Dear Sirs, In May MBNA sent me a letter stating that they had reviewed my claim for the mis selling of PPI on seven accounts, being a mixture of loans and credit cards over a period of twelve years. All the accounts are now settled. The company informed me that I would receive payment within six weeks. On 30th June MBNA sent me another letter stating that due to a rare administrative error, it had sent me the wrong letter, there were no PPIs on the accounts and apologised for the inconvenience. I called them to complain about the service I had received and asked for copies of the agreements. None has arrived. MBNA told me that my complaint about the service would be looked into and on 14th August I received a letter identicle to the one dated 30th June. Calling again, I was told that the complaint had been processed as a loan complaint and not as a service complaint. A service complaint has now been raised and I have been told that as a gesture of goodwill, I am to get £50.00. Does anyone have a similar story and any advice concerning MBNA's actions? Be most grateful.

Thank you Sweet Jane for your reply. I have now written to my MP, Mr Kevin Brennan who has sat on several financial committees and like me has an interest in corporate and financial governance. I am not optimistic at present that anything can be done but one can hope. Just one further illustration of the FOS's attitude to clamiants. I entered into loan agreement with Barclays in 2007. It was secured on my property and in the terms it stated that if the loan was not repaid after 6 months, it would convert to a mortgage. The loan was not registered by the bank and after one year, the bank declared that the facility was no longer available and that it would now be converted to a secured loan, increasing the repayments by 4 fold. I pointed out the terms of the original agreement but Barclays stated that again it was a commercial decision. I appealed to the Ombudsman and in its final decision concluded that Barclays had not produced a sigend agreement for the first loan and still cannot, but nevertheless the terms of the loan were clearly short term (in spite of the clause relating to the conversion to a mortgage) and that Barclays had acted fairly. What is the point of this institution and I believe it would be one idea for the programme Watchdog, which often refers consumers to the FOS, to do a piece on its shortcomings. The loan remains outstanding and has now for 6 years. I am shortly to commence proceedings against Barclays for breach of contract, failure of care and skill in executing a contract under common law and negligence. Sadly had my contract been a year later I would have been covered by the new provisions of the amended Consumer Credit Act which consolidates the fomer common law position but I have not given up hope yet.

Hi Everyone, I have a portable mortgage. I took it out with GMAC which was taken over by Paratus. Paratus told me that due to a commercial reason, I would not now be able to port my mortgage. I wrote explaining the breach of contract issue but to no avail. I then wrote to the FOS and at first an adjudicator stated that porting was not guarenteed in my contract and that it was subject to my current credit rating. I wrote back explaining that I was not compelling my mortgage to be ported but the terms of my agreement are that my mortgage was portable and should at least be considered; that was the term of the contract. I appealed. The argument Paratus gave was that they no longer had a licence to grant mortgages and this was the reason why I could not port mine. I went to the FSA register and under Paratus I found the said limitation on their licence. I also found a permission connected to it stating that the exception to the limitation was mortgages currently with the company which could be ported up to the value of the mortgage. I sent this information to the FOS confident that not only did this mean Paratus could port existing mortgages but as they had not told the truth to the FOS, that would work in my favour. The final decision from Mrs O Leary stated that as Paratus could no longer grant mortgages, it was completely fair not to port mine. I re sent the information from the FSA register pointing out the fact porting was possible and got a letter back from the FOS stating that regardless of that information, it was a comercial decision by Paratus and thus fair. On the issue of breach of contract I was informed that the FOS was not a court. Clearly this institution is ignoring vital evidence when reaching it's decision and when you point out that the decision is based on information that is wrong, it moves the goal posts. I am now writing to my MP as I believe that the FOS is not fit for purpose and in a totalitarian state one might think its objective is to passify consumers in not enforcing their legal rights as the case has already been thrown out by a body set up and paid for by the state. The letter stating that the bank acted fairly because it was a commercial decision shows how far the FOS is prepared to go to defend banks. If a bank decided to kill people because it's commercially expedient, would that be OK with the FOS. Isn't the point of such a body to check the actions of our financial institutions when their only vision is commercial expediency at the expense of everything else. The money spent on the FOS I believe could be better spent on increasing legal aid so that people can get access to people who know the law and can enforce it and not these armchair arbitrators who it is hoped are acting as the Maginot Line for banks.

No, I am not sure whether I had PPI or not as some of the accounts go back several years, they have all been paid and from what I observe from others who have successfully claimed in the past (including myself), some PPI were sold as a separate policy, whereas some were just added to interest payments without anyone knowing. The issue I have with MBNA is that they sent me a letter upholding my claim and then one month later, send another stating that they got it wrong and I should not receive anything. I just think this is a bad way to deal with customers.

Dear Friends, I received a letter from MBNA 31st May 2012 stating that they were upholding my claim for mis sold PPI on seven accounts. I called them yesterday to see how things were proceeding and was told there might be a short delay (but within the six weeks originally offered for a settlement) because of the amount of accounts being processed in my name. I then receive a letter today dated 30th June stating that due to a rare administrative error, I should not have been told my claim would be upheld, I was never sold PPI and that the matter was now closed. Regardless of the content of the claim (which remains an issue) this is a very bad way to handle cases and clearly MBNA's adminitrative team has been negligent. Has anyone else experienced this U turn based on a bank's error? I have spoken with the FOS which has taken details and now am awaiting a response via telephone from MBNA manager to see if they are prepared to take responsibility for their mistake.