Just read your Statute Barred 'pop up' message. Im afraid it is incorrect and will stop people from claiming what is rightfully theirs. i have received a favourable decision today from the Ombudsman on a PPI claim which was launched 11 years after the last premium was paid. Further to this please see below. Limitation Act 1980 c. 58Part II Fraud, concealment and mistake Postponement of limitation period in case of fraud, concealment or mistake. (1) Subject to [F1subsection (3)][F1subsections (3) and (4A)] below, where in the case of any action for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act, either— (a)the action is based upon the fraud of the defendant; or (b)any fact relevant to the plaintiff’s right of action has been deliberately concealed from him by the defendant; or ©the action is for relief from the consequences of a mistake; I dont think Im done yet so if anybody can answer my original question please let me have a response so i can get to tackling the Bank

Why is it Statute barred? And the reason for asking is if there was any 'mistake' made I'd like to go after the bank for restitution.

Hi Im not sure if this is correct place to post this so I'll be brief and wont object if someone moves my post to the correct place! I have done a DSAR and noticed on my Bank Statement in 2007 that a cheque I wrote was presented on Tuesday 02/01/2007 and it bounced. It was further presented on the Friday 05/01/2007 and bounced again.* 02/01/2007** *Tuesday 05/01/2007** *Friday If cheque clearing took 4-5 days at that time, how could it be possible that a cheque could be represented 3 days after bouncing in the first place. I am mystified! Please can anybody shed any light on this. thank you

Just to put this one to bed. I did not get any charges back but did get £2821.65 which was Service Fees + interest. Thanks to everybody who assisted me. MZFRFD

I do have a full set. From 2001 - 2008 for which I have used Fosrunning spreadsheet. Nonetheless for that period alone my compound interest differs from the banks. I have £430 and they have £285. So something is very amiss. The missing data is from 1998 - 2000 for which the bank is making assumptions.

Hi Ims21 did a fantastic job with FosRunningPPI v102.xls based on PS10/12. Does Ims21 or anybody else have any plans to do an update based on PS17/03? I ask as I am in protracted discussions with FOS over a claim and its worth, and they are discounting my calculations using FosRunningPPI. Their statement to me is below: "....It is not our job to audit the Banks calculation, there are periods of missing data and assumptions have been made, we feel this is fair when the business and the consumer don’t have full records. We check to see if the offer is fair and this offer is within our within our tolerances. I have asked you to supply credit card statement show the discrepancies in interest rates used, I've yet to see them. Your calculations differ from RBS' and your calculations are not in line with our guidelines..." Are they lying to me? The CAG warned that the FOS is totally committed to limiting any redress the Bank needs to pay, and I am very much seeing this first hand! I ask the above question as i really need to hit them with some nailed on maths which is beyond my skillset.. Thanks in advance

Thanks for the response dx100uk. It looks as though I'll be charting new territories which is not good! Ill be giving it a go nonetheless. Thanks again for the feedback.

Hi I put a claim to the Ombudsman for the return of fees for my Advantage Gold account after months of wrangling with the bank over its perceived mis-sale which the bank denied. However I received a letter from the Ombudsman who has advised that whilst they haven't looked at my case or paperwork yet the bank wants to make me an offer which constitutes of the return of my fees plus interest, less any benefit I received for the preferential loan and overdraft rates I received. Thats fine as it stands. However I want a lot more than that if redress is supposed to put me back in a position I would have been had I not paid those Service fees. If I do a running total on the account from the account start, the bank hypothetically owed me £85 in Service fees before they applied a lending charge of £25 to the account. If you remove that charge and add subsequent Service Fees, the next charge of £35 was again more than covered by what the bank is now prepared to return to me in Service Fees. When you continue in this vein all of my bank charges are wiped out and i believe should be returned to me with interest. In short we are talking about a reconstruction of the account. I hope this makes sense. Now I believe Lou Lou probably benefited from having a running total of Services charges which facilitated the return of her bank charges which her bank returned. However, this occurred without the intervention of the Ombudsman and my bank having previously kicked up a fuss will not want to pay me 20 x what they are offering. (Which would be the outcome) I believe the Ombudsman would be reluctant to do the same given that they have recommended that I take the offer as they believe it to be fair My questions are below: Has anybody benefited from this approach from an adjudication via the Ombudsman before when they got or sought redress? If this level of redress has been declined by the bank and or the Ombudsman, has it been tested in court and if so what were the outcomes? Other than Lou Lou on another site do we know of any other cases out there where the accounts were reconstructed and lending charges returned? The Ombudsman as not actually come up with an adjudication as yet and has asked that I wait for the bank to get back in contact with me. I am asking the above questions in anticipation of receiving contact from the bank and I just need to determine my next steps. Do we have any Advantage Gold/Ombudsman/redress specialists on this forum who can answer my questions? If so, please do! Thank you

I've just checked the spreadsheet I posted up and realised I'd deleted some code from the first 2 rows. I've corrected this now. Sorry! FosRunningPPI v102 CookieRocks Blank v.01.xls

Your welcome CookieRocks I prefer that people get paid exactly what they are owed when they have all of their statements and interest rates, so I personally would not want to forward an estimated interest rate. With the exact interest rates inserted into the spreadsheet, your totals and claim is indisputable. Numbers are absolute and not subjective, and the FOSRunning spreadsheets' calculations reflect the approach used by the Ombudsman, and produce the numbers that the Ombudsman's calculations would produce. That is beyond doubt. The decision of a mis-sale has already been made in your favour so I would suggest the pressure is off. All you have to do now is stick to your guns and get what is indisputably yours. I tried to PM you but I have only made 23 posts and need to have made 30 to have the privilege of PM'ing people! Don't forget to add any over limit fees that you may have incurred. If you need any help around the spreadsheet or around anything I have written in the word doc, please give me a shout. MZFRFD

Hi Cookierocks Have a look at the attachments and let me know how you get on. FosRunningPPI v102 CookieRocks Blank.xls Cookierocks.doc

Summary Advantage Gold Account held between 1998 – 2008 2 x PPI reclaims successful 1 x NatWest Credit card PPI complaint successful 1 x Packaged Account fees complaint ongoing Bank charges History Circa £7000 taken in Bank charges between 2004-2008 which caused extreme hardship and stress related illness at that time. Whilst there is no hardship now, there was severe hardship at the time so my belief is that any claim now would be based on current circumstances and fail. Any thoughts on this? A complaint made to bank in 2007 to recover charges was put on hold by the bank until the outcome of the Supreme Court test case, which due to the outcome seem to conclude concluded that the original charges reclaim complaint could not succeed. However, I am wondering whether,with an account reconstruction to validate, a claim can be made with the suggestion that if those mis-sold PPI premiums were not taken from the Advantage gold account in the first instance, monies would have been available in the account and the charges would not have been incurred, so therefore need to be returned. A back door approach for sure, hence my Interest in Lord Tiger’s thread. How say thee dx100uk? Is there any viable route to reclaiming these charges? Has it been done before under any similar circumstances as outlined above? thanks By the way. Why do you think Lord Tiger’s approach was whimsical? Where do you feel it fails? thanks

Hi honybee13 Do you know of anybody on CAG who has attempted to get their bank charges back via the method that Lord Tiger suggested? Its seems like a rational approach...

Aaah ok! Thanks for letting me know honybee13.

Hi Lord_tiger_putin I've just come across your post and wondered how this ended. Did you have any joy?

And yes, I do indeed expect them to fob me off! its their default position when their offers are derisory! This one will defo go to the Ombudsman as I'll be demanding more than double their offer. My maths/numbers are are tight though the approach may be suspect. Hopefully I'll get confirmation on CAG Ah, yes. I have one populated signed and ready to go once i get the expected knock back! Complaint was sent in November so I still have time on my hands for a bit of too and froing

Cheers dx100uk. When you get a mo please review the spreadsheets and let me have your views. What is the FOS CQ!?

