea-11e4-a828-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3LUQK2rOV

http://www.fca.org.uk/your-fca/documents/reports/davis-inquiry-report

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30397041

I seem to remember similar happened in Hong Kong, Mr. Wheatley!!!

http://stockmarketmanipulaters.blogspot.co.uk/2009/08/shame-on-sfc-martin-wheatley-go-home.html

When on earth are we going to have a Regulator who Regulates?

http://www.fca.org.uk/your-fca/documents/reports/davis-inquiry-report

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30397041

 

I seem to remember similar happened in Hong Kong, Mr. Wheatley!!!

 

http://stockmarketmanipulaters.blogspot.co.uk/2009/08/shame-on-sfc-martin-wheatley-go-home.html

 

When on earth are we going to have a Regulator who Regulates?

Millions written off the quoted price off pension providers due to the incompetence of Mr Wheatley and his minions, the only penalty is they lose their bonus, and one goes on gardening leave for six months.

Its now a month since MBNA's deadline to respond to my adjudicator about restated minimums and fictional fulls. Guess what not a dickey bird from MBNA, its about time the FCA gave the FOS some teeth.

Did we get any reaction from our letter to the press. I know that they will need to make their own investigations but it would be nice to know if contact had been made.

Thank you

GS

Latest response from my adjudicator:

Thank you for your email.

I know when we originally corresponded you were unhappy with the discrepancy between the two offers made in April 2012 and July 2013. I hope I have gone some way in explaining why the figures differed and the fault in MBNA’s original calculator. In light of that information, apart from the fees and charges issue, could you briefly explain why you think the offer is too low and not within our guidelines.

He still believes that there was a fault in the original calculations. I know that they are just clerical workers but they should not be allowed to offer opinions without proof to back them up.

Suvin (I got it right this time)

The fault does not lie with the first calculation its inline with FOS guidelines (apart from the monthly interest rate for associated interest and no refund of charges). The fault is in the second calculation.

The restatement of payments to minimums when they are obviously not is incorrect.

The non application of statutory interest because of default status is incorrect.

The monthly rate of associated interest is incorrect.

No refund of charges is incorrect

Perhaps you could ask for someone with a financial background maybe ACCA or ICAEW qualified to review the calculations rather than a glorified call centre operative.

Its about time the FOS woke up!!

Latest response from my adjudicator:

 

 

Thank you for your email.

 

I know when we originally corresponded you were unhappy with the discrepancy between the two offers made in April 2012 and July 2013. I hope I have gone some way in explaining why the figures differed and the fault in MBNA’s original calculator. In light of that information, apart from the fees and charges issue, could you briefly explain why you think the offer is too low and not within our guidelines.

 

 

He still believes that there was a fault in the original calculations. I know that they are just clerical workers but they should not be allowed to offer opinions without proof to back them up.

Lets look at FOS current vacancies and the job description for an adjudicator.

So really no qualifications, no financial background, no wonder they don't get it.

Good post Miaspa ( got that right). I am away now till the new year but will be pressing this in January. Thanks for all your input.

Did we get any reaction from our letter to the press. I know that they will need to make their own investigations but it would be nice to know if contact had been made.

 

Thank you

GS

Rest assured that we are still on the case;

these things do take time!

Our original Press release was sent out via Marc Gander (BankFodder).

Other journalists are in the process of being contacted by our Group...

Patience is a Virtue!