angry cat
-
Posts
6,234 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by angry cat
-
Of course, one must really query as to why MBNA have not retained all proper and correct information regarding your account? They are obligated to do so by HMRC under the Money Laundering Regs...! And it will not be the first time that HMRC have had cause to chastise them. MBNA, historically manage to find individuals financial information when faced with COURT. It is blatantly clear that there is no need for MBNA to reconstruct account history(s), when they have the information at hand in order not to do so. In my own case they claim to have reconstructed my own account history in line with PS10/12 Example 6 Appendix 2, when factually that reconstruction would have been impossible as PS10/12 had not even come into being!!! IMHO, they reconstruct in order to cheat people and have been doing so to thousands of Consumers; very nice if, you can get it along with the apparent blessing of the FCA.
-
I know that you weren't! Sometimes though, it is extremely hard to be patient when the, so called, Regulators are clearly not Regulating; bet they received lovely Hampers with Iberico Ham/Bolli and free tickets on the MBNA Clipper... Further, we are ALL still waiting for our replies from Vicki & the Chief Executive; maybe, they think that we are going to give up and go away? Well, we are not. Lastly, the Banker bonuses have not gone unnoticed. either. MERRY CHRISTMAS to all MBNA victims. XXX
-
£22,000 per year, that is the same salary as many debt collection firms pay!!! In this day an age it is a pittance... we know that many of these FOS Adjudicators are young and inexperienced and of course, if they cannot command a higher salary than 22K, it goes to prove; "Pay peanuts, get Monkeys". What an absolute scandal that individuals such as these are making important decisions that are affecting many general consumers lives.
-
Rest assured that we are still on the case; these things do take time! Our original Press release was sent out via Marc Gander (BankFodder). Other journalists are in the process of being contacted by our Group... Patience is a Virtue!
-
http://www.fca.org.uk/your-fca/documents/reports/davis-inquiry-report http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30397041 I seem to remember similar happened in Hong Kong, Mr. Wheatley!!! http://stockmarketmanipulaters.blogspot.co.uk/2009/08/shame-on-sfc-martin-wheatley-go-home.html When on earth are we going to have a Regulator who Regulates?
-
http://web.orange.co.uk/article/news/fca_boss_gives_up_bonus_over_pension_gaffe The damning report has been released and can be read in the Financial Times...! http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a55b80e8-7eea-11e4-a828-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3LUQK2rOV
-
They still haven't learnt: http://www.lbc.co.uk/bank-culture-reforms-will-take-a-generation-101001
-
What a pity that it isn't real. One can just visualise the miserable wretches being dragged out of Chester Towers and all the while being pelted with rotten fruit etc... shacked to the stocks during their interrogations by the Judge! We know full well that Banks do not tell the truth e.g. RBS this very week...
-
It has been released!
-
Very well put, AMN!
-
http://minibondsoctaveconstellation.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/mr-martin-wheatley.html Looks like it is all happening, again! So, clearly not London's gain after all... Why aren't there any Bankers in Jail?
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/james-quinn/8274701/Martin-Wheatley-will-Hong-Kongs-loss-be-Londons-gain.html Quote from the Telegraph 2011: "It also appears that his time in the former British colony – he has been there for six years and will step down in the spring – was far from a walk in the park. Reports at the time he announced his departure from the Hong Kong regulator pointed to the fact that locals were so dissatisfied with his work in relation to loss-making Lehman mini-bonds that they burnt his picture outside the regulator's offices and blasted Chinese funeral music outside. Maybe Hong Kong's loss won't be London's gain after all?"
-
The interest rate for PPI premiums will be exactly the same as any other purchase, PPI payment premiums are simply transactions on the card. Yes of course, MBNA would know what the interest rate would have been and so would we if we had the exact month/year/type of cc card.
-
The following may explain a lot! http://minibondsoctaveconstellation.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/mr-martin-wheatley.html http://stockmarketmanipulaters.blogspot.co.uk/2009/08/shame-on-sfc-martin-wheatley-go-home.html Why is this man in his position? We don't think that the Treasury Select Committee approved him!?
