Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • It's Barclays.  I went in to see a manager who does know me and who also knows I was previously helping this guy.  Unfortunately this particular bank do not communicate by email or letter.  Only by phone with the account holder.  It was the 2 ATM withdrawals and 1 transfer that appear to have blocked the account.  He has no-one with authority in the uk to help. He gave me authority to help and use his account to manage his affairs/ pay bills etc - but not in the format the bank require - which is that he sits with me in a branch and fills out forms.  He can't do that. I didn't understand at first why he couldn't ring the bank. Now I do. Having tried to speak to him. He's incapable of talking properly.  Dementia.   I explained this to the manager.  But he said theres nothing I can do without PoA.    Anyway, it's very sad. And I'm very upset as I've known him since I was a teen  The fact you say the council can do nothing about CTax arrears is a reprieve
    • this is not making much sense but thats not usual for the threads from you... the fact that he is abroad and ill ? he cant use a phone..... he cannot easily communicate vocally so phone is out? fullstop? can he not use a chat online facility, most banks websites have them? can you not simply write to the bank and explain this? all banks must under banking rules have methods other that voice to communicate with them 24/7 do you know the reason why the account was blocked yet? is this bank a UK bank? if this has been going on for months now you should have logically already worked these things out for yourself.......
    • well i see what they respond with from carreg as i paid them for the plate and they put it with a wrong name which is a joke   i did try dvla to register the v750 to change name to my account but say its already been joined to another account    hopefully carreg get it sorted and get a new v750 sent out
    • He wasn't and isn't transferring any funds overseas.  It was 1 small transfer - ironically to me (which he'd done before) - and 2 small ATM withdrawals.  He has a 300/d limit on the card. And can't transfer more than 2k at a time.  This happened a number of months ago. And he isn't able to call the bank from overseas due to health issues.  He's getting his pension monthly (which I set up for him) and he can't access it.  It's a sad state of affairs
    • the RK on a cars v5c is not necessarily the owner nor the driver of a car as long as the person driving is insured it matters not. the bottom line is the VIN Number if push comes to shove that proves without doubt that they are indeed 'the same car' i seriously doubt you'd be that unlucky during the short period this might extend over till sorted.  
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.


      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

MBNA PPI Award “Interpretative” Calculations?

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2640 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then


Please click the "Report " link


at the bottom of one of the posts.


If you want to post a new story then


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic



Yes please post the stuff up.


One thing that strikes me is this point you make.

MBNA claim recently that PPI payments were paid each month by being the first item withdrawn from monthly payments so don’t accumulate interest


Te key to this is the phrase "associated interest" which must be returned to the claimant.


The PPI premiums are added to the balance of the account and even of the payment you make is allocated to pay off the PPI premium forst then your general balance is still higher than it would have otherwise have been. That balance attracts interest and so some of that interest is associated with the PPI.


Link to post
Share on other sites



Think you will find there are quite a few starting to question MBNA's calculations so dont think for one minute you are barking up the wrong tree.


I would be careful if your account zero's as I was unaware until IMS advised me that the PPI should reset and you need to start a new spreadsheet. (Pretty silly of me to think otherwise in hindsight) This made a mega difference to my claim and if I had gone to MBNA or FOS it would have been fatal and they would have easily shot me down/adjudicated against.


That said there is defo something wrong with how they are moving PPI from the card to the 8% pot thus avoiding contractual interest. I am still struggling with this part.


You seem to allude to the fact you have their triange V20C_B031. For me it has been an easier task to pick holes in this than put together something based on what I have learnt and perhaps mis-interpreted.


There are flaws within it and parts that do not follow what FOS has stipulated they need to do once a miss-sale has been upheld. Prove these faults in their figures then IMO you would have a better chance with FOS. Quoting FOS guidelines to FOS with proof they havnt been followed will be a much stronger case than heres my spreadsheet its what I want paying.


Just take your interest rate question. I sat and worked out their figures and by and large they have followed the interest rate of the card at the time. Sometimes well less then the following month way over. (Daily rates maybe?) But overall its nearly right. (When I started this check I was convinced they had diddled me on contractual) I could argue 22.9% like you are as that is actually my average too. But how can you argue an average which gives you x when they have used what appears actual which gives them y. I even averaged out their figures to check and guess what, it came to 22.5%. The interest rates even increased when the statements said they had so there wasnt any delay in them applying them.


My next cardinal error was that the higher card interest which brings the average up to this 22.9% amount is only applied towards the end of the card but I am applying a higher average rate when it was infact much lower. Compound interest racks up horribly and the loss when the card was higher is more than offset by the gains made when the card should have been much lower. This plus not removing the PPI element at a zero event was substantial reduction in my claim.


To check this and after IMS advice I have done 10 consecutive spreadsheets each starting when there is a balance zero or an interest rate change (Balance zero you have to zero PPI interest rate change you just copy the months before figures onto the new spreadsheet and use that as the start figure)


And lo and behold my figures are not £1000's out as it was but £200 adrift on their figures. Of course my recon balance is not right on the last one but you just have to add up each spreadsheet claim not forgetting to apply the 8% when they do. Use the stat ins spreadsheet for this part.


But this just leads me back to my first comment. I am making assumptions, spreadsheets, clerical errors etc etc etc. Give them this and they will find the errors and pull your calculations to bits. You will be defending your calculations not attacking theirs and lose the claim in the process.


Whereas they have given you their figures for the redress. Pull them to bits make them defend what from what I have seen could be indefensible. The more you can prove the higher the claim will become as they have already applied the interest etc so cant be changing these to suit.


After all the above I would still say that if you want to spend the time and effort I think they are diddling the consumer. (For me I think they paid me about half of what I should have got)


I just dont think its quite as much as it at first seems.


Hope some of this helps as the post is certainly not from a know it all just someone who feels like you that something is not quite right. The other banks havnt given me this feeling and seem to be following FOS near enough so why isnt MBNA.

Link to post
Share on other sites



Thanksfor your inputs - ken, yes, that is what I have - and I have posted up theirV20C_B031 calculations as a PDF. Point taken re. the best tack should Icomplain further being attacking their method, if it provesquestionable,...good advice, thanks.


I havealso posted up two versions as mentioned earlier of where I had got to with myFOSRunningv102, one unaltered that comes up with #VALUE! cells, and anotherwhere I have fudged what I think was intended, but I may be misunderstandinghow things work. Both sheets have a yellow marker in column A where I havechanged row cell entries, cells which are themselves framed in red, and thereare three such occasions. If viewing in Excel, “comments” should show up inthese cells if hovered over, on the “fixup” version, which explain what I havedone. I suspect I myself may need to create different sheets from when zerobalances occurred in the account, and when interest rate changed, but worthlooking at calculation field error anyway I suspect. There were a few promotionallow percentage for a time transfer deals in there, but I suspect higherstandard-type APRs were always attached to PPI payments. I could be wrong, andcould perhaps check if I know what to look for.


Finally – and probably related to the balancezeroing = PPIresetting bit that I don't entirely quite get yet: the“compound interest on PPI balance” column calculating stops when I stoppedpaying PPI in August 2009, or when I started my interest-free payment plan inDec 2009, or present date?


They mayor may not be “short-changing”claimants, or it may just be peculiarities of mycase to an otherwise seems-kind-of-fair (if you look at it a certain way)method. It will be interesting to find out...perhaps MBNA have got a bit too"selectively"sophisticated in their methods - or maybe not - all help and guidance ofany form continues to be much appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll grab a detailed look at these later.


The #VALUE# error happens when both monthly expenditure and monthly payment are zero. The fix for it is to just enter the value of 1p in both the expenditure cell and the payment cell for that month which ensures that the calculated balance rolls on.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks IMS. In the meantime I have had a look at one of ken100464's recent threads, and reckon ken100464 and I are both probably much in the same boat. If I manually amend a fixed 1p as above single FosRunningv102 to make the PPI balance carried forward to be zero after the occasions when the account has been cleared, it would seem to do much the same thing as breaking into a series of spreadsheets. And ...results in something pretty close to my MBNA calculated award. So, if that is the way they have chosen to do things (perhaps unlike some other lenders) and it is legit enough, I think I can at least understand the differences in their workout and my previous one.


I think I still have to make the leap perhaps to understanding the logic, defendability and validity of doing that particular zeroing of PPI cumulative effect - I feel that all PPI payments I made prior to occasionally clearing the account were still kept by MBNA , something independent of the account balance (negative, zero, or even occasionally slightly positive), and they did not exactly give me it back, but I will await further thoughts. Hmmmm..perhaps if only I had not been quite so zealous in making my balance transfers so close to actual balances it would have made an enormous difference...

Link to post
Share on other sites



I hope to give a full response later tonight which may make things clearer but one thing for you to think about on a revolving credit account is the idea of when items are "notional" as opposed to being actually paid.


Will be back later :-)


Link to post
Share on other sites



Have a look at this...you can feed the figures into the fos running spreadsheet of you wish. (The interest rate used is 20% by the way)




This is the example of how running credit accounts should be treated for redress. Please note there is an error in that sheet in that column F actually totals to £9.96 and not the £4.14 they have stated.


The source of this sheet is in appendix 2 of the FSA handbook here...




The FSA handbook is the definitive authority on calculating redress for PPI claims and was the base document used when writing the spreadsheet. You will see that if you enter the data from the attached sheet into the spreadsheet, the result agrees with the redress calculation in the handbook.


If a lender is not calculating redress in accordance with the FSA handbook then they need to be challenged as to why not and provide any evidence of any amendments to the handbook on which they rely.


If they fail to either calculate in accordance with the FSA rules or provide the aforementioned details then fos should be informed.


Link to post
Share on other sites



IMS a favour indeed would be if you could confirm that FSA spreadsheet is the actual present FSA redress method. If it is then thats the way forward with FOS


If so you have just blown MBNA to hell and back and you deserve a medal.


If you look at aftermidnights V20C-B031 then you will see they after each zero event they are removing all the premiums and interest.


This no longer accrues contractual interest but 8% and this continues for the rest of the account being added to by random amounts. I understand if the balance is zero then 8% should be added for that month but looking at the FSA spreadsheet then it returns to contractual after the PPI restarts. (Just the same as the CAG spready)


If you look at row 21/11/1999 the original balance clears ish and £320 odd is removed from the balance. This starts accruing stat interest but it will never return to the account.


When the PPI restarts (in this case it never actually stopped and I was presuming they were going to say most of it was paid off so had to be removed) you will see the recon balance restarts at the new original balance again minus both the PPI and contractual interest and stat interest so far accrued.


This happens again and again and the money removed from contractual into stat 8% and recon balance reset everytime.


Finally when the account goes to 0% contractual they then virtually stop removing the money and leave it in the balance. Of course this again suits them because 0% contractual is better now than 8% stat.


This is exactly what I have so its the method they are using not as AfterMidnight thinks just his account.


I wasnt skilled enough to argue contractual interest so was willing to accept they were doing it right. Now I know they are fiddling if that FSA spreadsheet is the redress method.


Naughty Naughty MBNA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well to answer the direct question, I am unaware of any alterations or amendments to the handbook and we, Joe Public, rely on the FSA and their examples as being correct.


If there is an error in their examples then they should really make a statement to that effect and issue an amendment but as I say, I have never heard of one or seen one.


Both of you guys seem to have an understanding of the maths of this and as you both have active complaints, you would be two good guys to out this all forward to fos when you are sure of your figures. For someone like me, who has no active claim, fos may just brush it off but you guys have something concrete by way of figures.


If I can help with the maths I am happy to do so.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers IMS.


You have been most helpful and bit by bit I have grasped what they are up to.


Have looked at the FSA handbook so know where to get that info now. MBNA are defo not following this.


As to the Maths a quick glance at Aftermidnights V20C_B031 at month 21/11/1999 would be grand if you could.


The 355.07 attracts 8% which is 2.37. Ok the balance is nearly zero so I wouldnt like to get hung up about if its right or wrong.


Next month its 418.51 in the 8% pot. Ok balance is again nearly zero.


The trick happens on month 20/3/2000. Balance goes to 294.27 and PPI restarts.


However the 418.51 stays out of the card redress and out of contractual interest. Also the recon balance restarts at the actual balance.


This happens time and again.


Can you by being devils advocate think of any reason why they are doing this (fiddling the consumer isnt allowed lol)


I imagined that they were saying some of the PPI was being paid off so couldnt be attracting contractual but this doesnt seem to be in the FSA example. And more importantly where are the calculations to prove what is and isnt paid off. But now am thinking its just a way of lowering the claim.


Finally the recon balance on their sheet is pants. Quite clearly on the FSA sheet the balance runs and includes ALL redress not just what they think they will.

Edited by ken100464
Link to post
Share on other sites

Checking in, and hope to have the time tonight to run through the maths better myself and look in more detail at the examples vs award. I suspect, from our collective thoughts, that approaches to the FOS by ken1000464 and myself which takes the line of "in row w and colum x, exemplified by calculation y" it can be seen that the firm does z, which is contrary to FSA example A, as shown in row b, calculation c. therein. In other words, humans (adjudicators, ombudsmen) who make decisions are most likely to be convinced by being shown, spelled exactly out, where errors are in firm's methods, as opposed to judging the relative merits of two different "competing" methods of calculating - this is part of what ken100464 was pointing out to me earlier, which was very useful.


I would not like to give the impression, at all, that FOSRunning spreadsheet is not appreciated or is undervalued by myself, as it has been derived from the FSA horse's mouth, and huge kudos to all involved in its construction and updating - and it shows "the story" very well indeed. I am wondering now though if, for this particular lender, one of us may have to produce a "should have been" version of the MBNA sheet, as the most convincing case which would be most likely to get the result wanted. This might allow the best bits of "I/we have calculated it thus" and "look at these bits in their analysis" approaches.


In any case, if ken100464 and I can submit "cases" to/against MBNA backed up by ims21's thinking behind it (something I am very much up for), I think that we may benefit from more appropriate calculations. Hmmm...give MBNA a chance to respond in a kind of "letter before action to FOS" sort of way as it may be quicker, or straight to FOS?


And...I wonder how many hundereds of people have been undercompensated, perhaps, by the marvellous idea of some bright spark in the MBNA PPI Award Minimisation Comittee's method of "nobody will notice". They were all probably promoted.

Link to post
Share on other sites



Totally agree the FOSv102 spreadsheet has been immense and thanks to anyone who has input. Without it I wouldnt have been able to start looking at these figures.


I have raised follow up complaint with More Bankers Need Arresting and am giving them 8 weeks to deal with it inhouse. If not to FOS we go. The supplementary complaint if anything gives me more ammo at FOS. They were given the chance to settle with me telling them where they got it wrong. They havnt engaged yet.


However after this thread I will slightly change tack by quoting both the FSA handbook then FOS guidelines as a start position. Then say my own calculations which follow these guidelines is showing a much higher redress figure. MBNA can use another method of redress if it sees fit according to the FSA but in doing so cannot put the consumer at a disadvantage to the preferred method of redress. If it does use another method then MBNA has to show and explain how it came to the award. (Would suggest us asking for a spreadsheet which is sent with no explanation at all and has taken me about 6 weeks to mostly understand is insufficient)


I think having the FOSv102 spreadsheet completed is a good thing. My only worry is we have to use an interest rate that is used on each month. They will no doubt say they are using an actual rate as per the up and down nature of the rates seen on yours and my claims. For me once again the preferred method of attack is put in your first paragraph above. Figures can be manipulated to show anything.


