ken100464
-
Posts
379 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
SR Just post it up without anything identifying you and anyone on this thread will be able to tell you if they have changed the method or if you are in the long line with us
-
Survin Miaspa 2010 has it. Your adjudicator is not up to it. Keep its simple keep it to the facts. These spreadsheets are PS10/12 minus the charges. if you can knock the enablers (M & F's) on the head the associated interest [problem] falls away. And if you have the statements use them. Perhaps anyone else who is with an adjudicator should be asking why MBNA is the only bank giving transaction logs out instead of statements. Could it be that the mins would be obvious even to a FOS adjudicator. Because they would be on the statements and may not actually correspond to what MBNA are inputting to the spreadsheets. How can FOS allow something that is fact be overturned by fiction.
-
Miaspa Totally agree. No justification at all. What do FOS not get. Its all made up but the sad thing its made up to allow the bank to cut redress.
-
Well GS the fulls are where the damage is done behind the scenes. But if you had a balance how an earth can MBNA declare a Full payment. All adds to MBNA doing as they please. Hope your reading FOS. Cant you see?
-
Survin You want to ask your adjudicator what is that surplus interest? Where is surplus redress in the example in the FCA handbook? We know what it is. Am sure your adjudicator wont. And seeing as these redress offers are supposed to be clear to everyone then why isnt MBNA being particularly clear hear. Oh its because they cannot say this is the amount removed from your notional balance which subsequently leaves a certain amount of associated interest in your balance which then compounds at the card rate.They could never say what it really is because its there to reduce the redress. And who benifits?. It certainly isnt the consumer.
-
WID As AC says we can check that they have followed PS10/12 app2 exp6. That will not be a problem. It is now for FOS and FCA to come up with a reason why one bank should be allowed to cut redress substantially across the board because that bank is using an alternative method to what the regulator wanted them to. We can prove the enablers are wrong. But because they are hung up on the enablers the powers that be cannot get their head around the trickery that is stopping associated interest still within the account from being fairly part of the redress. They are allowing the bank not to put the consumer back into a position they would be if the PPI wasnt there. FOS/FCA you really are being made out to be mugs here. Will only take one journo to get this and you really are going to have a rather lot of explaining to do.
-
Missing the fact that in real life the account would have been having associated interest at the card rate being applied. Therefore associated interest would be higher. This sum remains within the calculation to MBNA's benifit. Doesnt matter if they are messing about with minimums etc (which I am sure we can all prove MBNA have been making these up aswell) this interest remains within the balance and therefore compounds over time. FOS is getting hooked by the enabling mechanism and missing the magicians trick just as the bank wanted them too. Therefore the consumer has not been put back into the position they were before the PPI was added. Shame on you FOS. Your guidance and bleating about being fair are being taken to the cleaners by this bank. Yes the one that is continually being fined for being rather naughty. Come on FOS simple maths. If you really cannot get this then I am afraid you really are not fit for purpose and would suggest you are going to looking rather sheepish that you just dont grasp this bank is fooling you all yet again.
-
Sadly FOS are showing themselves up to be totally incompetent. As everyone is now starting to say this is becoming a very newsworthy story. After spoon feeding both the regulator and the ombudsman they just do not understand what the bank is doing. Basically short changing everyone who had the misfortune to be miss sold something the the regulator has said should be paid back. This bank has form. It was caught doing something similar a couple of years before. There appears to be evidence on here. We are only applying what both the regulator and the ombudsman is publicly stating the bank should be doing. If the bank is not doing what it is being told it should be doing by the regulator then it isnt just us the poor consumer being done over. Its the regulator still not getting that these banks are still at it and without proper sanction nothing will ever change in the public's view of the modern day money lenders. Someone with a beard and a sack cloth many years ago had the right idea. Mr Wheatley wants us to trust the banks again. Not when you have this behaviour still ongoing Mr Wheatley.
-
If we keep at them with the proveable eventually someone somewhere is going to twig this is just fantasy land redress calculations. FCA and FOS doing themselves no favours at all. Scandal on a scandal. They been told whats wrong but are leaving individuals to fight alone.
-
Answer is easy. We have proof of full's that are not full's and minimum's that are not minimum's. We know what the shuffle does and we know what the full and minimum's are hiding. To the uninitiated the calculation looks exactly like it should do. Reasonable. And as you are reading this thread FCA/FOS you are very trusting of a bank that is using figures that we have proof did not happen. Not investigating WHY a bank is using such an unusual method of calculation for normal claims is appalling. Being told it is reducing claims by at least a third across the board and you have not looked at the mechanics nor the maths but just asked the bank to assure you they aren't up to anything. The fact this bank appears to have been caught out before by a CMC doing something similar. You are being hoodwinked big style. Basically we know what the bank is doing. The bank could have written to each and everyone who seemed to be close to an understanding of their methods and brought us off so to speak with enhanced payments thus closing this thread down or they could follow a path where both the regulator and ombudsman could and will get a rather rude awakening to being asleep yet again. This bank has not changed its spots. It isn't cleaning up it's act. And the regulator wonders why the public doesn't trust banks as far as we can throw them.
-
AC & AMN Well said both of you. Both organisations had the chance and the time. Disappointing they did not take it. This has not ended. A scandal upon a scandal while the Regulator and Ombudsman looked on. That is a good press story. Martin Wheatley knew about this as we wrote to him.
-
Keep the faith. Remember the F & M's are just the enablers (the actual things we can all prove didnt happen on the paperwork we all have) to allow the maths to swipe the fair redress. If FOS have taken 6 months to not understand the problem then so let then be seen to be not fit for purpose that they really are. They have not understood the maths behind the veneer of what the bank says is acceptable calculating. Schoolboy maths. The PPI is within the account. By not taking it out as they are supposed to do with this creative accounting they are not placing the consumer back into the position they should be if the PPI had not been sold. The bank is not doing as either the regulator nor the ombudsman says it should. Therefore if neither the regulator nor the ombudsman can see this then lets get someone who can and then let the regulator explain why it has been caught sleeping again (remember what this bank said about overlimits in the press not 4 months ago) and let the ombudsman explain why people who are obviously so pro bank are allowed to operate within what is supposed to be an impartial ombudsman service. Let battle commence.
-
AC Press? No reason to protect either the regulator or FOS now.
-
WID I am not party to FOS or FCA thinking. I tend to agree with AC that this is over 6 months and what we are cribbing about is simple maths which we have pointed them to. Its either wrong and MBNA should be getting a battering for what they have done or we are wrong and FOS should be politely telling us we have got it all wrong and this is why. This limbo doesnt do the regulator or the poodle much good.
-
Hi GS I knew we would be still messaging on here 2 years after the thread started. Is this a reply as in a holding minion reply or is it a high born reply with all the bells and whistles? My personnal experience of FOS is they try and get you to accept the least they possibly can away with. Hence why everyone is seeing them in such low esteem. They dont seem to fully understand the complaints and this one will be no exception. What have they said you can do? I cant remember if you have pushed this to an Ombudsman yet.
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS