Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags '“interpretative�'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • The Consumer Forums: The Mall
    • Welcome to the Consumer Forums
    • FAQs
    • Forum Rules - Please read before posting
    • Consumer Forums website - Post Your Questions & Suggestions about this site
    • Campaign
    • Helpful Organisations
  • CAG Community centre
    • CAG Community Centre Subforums:-
  • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
    • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
  • CAG Library - you need to register to access the CAG library
    • CAG library Subforums
  • Banks, Loans & Credit
    • Bank and Finance Subforums:
    • Other Institutions
  • Retail and Non-retail Goods and Services
  • Work, Social and Community
  • Debt problems - including homes/ mortgages, PayDay Loans
  • Motoring
  • Legal Forums
  • Latest Consumer News

Blogs

  • A Say in the Life of .....
  • Debt Diaries
  • Shopping & Money Saving Tips
  • chilleddrivingtuition

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


About Me


Quit Date

Between and

Cigarettes Per Day


Cost Per Day


Location

Found 1 result

  1. I am seeking help on a few points following a calculated PPI award from MBNA. Essentially, I think they are using their own interpretation of “returning to position” in order to be seen to be conforming to FOS guidelines: while not actually really doing so. I am wondering if anyone agrees, or if I am barking up the wrong tree. If anyone is interested in taking a look I will post up a PDF of their “full breakdown” – calculations that seem far removed, I think, from what it should be by using conventional and more widely accepted methods - such as would be the case with other banks and our CAG spreadsheets. I have heard it said, in other posts, that MBNA claim recently that PPI payments were paid each month by being the first item withdrawn from monthly payments so don’t accumulate interest (and apparently even convinced an adjudicator at the FOS of the validity of this argument on at least one occasion). This could perhaps explain the calculative difference, but I would welcome thoughts on this from anyone. Common sense tells me that if PPI premiums did not count towards being cumulative because of this, then an exact equal sum was instead carried forward cumulatively... For background: general situation was I paid PPI of c.£4000 between March 1998 and Jul 2009 on an MBNA credit card, for which they have offered a return of premiums and a value of c.£570 “associated”with c. £2400 “applicable 8% interest”. This was “full and final” apparently. I complained, raised a few points, and accepted as partial without prejudice. They just sent me the full breakdown in response to that. When checking this award, I am getting a calculation cell error in FOSRunningPPIv102 which may be an unintended effect of a change made between v101 and v102, which I can detail highlighted if anyone would like to take a look at that too. It looks like a between-version error-handling change aimed at card accounts being zero balanced sometimes, which may have then had unintended error effects. I can do a temporary “fudge-fix” to accommodate for what I think may be inadvertent errors shown up by my own account peculiarities, but this does mean the cardinal sin of altering columns that should not really be amended. These spreadsheets are massively appreciated – if there is a change warranted for next version, I hope that is OK, if I am merely wrong…then please forgive me. Finally I have a couple of questions: I stopped the PPI a few months before moving to a stopped-interest DAS plan, in Autumn 2009, which I have been every month paying since. I am unsure which date to use as “last row” to put intoFOSRunningPPIv102. Interest rates also varied between 17.9% and 24.9% (although purchases would have been higher still on occasions) - fair to use 22.9%, which it was for a time, as an average? My goal really is to check that I am doing my calculations correctly and send MBNA my own version of what they owe, with a firm rebuke of their methodology being against FSA example 6 – and let them my intentions if they do not pay up. I am though not convinced if I go the FOS route that FOS really “get” what MBNA seems to be doing when MBNA glibly report to their claimants, and perhaps the FOS, that “yes, guidelines were used here”. Anybody care to take a look at award breakdown and/or spreadsheet? If so, much appreciated...give me the nod and I will (try to anyway) post up.
×
×
  • Create New...