Ok Using the approach below, that FOS say they mandate, this is how I have handled it. What we know • You took out your credit card in January 2003 and took out the PPI policy at the same time. What we have assumed • Credit card interest at the rate charged on normal purchases applied to the PPI premiums added to your account; • you would have paid the same payments to your account each month as you actually paid; and • Our records of your credit card account only go back to January 2005. For the period from January 2003 to January 2005 we have assumed that your credit card spending and your payments to your credit card would have been the same as their average from January 2005 to date. We have based our reconstruction of your credit card account for that period on those assumptions. FOSRunningPPi v102 spreadsheet No: 1 I took the average spending and payments to the credit card from 21/09/2001 to account closed and populated a FOSRunningPPi v102 spreadsheet with said data to produce the runnings total for the period between June 1998 - August 2001 inclusive. To ascertain the PPI paid on the balances produced I used the 0.76% rate originally charged against the balances which are known, ie from those statements from September 2001 onwards. The spreadsheet for the missing data using the FOS approach above produced a figure of £890.48 including compound interest. FOSRunningPPi v102 spreadsheet No:2 For the principle FOSRunningPPi v102 spreadsheet I opened up the run, using the August 2001 statement, by adding the £890.48 as the opening figure for the PPI Premium column. For the opening ‘Monthly Spend’ and ‘Monthly Payment’ figures, I ignored the Card Balance produced at the end of FOSRunningPPi v102 spreadsheet No: 1 and used nominal figures that created a negative card balance to activate the spreadsheet to allow the £890.48 to be picked up. I then added the known data. From 21/09/2001, all the ‘Card Balances’ reflect the true position in terms of spend and payments as can be seen in the statements we have to hand. With the PPI balance brought forward from FOSRunningPPi v102 spreadsheet No: 1, we now see the impact this has on Card Balance Excluding PPI and the simple interest to be paid. Because of the addition of the ‘missing data’ to the spreadsheet, the following Overlimit payments no longer apply and I have added these values to the relevant ‘Statement Date’ row in the PPI premium column, in addition to the PPI premium paid on that date. Transaction Date Description PAYMENTS 20/05/2005 OVERLIMIT FEE £20.00 21/06/2005 OVERLIMIT FEE £20.00 21/07/2005 OVERLIMIT FEE £20.00 19/08/2005 OVERLIMIT FEE £20.00 21/09/2005 OVERLIMIT FEE £20.00 21/10/2005 OVERLIMIT FEE £20.00 21/11/2005 OVERLIMIT FEE £20.00 21/12/2005 OVERLIMIT FEE £20.00 20/01/2006 OVERLIMIT FEE £20.00 21/02/2006 OVERLIMIT FEE £20.00 19/01/2007 OVERLIMIT FEE £12.00 What I now have is a FOSRunningPPi v102 spreadsheet Master, ready for submission with supporting data. The banks offer, net of tax, was for £3026.09. My request, net of tax, is for £6643.29. If anybody can see any flaws in my approach, then please can you advise before I go in to bat! Thanks FosRunningPPI v102 Master.xls

Lol! The FOSRunningPPi v102 is the real daddy though! Hats off to Ims21 for that one. I've got that one working to accommodate the 4 different interest rates that were used over the period my partner had the credit card. Not for me one average rate. Numbers are absolute so there should be no reason for a guessing game! There are some real excel whizzes out there. Where I can understand the formula I just modify them to suit. If you ask me to write formula and code though, I'm stuffed! Thanks again for your input on this. Much appreciated

Thanks dx100uk That's an interesting approach. I'll have a play around with the spreadsheets and see if i can make this work. cheers fella

Hi dx100uk The FOSRunningPPi v102 is definately the way to go. The FOSCISHEET has no provision for for statutory interest for the periods in credit which makes it difficult to work out what to request from RBS. With compound interest being the key here and the assumed data the basis of that compounding, i need to find a way to integrate it in a way that has been done before and the funds were successfully claimed. More than happy with the FOS approach but cant find anywhere how they addressed this issue! Any further ideas? Anybody?