-
Yes, the following is going out to the press: "Can MBNA Limited count? We are a small Group of MBNA Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) claimants who are representative of a much larger group of claimants from across the internet Consumer forums. It has emerged that MBNA Limited have created a very clever non-standard method of calculating PPI redress which drastically reduces the claim ‘quantum’. It appears that the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) have accepted that this method complies with the FCA rules (PS10/12) – but it seems very clear that it does not. Our Group have looked very carefully at the differences between the MBNA method and the ‘prescribed’ FCA method and have concluded that the MBNA method must be challenged. It seems quite possible that neither the FCA not the FOS have actually checked that the MBNA method is compliant with FCA rules, and have merely accepted MBNA’s assurances that it is. Claimants are being offered PPI redress which is far below that which would be due if the standard FCA calculation method were used – but they are being given insufficient information as to how this redress is calculated. Naturally, most claimants simply accept that the calculation is correct – and then accept the settlement “in full & final.” Our Group believes that MBNA have devised an excessively complex method that neither the FCA, FOS nor the claimant can understand – and that this method reduces most claim settlements by 50% or more. Thus, MBNA Limited is not putting consumers back into the position they would have been but for the mis-selling of PPI. The Group has concluded that MBNA’s method is not compliant with FCA rules, and that this needs to be addressed by the FOS & FCA. We encouraged every MBNA claimant to send our Group open letter to the FCA and FOS. The Group believes that the regulators are not enforcing their own rules because they are not investigating potential departure from them. Since sending at least 20 copies of our Group open letter to Martin Wheatley, FCA and the Chief Ombudsman, FOS in February 2014 we have been given the run around. We even backed our assertions with actual proof showing actual individual cases, which included the MBNA spreadsheets and our own calculations. Together with a detailed analysis explaining exactly how the MBNA methodology is incorrect and that it does not comply with the FSA/FCA rules on calculating PPI redress. We have followed up our findings for 10 long months now. But neither the FCA nor the FOS appears to want to take any action!? We would refer to the following: If there is evidence of systematic mistakes by the banks then the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) should investigate and take tough action against any bank found breaching the rules. But even though we have provided extensive proof to both the FOS representative; Ms. Vicki Mc Ausland; Lead Adjudicator and to; Mr. Chris Preston, Manager – Specialist – Supervision Division and Mr. Martin Wheatley (CEO) of the FCA, none appear to have taken any action whatsoever! We can of course provide our detailed analysis to back our assertions." The Group considered that 10 months was sufficient time, in order to investigate. But it has become clear that little or, nothing has been done; we have indeed been more that patient!
-
Can MBNA Limited count? We are a small group of MBNA Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) claimants who are representative of a much larger group of claimants from across the internet Consumer forums. It has emerged that MBNA Limited have created a very clever non-standard method of calculating PPI redress which drastically reduces the claim ‘quantum.’ It appears that the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) have accepted that this method complies with the FCA rules (PS10/12) – but it seems very clear that it does not. Our group have looked very closely at the differences between the MBNA method and the ‘prescribed’ FCA method and have concluded that the MBNA method must be challenged. It seems quite possible that neither the FCA nor the FOS have actually checked that the MBNA method is compliant with FCA rules, and have merely accepted MBNA’s assurances that it is. Claimants are being offered PPI redress which is far below that which would be due if the standard FCA calculation method were used – but they are being given insufficient information as to how this redress is calculated. Naturally, most claimants simply accept that the calculation is correct – and then accept the settlement “In full & final.” Our group believes that MBNA have devised an excessively complex calculation method that neither the FCA, FOS nor the claimant can understand – and that this method reduces most claim settlements by 50% or more. Thus, MBNA Limited is not putting consumers back into the position they would have been but for the mis-selling of PPI. The group has concluded that MBNA’s method is not compliant with FCA rules, and that this needs to be addressed by the FOS & FCA. We encouraged every MBNA PPI claimant to send our Group open letter to the FCA & FOS. The Group believes that the regulators are not enforcing their own rules because they are not investigating potential departures from them. Since sending at least 20 copies of our Group open letter to Martin Wheatley, FCA and the Chief Ombudsman, FOS in February 2014, we have been given the run around. We even backed our assertions with actual proof showing actual individuals cases, which including the MBNA spreadsheets and our own calculations. Together with a detailed analysis explaining exactly why and how the MBNA methodology is incorrect and that it does not comply with the FSA/FCA rules on calculating PPI redress. We have followed up our findings for 10 long months now. But neither the FCA nor the FOS appears to want to take any action!? We would refer to the following: If there is new evidence of systematic mistakes by the banks then the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) should investigate and take tough action against any bank found breaching the rules. But, even though we have provided extensive proof to both the FOS representative: Ms Vicki McAusland; Lead Ad judicator and to; Mr. Chris Preston, Manager – Specialist – Supervision Division and Mr. Martin Wheatley, (CEO) of the FCA none appear to have taken any action whatsoever!? We can of course provide our detailed analysis to back up our assertions. And, will be happy to elaborate on all of the above points but want to keep the narrative short for now."
-
Oh deary me; that is just their standard holding letter. Quite a few a have received same and then it is followed up by another FOS employees letter that doesn't appear to have a Dickie bird...!
