Jump to content

AfterMidnight

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    168
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About AfterMidnight

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. All kind of similar here really ... I"’m sorry it’s been some time since you last heard from us. Your complaint is still waiting to be reviewed by an ombudsman. I appreciate that you’ve already been given this update before, but I wanted to reassure you that we haven’t forgotten about your complaint and that it’s in the right place. Thank you for your patience." I know that it is easy to bash and complain when you have a single issue, and can't understand why you are not being taken seriously by a very busy organisation with a wide-remit. However ... it does make all
  2. Thanks Miaspa 2010 re: "A response to my MP from Caroline Wayman.". A bit more open there than I might expect, and you have a gender identification there perhaps for your Ombudsperson. As you say ... lets see what the new year brings. If cases do start "hitting" an Ombudsman soon (wouldn't want to drop a paper version of my submission on my foot!), I feel it is probably important that we have shared what we can to make cases as strong as possible - as FOS treat everyone without accumulating anything much in way of wisdom gained from looking at similar cases, or even under the broadl
  3. Conventional advice used to be that banking a cheque was not worth it as could be seen as an admission of acceptance. However, since MBNA complaints seem to take at least 2 or 3 years plus, and a cheque is valid for six months perhaps - there can be little arguing (IMHO) that taking it as a partial payment is/was the correct thing to do. You may have recognised that it seemed low at the time and have taken the time to understand why your gut feeling was shared, and discover yourself that the mechanics of affecting factors within calculations had been worked on by other people. It takes a ve
  4. While V20F2 calculations may be a prototype (which is all a bit bizarre) looks like the Chester crew are still up to known practices in it. And FOS are still somewhat reluctant to get their hands dirty by actually looking at much in the way of "argument" from complainants, preferring to simply believe that "MBNA must know what they are doing". Well, it is difficult not to conclude that MBNA do know what they are doing, but not in the "fair" and practical sense that FOS assumes. It is becoming harder to fathom why no-one at FOS has ever (despite many clear and rationale submis
  5. Will be interesting to find out, when (!) we variously reach Ombudsman stage, if these are then handled by a disparate set of issue-inexpert "completely new to the alleged problem" people too. I would suggest that when we are, we could perhaps use post initials as a form-acceptable way of determining. Also not sure where FOS are without outsourcing at present, as something I believe that they have done in the past to a different (but within UK) service provider location, and if this is just (presumably) for lower-level initial complaints... While I am happy to have my, say, o2
  6. Re: FOI - I think FOS have a special dispensation of some form (in their reckoning anyway) from FOI, although not that I have tried, but had previously picked something like that up in my trawls. Re: Naming: I suppose mentioned or quoting Service staff names could mean these are picked up and insulted by individuals less assiduous than AC, hence getting everyone into potential hassle, so better perhaps avoided on advice, but I can understand the frustration very well. Maybe the price of open discussion and required form. JL's paper is public domain if one looks for it well e
  7. Quick check So far it seems ... that cases around the subject of MBNA's PPI redress calculation method in recent years have, after a long wait, eventually been so far handled (my own case included) by Adjudicator-level individuals only. Adjudicators have then typically trotted out the oversimplified Service's view (a la name edited's disturbingly MBNA-trusting earlier belief) that there is probably nothing wrong (essentially as MBNA are reporting that they are doing the right things that would make redress fair). This perspective is not then accepted by the complainant, and the case i
  8. Many people on here are by now something of subject-experts on potential ways that a firm could "creatively" or "imaginatively" stretch plausibility-envelopes, and choose to try to minimise recompense for previous PPI miss-selling without anyone noticing. Name edited also has spent a fair time becoming expert in how one firm made this step, and how they did it, but there are probably bits that she even she may have missed in MBNA's method (such as Miaspa2010 explains above, on misapplication of interest rate "averaging".) MBNA, in turn, know exactly what they have done, and ar
  9. Hi suvin50 Yes - while your Adjudicator has given some thought to some of the points, and while some may not be all that unreasonable to conclude TBH - some, however, of the reply ... is clearly adopted MBNA-thinking, to the point of what I suspect is practically direct-quote. The text follows the style of the "look we are being reasonable and here's what we have done" MBNA method communication ... that assumes lots, glosses over sleights - and reassures of tick-box correctness (while whitewashing). Currently it still appears to me that MBNA ... are simply telling FOS that MB
  10. It would seem the time is right to have another channel to shame FOS/FCA into doing more than previous work of assigning under-qualified/under-caring staff to take a quick look - so if we can add to that momentum individually through BBC and/or Andrew Tyrie channels that would be good. I can picture follow-up stories with a more human "case study" examples. If you do want to fully appreciate the complete ins-and-outs of what MBNA have been doing, it requires a significant investment in time and mental effort to follow it and "get" what is being done. The "beauty" of the value-minimis
  11. Quick survey perhaps? Of where people are re. MBNA redress method complaint at FOS, and who is active at present (please add a similar line if interested) AfterMidnight, complained formally Jan 2013: July 2015 = after Adjudicator level, in a queue for Ombudsman level, having submitted yet further summary/report with points for consideration.
  12. " When MBNA respond I will get a copy of the adjudicators decision plus the revised offer or that MBNA wish an ombudsman review. If MBNA fail to respond it will go to the ombudsman. Not sure how long they have after the deadline to submit a response but a guess a bit more than a week due to bank holidays." " Well Miaspa 2010 ... if MBNA don't reply and goes to ombudsman level review ... can't exactly damage your chances ... have seen a number of Decisions which kind of imply that ... "well, if the firm didn't bother to reply..." Although ... counting any form of spring chicken bef
  13. Here's hoping that FOS staff come back from Easter breaks with a renewed sense of getting on with things with an open mind, a willingness to consider and check basic assumptions, and an ability to get to grips with the issues. Interesting times in that they now have enough well-argued cases to build a picture that they themselves (in addition to '000s of customers) have been taken for a ride now for years. If, that is, there is a willingness to even examine, in any degree of depth, the possibility that this just might be the case that we are proposing ... and that the points are very diffic
×
×
  • Create New...