Whereas showing amounts are being removed from contractual into stat int and then when cards go to zero contractual the money remains within the card balance thus attracting nothing, should be easier to make an adjudicator understand. Its not following the FSA requirements for compensating consumers. And if the chose to say it is then they have to fully explain to us how they are doing it. We are making them defend their position.


If they rule our way then MBNA will have to recalculate anyway. Thats where the FOSv102 comes in handy because it will give you an indicative amount you should be looking for.


For me looking at your spreadsheet line dated 22/7/2009 your contract rate looks to be 16% ish. What I would be wanting to know is why the £4070.26 is not attracting 16%ish contractual interest which it would do if the FSA example and FOS guidelines had been followed. That is going to be a humungous (if thats a word lol) loss to you. They have neatly managed to remove 89% of the PPI and interest accrued by this date from the account. This certainly does not follow the FSA example which states the running PPI total =the calculation of the running PPI balance on credit card at start of month and the contractual interest rate. In the FSA example even when the balance zeros, all the PPI and interest is carried forward until the account restarts. It then carries on as before. The recon balance also doesnt reset on a zero event in the FSA example.


However I do have a very cautionary note for you. Contractual interest on your V20C_B031 on many months seems extremely low infact below 8% sometimes. You would have to judge yourself if more months are above this than below this level. Also I cannot see any interest rates above 19.5% throughout the life of the account. Unless you have proof ie statements to disprove their contractual rates I cannot see how you can put 22.9% as the average without the proof to back this up. If you were into balance transfers they may be able to show FOS that the account was attracting X interest not Y that you are trying to apply. I cant answer this for you as dont have the knowledge of your account.


And this is where my contention comes in. Show them a FOSv102 which is fatally flawed with say something such as the contractual interest rate then before you know it adjudicator has ruled against you and you wont even get a recalculation out of them.


Point to the fact the method of their calculation is fatally flawed then a re calculation will have to be done but the interest rates they have used will have to be used again. Without doing your sums for you I would suggest this will be paydirt time for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And...I wonder how many hundereds of people have been undercompensated, perhaps, by the marvellous idea of some bright spark in the MBNA PPI Award Minimisation Comittee's method of "nobody will notice". They were all probably promoted.


Forgot to comment on this bit.


The consumer was stiffed with the PPI and is being stiffed again in the redress. Bank is pandering to the inherent greed of the consumer. (The reason most of us are here in the first place) Offer what seems squillions and the consumer sees new TV, new car, new holiday new whatever trinket it deems required to live a modern life.

What the consumer doesnt do is think hey hang on a minute I have been shafted for years by these guys now why do I think they are now all trustworthy? Maybe I should check first.


And surprisingly if I was the bank I would try to buy the likes of you and me off with a confidentiality clause worth our while because of the thousands who they can happily stiff if this calculation isnt challenged.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Picking up from a few points from earlier.


I had a scan at some of the statements I do have (I don't have all) and they do mention interest rates. I was something of a balance-transferring rate-tart in previous times, and could never resist those offers of paying hardly anything for ages owing to tiny % on transfers deals - that were all the rage at the time. So - typically the statements have a little summary which describes that different rates were applying for different things (explains a bit perhaps the overall rate being so low, swung that way with thruppence on balance transfers on average perhaps). These rates include BT- Balance Transfers, CCC - Credit Card Cheque, etc. And also inevitably mention "Retail and Non Promo Cash". So...a question of, with MBNA, PPI attracts interest under which contractual rate...I have my suspicions and may be be able to work it out from the odd example. Given enough time!


