http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?372400-MBNA-PPI-Award-“Interpretative”-Calculations/page25

The long running thread above is dedicated to the bizarre way in which MBNA calculate their PPI redress awards.

The FOS apparently do not see the figures, so from what I understand, they are just confirming that PPI is due and that MBNA will provide them with a figure.

One guy (next post) decided to investigate a little deeper and discovered that the original award of £3,000 was INCORRECT. This was confirmed by Ian Doherty(head honcho at MBNA) and he was advised there was another £8,000 due to him. He is waiting on his cheque to be processed right now.

This is Hermans' story..

Hi all,

 

I have spent the past two hours reading this thread

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...lations/page25

 

Regarding Angry Cats post about Mbna not being able to count I can confirm this. In late 2009 I had settlement via the FOS of around 3k for PPI.

 

Queried within the 6 month period but got the usual guff about being in line with FOS guidelines so basically accepted that at face value. The fact that I was still paying off the account two years or so later in Jan 2012 was really bugging me,and I sent off an email to Ian Doherty(head honcho at MBNA) asking for a recalculation.

 

The reply stated matter would be investigated and a few days later had a letter from them stating original calculation was 8k short and cheque duly rolled up three weeks later.If it helps anyone I still have both letters so could post up.

 

Along with many others I have been royally shafted by PPI redress over the past few years and wish I had read threads like this whilst my complaints were still at the FOS,unlike now when they are time barred.

I am having to bring the relevant posts over by way of quotes otherwise they will appear above the post starting this thread

Herman

 

 

Welcome to the thread and thank you for the reply. Sight of your letters minus your id's would be most welcome. I believe with your permission if you allowed them to be part of GS reply to FOS they could be the factor requiring the adjudicator to look very closely at her reply, not wanting to be the person to be in the firing line if this starts to ballon into another scandal.

 

 

This would I think help in where AM was going with the idea for GS. To point out to the FOS adjudicator that we the consumer are aware of what MBNA are up to, that we the consumer are talking and spreading the word and that GS could be the start of another bank scandal that will not just engulf the bank but it could be seen to engulf the ombudsman service. Are they really impartial when they are activley shielding a bank not following its own guidance or the regulators rulebook so that that the bank can avoid paying out all what it has taken via a discredited insurance [problem].

 

 

We are telling the regulator, we are telling the ombudsman what to look out for and indeed pointing them, leading them to the point where this bank is not following what they are saying the banks should be doing. What more can be done. Press? Legislators, court action? Why would FOS wish to cover this up? Only one reason in it for them and that would be a strong allegation to make.

 

 

This should not be for the unsophisticated consumer to be having to do this it should be for the well paid regulators/ombudsman staff to not always side with the banks. Here is where Herman's letters would be useful. Evidence of an adjudicator who we as consumers trust siding with the bank who then years later has to admit that they calculated wrongly. The proof in the letter that the FOS didnt do its job.

 

If as the evidence is stacking up that this bank was up to something before and were doing it with FOS backing which then by the evidence now starting to appear has been proved to be wrong it beggars belief that 1) the bank has the cheek to attempt it again and 2) the regulator/ombudsman would trust anything other than a PS10/12 calculation from this particular bank.

 

Again thank you Herman for your post. As you say a pity this thread wasnt around in your day. Knocking ideas back and forth has been most helpful for me.

If as we suspect something really is remiss then the regulator/ombudsman would be hard pressed to avoid anybody asking for this to be looked at again even if they settled yonks ago. As the regulator I think I would be asking MBNA to recalculate every claim back to whenever they can prove they were doing it as per the regualtors rules. Just my view tho.

 

Scandal upon a scandal. Press would love that. And the banks wonder why no one trusts them as far as they can throw them.

 

 

GS your post about a new thread picking up any caggers. Suggest as site team (citizen B) is watching then they would be the best to advise you on that idea. I have a feeling and have seen site team referring to this thread on other MBNA PPI threads.

 

And yes Herman thank you for the kind offer most appreciated.

You are right Citizen B the FOS were involved with the initial award of around 3k.Theyre we're not involved when I asked MBNA to reconsider calculations for a second time in Jan 2012.Mbna just rolled over in response to my email of that time,which was a very nice email asking them to reconsider in light if some info I had on a different claim I made.There is more to this than I have summarised in my initial post on the subject.At no time did they mention I was out of time or quote the timebar.

 

Unfortunately I'm working now and tomorrow so can't do an I depth post with pics till Sunday but I promise I will.

Some more. If you click on the link in the quote, it will take you to the original posting in the Main thread.

Looks like MBNA perhaps used arguably dodgy re-dress methods earlier, then cleaned up act, found it hard to bear, and then, in mid 2012, thought enough people had looked the other way to start up ignoring (or at minimum well-bending, and being highly creative with) enough rules to make the cumulative effect somewhat better for them.