You had it correct in the first place dx100uk. Its me that looked at the wrong sheet. At first glance it definitely compounds monthly however there still seems to be no provision for for statutory interest for periods in credit, however Im in a mad rush and need to hit the road and go to college! Thanks again for your responses. I'll take a look again later when I finish my class.

Hi dx100 The CISheet looks like it compounds daily rather than monthly as per FOS approach for running credit cards, and does not make a provision for statutory interest for periods in credit. Probably good as a starting point for addressing charges reclaims and taking a firm to court. However it throws up different compound interest figures than the approved FOS approach as found in - FOSRunningPPi v102 spreadsheet. Thanks for the responses dx100uk. I too will revisit this this evening after work and college. A conundrum indeed!

Hi all I have been made an offer by NatWest/RBS due to the mis-selling of PPI on my partners Credit Card. When I say ‘I’ it is because I submitted the claim on her behalf. I have used the FOSRunningPPI v102 Spreadsheet to ascertain what is owed to her. (Fabulous tool). This runs from September 2001 to February 2008 whereupon we have a zero balance. There are statements missing from June 1998 – August 2001, for which I have populated another FOSRunningPPI v102 spreadsheet created using the average spend, and payments as per the FOS approach, and ascertaining the PPI using the 0.76% charge originally used of the balances produced. My conundrum is what figures do I submit to NatWest/RBS to counter their clearly wrong offer? Do we ‘splice’ the spreadsheets in some way or another, or do we keep them separate and add the figures together in some way? Should I start the FOSRunningPPI v102 spreadsheet with the earlier missing data using the averages described above then continue with the real data to produce 1 spreadsheet, or does that distort the figures too much? How do we consider the statutory 8% interest on the assumed data sheet? There is none there at present as there is no positive credit balance. There is however the time lapse between when that money was taken until now to be considered. The earlier statements would definitely have impacted the real figures in some way given that 3 more years of data has been added, however the latter data is real and the earlier data is assumed… The complication for me arises that the Card balance on the assumed data using the FOS agreed averages ends with a balance of £4856.67 owing on the Credit Card. Whereas the real figure at the beginning of the known data shows £712.80. How do I reconcile this without being laughed out of the room by both RBS and FOS if it comes to that? Do I just ‘tailor’ a payment into the splice approach so the total equals the real £712.80? I have seen threads discussing the insertion of maybe 1 or 2 statements but not 3 years’ worth of statements/data at the start of history of the card. How has this been done previously? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks

Hi Lukeyboy1 You discuss how complex working out the compound interest is due to making assumptions on the prevailing rate. I suppose my questions is whether the actual interest rate you paid is on the Credit Card Statements you have in your possession, rather than relying on the prevailing rate of the time? That would take away some of the guesswork? For my calculations I used the FosRunning spreadsheet too. The first one I created was based on information to hand. ie spend, payments, and actual interest rates applied to the account found on the statements themselves. Do you not have those? The second Fos Running spreadsheet was created based on the Ombudsman's approach found on the website What we know • You took out your credit card in January 2003 and took out the PPI policy at the same time. What we have assumed • Credit card interest at the rate charged on normal purchases applied to the PPI premiums added to your account; • you would have paid the same payments to your account each month as you actually paid; and • Our records of your credit card account only go back to January 2005. For the period from January 2003 to January 2005 we have assumed that your credit card spending and your payments to your credit card would have been the same as their average from January 2005 to date. We have based our reconstruction of your credit card account for that period on those assumptions. I then joined these together into one spreadsheet and have asked the bank to confirm their approach to addressing the missing statements. I am still waiting for that. The Bank also know what you were being charged interest wise and for which periods. Otherwise how can they calculate the redress? They need to confirm this and advise you accordingly. If you have the actual interest rates and the periods for which they were applied, let me have them and I'll have a play with your spreadsheet.