I also SAR'd MBNA some time ago and have a nice-if-difficult-to-read-easily account history line-by-line print, which details in the assorted line entries amongst all the MBNA jargon (and for the only-6-years-back period it covers) an interesting point. This is when different rates were applied to my acccount. These are usually referred to as A, B, C, etc. rates - which I can kind-of-guess relate to different types of expenditure. I would, of course, like to argue that the highest contractual rates (cash advance presumably) are what I should have the distinct pleasure of being re-imbursed under - as they were/are depriving me of nothing but hard earned cash.


I guess that MBNA are using actual interest total charged (regardless of percentage composition of elements of that) to produce an average percentage, or something similar.


I have still to have a re-look in any depth at my award calculations in light of all the information provided and examples shown in the thread so far. I think I will have to arrive at a level where I have understood-and-documented/analysed it to a confident-enough level to detail my refutations of MBNA method strongly. Will probably take me a while to get to that point and feel OK with the balance between "oy, fix this you rotters" and "let me show you exactly what you should have done using your own example but made more accurate - and compliant".


I suppose too that, given the sums involved in mis-sold PPI so far, it is not surprising that lenders would be becoming both more creative, and more keen to accurately reflect any details in their favour such as rate-variances or rate applicability. Luckily we have a counter-balance through pooled and shared experience here.


I'll be researching and checking stuff for a while I think...

Link to post
Share on other sites



And thats all why I have come to the conclusion that fighting them on interest rates alone is going to be difficult. Yes you suspect you have been diddled as I do and yes the FOSv102 indicates by how much. But I doubt its a sum we will ever get close to as they will have thought this through and have a patter ready to roll out when it gets to FOS.


And most consumers are just not willing to invest the time in researching the figures and they know it. The more who blindly accept it the more the bank will do it because it is saving them money. [problematic] dont give money back they dont have to. They dont see the light and become all fluffy. They are still hard nosed banks who have been brought kicking and screaming to the compensation table.


And if you and me have ago I suspect we will still be exchanging idea's a year or more on from now.


Any problems post up and I will have a look and see if I have thought about it yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, it is a post from 2009, but a related point, for anyone reading here, may be the interesting line on how an FOS adjudicator seemed to me to be helped to understand by MBNA in a case of when questioning MBNA's associated interest calculation methods. I am sure we can quote other posts better than cut and paste - but from TINK660's post of 13th December 2009, 17:05 -


re: Landy_alert v MBNA PPI **WON**

Hi Landy,


Quick update - received email from fos with this reply:-


I have raised your concerns with MBNA and they have informed me that the method in which it calculates the associated interest is not merely based on the premium and contractual interest rate at the time, as the firm must consider the way in which payments are allocated to the outstanding balance. A summary of this information is explained within the account terms and conditions.I should point out that the interest calculated is simple and not compound. In addition, the PPI premium will always be included within the minimum payment for each individual month and therefore if the minimum payment is paid off in full each month; the interest charged will not roll from month to month.I can confirm that the way in which this refund has been calculated is broadly in line with FOS guidance.As you will be aware, your case has not been fully adjudicated by the Financial Ombudsman's Service and the offer has been made by the firm on a goodwill basis which included an award of £100 distress and inconvenience. I note you request us to forward your case through for a full adjudication for an Ombudsman to review the issue of associated interest. I am obviously happy to carry out this request but I must point out that following a full review, an adjudicator may agree or disagree with the decision of the firm to uphold your complaint and it is possible that your complaint may be rejected or the award of distress and Inconvenience withdrawn. In addition, I should point out that even if an adjudicator agrees that the firm should uphold your complaint, the settlement awarded by the firm is unlikely to be improved as it is broadly in line with FOS guidance and you have been put back into the position you would have been in had you not had PPI put on your loan from the outset.Please let me know how you would like to proceed. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.