-
If all that Suvin50 has is transaction logs, then there should at least be enough there to support his claim. Assuming he has DSAR'd MBNA, then they cannot really argue against estimated figures based on these, if that is all they have provided. And if, MBNA do have further information that they did not supply within Suvin50s 'Full' Data Subject Information Request why haven't MBNA disclosed same? Feeling sure that if MBNA went to court, they would magically find the statements in question within their extensive archives...not forgetting the requirements within the 'Money Laundering Regs, of course! Furthermore, no doubt the ICO would be interested to learn as to why MBNA have with held information that was requested within a SAR.
-
How very interesting that they do not wish to have your case escalated up to an FOS Ombudsman! We wonder why...? Rest assured whatisdue, we will be able to run your recalculated figures through our 'Math Geek'. Turning to our mass Complaint, the FCA and FOS have one week left before we launch our media missile.
-
Oh deary me; that is just a holding letter which they keep on the FOS computer system. And I doubt very much whether the illustrious Mr. Wilkinson has even had sight of your complaint file! Gary, took over from this chappie who quit: http://www.professionaladviser.com/ifaonline/news/2125577/fos-operations-director-quits-gbp140k-replacement-sought Clearly, the FOS managed to find a replacement: http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/about/operational-staff.html It would appear that Mr. Wilkinson's signature now appears on most FOS holding letters... One wonders what Mr. Wilkinson earns £200.000+ at least!?
-
As you all know MBNA is part of Bank of America (BofA). http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/11/06/bank-of-america-forex-negotiations/18610773/ Do the FCA and FOS really believe that the MBNA PPI Redress calculations are correct!? http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/11/06/bank-of-america-takes-400-million-legal-charge/ Not the first time that BofA/MBNA have pulled the wool over the Regulators eyes and now they must own up!
-
Oh Yes, plenty of proof! Apologies for going off topic but here is another example showing that the FOS are not fit for purpose: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/experts/article-2816982/TONY-HETHERINGTON-Divorce-wrangle-PPI-refund-splits-court-ombudsman.html Quote from the above: "A fairly junior official kicked it out on procedural grounds, saying that a complaint about a joint policy needs to come from both policyholders. This is nonsense. Anyone with a joint bank account is responsible for all debts, not just 50 per cent. You have appealed against the junior official's decision and asked for a properly qualified member of the Ombudsman staff to look into it. Disappointingly, all you got back was a standard acknowledgement about how the Ombudsman works – something you received a year and a half ago. A spokesman told me delays were due to 'the incredibly large volume of complaints' about PPI misselling, yet at the same time he agreed that your own circumstances are 'particularly unique'. It is a pity the unique legal background was not spotted in the beginning and the claim taken away from a junior official who seemed unable to understand that there is only one basic question: does your court order count or doesn't it? It is disheartening to see just how long it takes to get a superficial and flawed ruling from an official who failed to understand the issues."
-
Our missile (missive) has reached its target: The FCA who have confirmed receipt of same: "I can confirm receipt of your letter of 27th October in which you set out your concerns with MBNA’s PPI redress calculations and the response that you have received from the Financial Ombudsman Service on this issue. I have also received a copy of your e-mail to Martin Wheatley on the same subject including the sample redress calculations to which you refer. I will respond to the issues that you raise shortly. Regards Christopher Preston Manager /Specialist Supervision / Supervision Division"
-
Both the FOS and the, so called, Regulator: FCA now have 14 days to reflect and do what they are paid to do! After that time frame our missile will be fired off to the media. If, the FOS and the FCA do nothing regarding our most serious concerns, they will end up with extremely RED faces.
-
just received by email the following response to the Group 'Holding' letter: "Thank you for your letter dated 20 October 2014 regarding your payment protection insurance (PPI) complaint about MBNA Limited. I am writing to confirm receipt of your letter addressed to Ms Vicki McAusland, Lead Adjudicator. I acknowledge the details of the letter you have sent to us and confirm that someone will contact you shortly to respond to the points that you have raised. In the meantime, should you have any further queries please contact me. Yours sincerely Michael Hayward | adjudicator (redress) Financial Ombudsman Service ( 020 7093 7372 (Fax: 020 3487 4133) + Exchange Tower | London | E14 9SR * [email protected]" So, why is this individual responding to the letter addressed to Ms McAusland? Just goes to prove that they are just all working in a call centre where there is no continuity and Complaints just go along the FOS PC's conveyor belt; the first free operator just picks the Complaint up... How pathetic, as he didn't even bother to read our Group Complaint Holding letter, due to his reference to a single individuals complaint! They really are a shambolic shower and not fit for purpose!
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS