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

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