The paragraph about the interest being simple and not compounded as the payment would be included in the minimum payment and if the minimum payment was made every month it would not roll on to the next month - surely the same would have applied to charges applied ie late payment, over credit limit etc. and these were paid back with compounded interest.I am mindful to still continue this to an ombudsman but if anyone else has any thoughts on the matter or has heard anything different from the FOS concerning this issue - please let me know.It seems that I am being advised not to proceed further but it also seems like they are saying take it any further and you may loose the lot, however as what has already been given back has been a "goodwill gesture" I dont think they can take it back!Any comments appreciated.


Back to 2012 - Aftermidnight here again - I am not sure how this finished up, but I hope that there is way more FOS determination today not to just accept any half-baked reply of "we do it this way, and it is fine actually" from MBNA. My recent award letter also mentioned "broadly in line with FOS guidance ". Does the word broadly seem to anyone else to be an interesting thing to put on current MBNA communications, it is not "exactly in line" or even "as per" . Anyway, an interesting tale from a few years ago about the defence of MBNA associated interest, I thought. I don't know the ins and outs, but perhaps shows the importance (hopefully) of spelling things out, as opposed to neccessarily assuming independant critical abilities if reaching FOS stage.

Link to post
Share on other sites



That is indeed interesting.But doesnt tell us why they are not following the FSA example.


But can be rubbished on page one of your V20C_B031 form


You make payments but no PPI is removed sometimes. It happens randomly and they are certainly not removing all the PPI first just bits of it.


Line 20/5/1998 you have PPI on the account about £8. You pay £50. Guess what no PPI removed. And that is on your first line lol.


Same happens to me so the idea PPI is removed first and therefore attracts 8% is ballacks.


Just shows the here is the FSA guidance, here is the FOS guidance and here is your guess MBNA is the best method of attack. Now Mr FOS man which one should we be accepting as the right one.


The regulator, the referee in the dispute who is publishing on its website the same general guidance as the regulator or a shady bank who has already had to pay out millions for miss-selling to its customers.


For me MBNA will tie me up in knots about interest accounts and the rest of the bumpf. What it cant tie me up in is the regulators view and FOS view which is one and the same.


Just wish these threads would not just fizzle out.


Nice to see they were happy to threaten to take their ball home if they didnt get what they wanted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...



this is my first post on here and i have read the post with interest as MBNA have agreed to settle my credit card PPI, although this way they acknolweged that this is a gesture of goodwill with no admission of liability. They have to settle the card redress in the same way as the spredsheets above.


A very good job and informative piece of work who ever created them :)


i have a question the 8% simple interest from the sheet has to be extrapolated down as the result is just shows for a months worth? is this correct?


The cards are currently running so i have a credit balance and am still paying ppi as MBNA still havnt removed the cover. where does this come in with the simple interest column and the compond column?


the FSA example doesnt adress this? does anyone have any ideas?


As with My interpretation i could be owed a very very substantial amount of money, beats a low interest savings account.



Link to post
Share on other sites

i have a question the 8% simple interest from the sheet has to be extrapolated down as the result is just shows for a months worth? is this correct?


Yes the sheet will show a month's worth of interest but it total's them all for the final figure on the green box in the top right.


The cards are currently running so i have a credit balance and am still paying ppi as MBNA still havnt removed the cover. where does this come in with the simple interest column and the compond column?


You have a reconstructed credit balance, not an actual credit balance. If it was an actual credit balance then PPI would not be charged as there is nothing to protect.


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Had a good look at this and MBNA calculations VC20_B031 and their workings are a bit bias in there favour.


The reconstructed payment that goes straight into the 8% surplus payment but surely if you have overpaid it should be set against the balance of the card that you are incurring interest at a much higher rate. I think MBNA need to be challenged on this point alone.


Looking at the Card Reddress column each time the account is actually cleared or the restated balance is cleared, they move the PPI plus interest into the Surplus Redress that only gets 8%. The balance of the card then increases and they charge interst rate of the card when only 50% of the balance is outstanding because there is a balance in the surplus account.