On a break at work

 

As I said earlier I'd had initial adjudication from Mbna via FOS in late 2009 and really wasn't happy with the calcs. Sent letter to Mbna within six month period and their reply was that was calculated correctly. Felt I had no option but to accept that as so.There were others in the same boat on CAG ,Landy for one,who is mentioned on this thread.

 

 

In late 2011 I had settlement via the FOS for another MBNA account,a Virgin card. Id only paid £120 or so in PPI premiums but the contractual interest came to about 4x the premiums. It was obvious they'd calculated the redress differently. Once I had cashed that chq, I sent the query to Mbna asking why they'd calculated the redress differently in 2009 and 2011 on 2 different settlements. Then came the reply with the recalculated redress for the first Mbna card which I posted earlier.

 

 

Hope this all helps

Herman

 

This is helping no end.

 

 

When things like this happen there is nothing like having facts to back you up when trying to work out a process.

 

 

MBNA seem fond of methods that do not treat the customer fairly. Your information plus Angry Cats link to the claims company proves that.

 

 

People like your goodselves must have felt like we were doing early on but followed it through and seem to to some extent been given the redress due.

 

 

I hope in time anyone following this thread will also be successful.

 

 

But what are the regulator's doing????????????? This is their job. This is what they are here for. If MBNA have been caught once surely a second time being creative is a big no no.

 

 

Early on in this thread we were asking people to email the regulator. I still have my reply so they cannot say they were not aware.

This is the one we have all been waiting for

 

This is the email I had from MBNA confirming recalculation. Will also post initial calculation they made in 2009 on Sunday

 

Jan 17

 

Brandrick, Matthew

 

 

 

Good Afternoon Mr Herman

 

 

I can confirm that we have re-calculated the refund for your account ending xxxx as requested. I can confirm that the details of the refund are as follows:

 

Total amount of PPI premiums charged since sale date: £2,537.74

 

 

Total amount of interest associated with the PPI premiums: £7,840.64

 

 

8% amount: £756.84

 

 

Less amount of refund already received: £3,210.57

 

 

Total amount payable to you (having deducted the amount of the previous refund) : £7,924.65

 

 

A cheque has been raised and will be sent to you under separate cover. We have requested the cheque is created and sent as a priority.

 

 

Regards

 

Matthew

 

Matthew Brandrick

 

Executive Complaints Case Manager

 

 

Post 220 by Angry Cat in the original thread also indicates something was amiss and was spotted the same time as Herman decided his redress was incorrect.

As always I am sure CAG would like me to indicate they do NOT recommend this company its more of an indication that MBNA might not have been calculating things by the book back then.

Thank you very much for putting up this new thread Citizen B. Anyone who thinks they may have an issue with their redress from mbna or who is interested please hop over using the link above and let us have your input. We look forward to meeting you.

GS

So very quickly using the new evidence emerging MBNA were up to calculating their own way up to late 2011/early 2012. They were challenged and eventually started to calculate correctly. They did this until about June 2012 when they decided they would have another go and calculating the way that suits them and hence the big thread.

So anyone reading this unless your award was calculated between start and June 2012 there is a very good chance you could be a bit light.

And FOS/FCA if your reading this. This has got through FOS and adjudicators dont seem to have done their job according to your rules.

Perhaps you could decide to closely look at whats going on before another scandal engulfs a bank but could also engulf FOS. Perhaps if you can work out what we have worked out that you could instruct this bank to follow PS10/12 as it should be doing but not only that make it recalculate everyones claims.

Makes you wonder if this was why MBNA was thinking it might leave the UK. It knew it was sitting on a ticking timebomb.

So very quickly using the new evidence emerging MBNA were up to calculating their own way up to late 2011/early 2012. They were challenged and eventually started to calculate correctly. They did this until about June 2012 when they decided they would have another go and calculating the way that suits them and hence the big thread.

 

So anyone reading this unless your award was calculated between start and June 2012 there is a very good chance you could be a bit light.

 

And FOS/FCA if your reading this. This has got through FOS and adjudicators dont seem to have done their job according to your rules.

 

Perhaps you could decide to closely look at whats going on before another scandal engulfs a bank but could also engulf FOS. Perhaps if you can work out what we have worked out that you could instruct this bank to follow PS10/12 as it should be doing but not only that make it recalculate everyones claims.

 

Makes you wonder if this was why MBNA was thinking it might leave the UK. It knew it was sitting on a ticking timebomb.

Perhaps there should have been a Consumer Redress Scheme for PPI agreed at the same time as the judicial review in 2011.It would have saved a lot of aggravation with regard to redress.