Jump to content

angry cat

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    6,234
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

angry cat last won the day on July 29 2010

angry cat had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,498 Excellent

About angry cat

  • Rank
    Platinum Account Holder
  1. This topic was closed on 09 March 2019. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group
  2. This topic was closed on 09 March 2019. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group
  3. This topic was closed on 03/08/19. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group
  4. This topic was closed on 03/07/19. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group
  5. This topic was closed on 03/07/19. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group
  6. This topic was closed on 03/05/19. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support their. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group
  7. Please be aware that many are still waiting to hear back about their cases from the FOS!
  8. ERR. what about the Money Laundering Regulations, required by HMRC Re; the keeping of 'Account Records'? And, are the FOS really going to ignore legislation that was laid down, prior to FCA PS10/12 rules?
  9. Miaspa, FWIW - our summarised thoughts are that: 1. Miaspa has lost out on his claim for 8% Simple Interest on the Recon. Balance after the account was sold, and I agree with the FOS that the 8% interest on this should have gone to the buyer of the account (presumably the OR); 2. The various M&F payments argued about represent a very small portion of the total claim quantum, and IMHO are equivalent to re-arranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic; 3. I don't think the FOS fully understand how and why the Recon. Balance is calculated or how it should be used, and I believe that this is demonstrated by the ombudsman here; 4. The Associated (account) Interest may have been wrongly calculated, but this appears to have been given little attention - although it could well be worth more than the M&F arguments; 5. There appears to have been a large number of fees & charges made ranging from £12 to £25, and these may well have been worth a large amount (with Associated Interest) - but the ombudsman appears to have dismissed these because he has misunderstood how to use the Recon, Balance to determine if these were attributable to the PPI. In short, we believe that Miaspa has concentrated too heavily on items 1 and 2, which IMO are not reclaimable (in the case of item 1) or worth relatively small amounts (in the case of item 2) - when items 3, 4 & 5 should probably have been concentrated on. The FOS managed to avoid dealing with items 3, 4 & 5 either by accident or by design, I reckon. This is probably the final stage in the FOS process, so guess that Miaspa now has to consider taking this to the Small Claims court in order to get it settled - although referring it to the Independent Assessor meanwhile might be worth considering, simply as a part of the 'pre-action protocol.' But I doubt if Miaspa is getting the advice he needs to either understand this, or to action it - as CAG do not seem to have anyone who understands it any better than the FOS do - and even the expert Jonquil Lowe admits that she considers it to be an unfathomable mess. The blind are leading the blind here, I believe - and MBNA are happily looking on as they all plunge over the cliff. Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
  10. I had exactly the same with MBNA. My valid PPI claim was successful, after a big struggle and; my claim was also paid directly into my CC account monthy (often late though, resulting in 22 late and over limit penalty charges: 22!) However, MBNA continued to debit the PPI, piled on the ever accruing interest and then they changed my PPI insurer without telling me. This matter has never been fully resolved, as the calculations are so complicated. My claim still remains, but now it is against Lloyds: St Andrews...
  11. Yes, we are all still waiting for theses FOS ombudsmen/women to come to their decisions. But will these long labored over opinions just simply be based on those of the individual FOS adjudicators; FOS adjudicators who did not/do not comprehend?!
  12. An opinion: If the remainder of GS's un-refunded charges were also overlimit fees, and the 're-constructed' or 'notional' account balance owing (ie., after deducting the refunded PPI) was below the limit on each occasion that triggered an overlimit charge (ie., not at the time the charge was made) - then it seems to me that all of these fees should have been refunded. However, if any of these fees were late payment fees, then they would only be reclaimable if the 're-constructed' or 'notional' account balance owing was zero or in credit. It seems very odd that the payout from a successful claim for illness under the PPI policy has not been deducted from the final offer amount - which is indeed the usual procedure. I think GS's reasoning that it reduces the amount of Associated Interest (and, in theory, 8% simple interest as well) hits the nail on the head. It appears that MBNA have found yet another 'back-door' method of reducing the amount of Associated Interest that they have to refund by doing this, and I would be interested to hear what the FOS's view of this might be. My own take on it is this:- Had the PPI policy payout from the successful illness claim been credited directly to the MBNA account at the time that it was made, then the balance would have been reduced, and the monthly account interest would also have been reduced. If this was not done (and if there was no proviso that it should have been done) - then my view is that GS was free to use this money to offset the other effects of the illness (eg., loss of earnings, treatment of the illness, etc.) It appears to me that GS used the money for the latter purpose, in which case I assume that GS either continued paying the PPI premiums - or that these were not being charged for the period covered by the illness claim. And if that is the case, then MBNA either charged Associated Interest on the premiums that continued to be paid, in which case it should now be refunded - or the premiums were waived for the period of illness under the PPI policy, in which case no premiums would have been charged to the account. Using the PPI policy claim payout in the way that MBNA appear to have done seems to be erroneous (to put it politely). I believe that the essence of it all lies in the PPI policy T&C's regarding how payouts are implemented. If an exemption from premiums for the duration of the illness is a prescribed part of the policy payout, then the actual net payout received by the claimant is theirs in total, and there would then be no 'right of offset' against the credited premiums. If there is a proviso that premiums should continue to be paid for the duration of the illness - then again, if these were paid, there is no offset to be made from the policy payout. However, if GS should have continued paying these premiums, but did not - then perhaps it is reasonable to use a 'theoretical' or 'notional' portion of the policy payout to offset against the unpaid premiums - but if that is the case, then IMO this should be no more than the amount of unpaid premiums, and not the entire payout amount.
×
×
  • Create New...