The get that really raised my blood pressure, 22.07.2009 the card has £9,700 outstanding interest charged £130.09, the surplus redress £4070.26 interest received £27.14.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You got it Miaspa. They stiffing people again.


The more people that work this out and complain to anyone and everyone you can will eventually hopefully result in these shysters realising they have been rumbled.


Just think of all the people who have just accepted this and havnt even asked for the spreadsheets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Had a good look at this and MBNA calculations VC20_B031 and their workings are a bit bias in there favour.


The reconstructed payment that goes straight into the 8% surplus payment but surely if you have overpaid it should be set against the balance of the card that you are incurring interest at a much higher rate. I think MBNA need to be challenged on this point alone.


Looking at the Card Reddress column each time the account is actually cleared or the restated balance is cleared, they move the PPI plus interest into the Surplus Redress that only gets 8%. The balance of the card then increases and they charge interst rate of the card when only 50% of the balance is outstanding because there is a balance in the surplus account.


The get that really raised my blood pressure, 22.07.2009 the card has £9,700 outstanding interest charged £130.09, the surplus redress £4070.26 interest received £27.14.


scan the required letters/agreements/sheets - as a picture[jpg] file

don't forget you can use a mobile phone or a digital camera too!!



ENSURE: remove all pers info inc. barcodes etc using paint program

but leave all figures and dates. {DO NOT USE A BIRO OR PEN]

convert existing PC files to PDF [office has an installable print to PDF option]


goto one of the many free online pdf converter websites [http://docupub.com/pdfconvert/]

it would be better to upload a multipage pdf if

you have many images too rather than many single pdfs


or if you have PDF as an installed printer drive use that

or use word and save as pdf

try and logically name your file so people know what it is.

i'e Default notice dd-mm-yyyy


open a new msg box here

hit go advanced below the msg box

hit manage attachments below that box

hit the add files button on the top right

hit select files, navigate to your file on your pc

hit upload files



please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites



He is referring to one of MBNA's previous spreadsheets already posted.


He has very quickly understood MBNA are stiffing customers again and anyone who is not checking their claim is being done over. I would suggest FOS will side with them as its all too difficult to follow but if you do have a handle for Maths you will realise they are up to something. And it certainly isnt how the FSA or FOS on their public websites recommend redress is calculated.


When you do get a handle on what they are doing you realise they are reducing the claims substantially.


The last point he raises is that MBNA are adding £130 interest on £9700 balance outstanding but giving back £27 on £4070 they owe the poster.


In this case the £4070 has been removed from the account and is not being used to reduce the balance (which both FSA and FOS stipulate it should) Therefore the OP is paying contractual interest on £4070 which he shouldnt be. This £4070 is getting 8% simple instead even though there is a balance on the card. This is being used to cover the rather deft sleight of hand going on behind with the contractual interest.


So basically the OP is being stiffed by £4070 x contractual interest - £4070 x 8% interest. This is just one month and the account is running 10 years or more slowly building up this surplus. The loss to the OP in this account will be substantial.


Very quickly off the top of my head in this instance OP has suffered a loss of £30 on this one month by MBNA's miss calculations. Times that by number of years and number of accounts they are paying out on and you will get a flavour of why its worth their while.


I am very surprised that this isnt being pushed as a very big story by this website and all posters are urging any newby to demand the MBNA spreadsheet off MBNA and then follow a complaint for wrongful redress. FOS wont entertain it as part of a PPI complaint and you have to complain again to MBNA as a seperate issue and follow the FOS 8 week or get stuffed go to FOS letter.


Interestingly the PPI premium for that month was £18+. Therefore by stiffing the OP again they get to retain the premium within the account and as money owed.


Many MBNA claimants think they have won. Far from it they have just recieved some of their own money back but certainly not all. MBNA know this and it wouldnt surprise me if this is part of the reason they want out of the UK market. The compensation bill is much higher than they would really like to pay.


Hope that makes sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...