MBNA PPI Award “Interpretative” Calculations?

[Miaspa 2010]

I wish I had a calculation to argue, MBNA refuse to do anything about my claim.

 

Currently with FOS,

 

SAR request came back with the original application which I ticked no to PPI.

 

It was applied from the outset of the card, the communication sheet starts six months after the card was started so they can't argue they sold it over the phone.

 

thats a different matter,

 

MBNA have used very dodgy tactics on their calculation.

 

It doesn't follow any of the principles set in the FSA document kindly linked to by Ims21.

 

Like Ken100464 says unless there has been a change in guidelines by the FSA, MBNA are on very thin ice.

[ken100464]

Hopefully you will get an uphold at FOS. If you do least you will know to get those calculations out of them. They are pants but sadly the great british public just see the wonga and go with that.

 

Must be like taking candy off a baby.

[Miaspa 2010]

Must be like taking candy off a baby.

 

Yep, if MBNA had sent me the V20C_B031 there is enough errors on it to rip them to shreds without even looking at if they has applied FOS rules.

 

I was looking to see if I could work it backwards and get the interest rates applied to the Card Redress column but it came up to varied to be of use. A lot of odd rates pulled up which made me look at the sheet in more detail.

 

There are at least four instances when the card redress column reduces but there is no increase in the Surplus redress.

 

21.04.08, 21.04.08, 22.09.09, 28.12.09,.

Who ever produced the calc was an amateur:lol:

Edited December 14, 2012 by Miaspa 2010
change of opinion

[Miaspa 2010]

Oh and one final point the card redress balance never moves to the suplus redress once the PPI finishes. This means the card redress balance never attracts any interest as the card is at 0%. That means that the £400ish balnce atrracts no interest for 34 months.

 

So in summary.

 

MBNA haven't applied FOS guidelines.

MBNA applied their own rules but not applied them consistently.

MBNA then haven't applied any duty of care by working out their calculation correctly.

 

Each instant of an error is in their favour, not that of the card holder.

[Miaspa 2010]

Oh and the most obvious point, but I haven't checked my figures on this the totals on page 1 for the summary don't agree with the PPI paid per the calculations, nor does the associated interest, I'd guess if you totalled up the 8% interest it wouldn't agree either but I can't be bothered to do this.

[ken100464]

Well you seem to have most of what we had worked out so I can only hope you get your uphold and then know you need to confront them via this useless calculation they have.

 

Just to let you know MBNA have sent us a final response telling us to do one they are right FSA/FOS are wrong.

 

How arrogant.[edit] back to America ya shysters.

Edited December 14, 2012 by dx100uk
behave! - dx

[matttaylor3331]

hi all

 

got 2 cheques back today from MBNA and following this thread the amounts are lower than the FOSspreadsheet. How do i ask for the statements from MBNA to see how they calculate the amounts.

 

Matthew

[ims21]

hi all

 

got 2 cheques back today from MBNA and following this thread the amounts are lower than the FOSspreadsheet. How do i ask for the statements from MBNA to see how they calculate the amounts.

 

Matthew

 

Write to them and demand them.

[matttaylor3331]

ims21

 

thanks, what do i do with the cheques just hold them or write back that i accept them but not as full and final. i have a accountant that says he will look into it as well

[ims21]

The cheques will be good for six months so if it were me I would hang on to them.

 

My personal view is that if you bank them it may be taken as agreement to their offer of settlement.

[ken100464]

Mat.

 

Ask for the specific spreadsheet within this thread. Put in your letter FOS deem it something they should do and if you dont get it you will ask FOS to intervene.

 

I now have a letter from these shysters basically saying they dont have to follow either FSA or FOS examples, will pay what they like because I operated the account the way I did so its all my fault. Can you believe they actually used those words. It was my fault.

 

They will explain the 8% instead of contractual as how they see customers actually operate these accounts and therefore the regulators have it wrong. They dont believe overlimits that have been charged on balances that drop below my limit because of the PPI being refunded as anything to do with the claim as they are outside 6 years and the later ones are £12 so FSA deem them to be ok. They just ignore they shouldnt have even been levied in the first place and thats what FSA/FOS deem returning the customer back to where they would be if the PPI hadnt been sold.

 

Never read such an arrogant letter in my life.

 

This lot are really getting me mad. How come the rest can be trying to follow the FSA/FOS guidelines on redress and these muppets feel its ok to tell you they are following the guidelines (letters a regulator would read on a compliance visit) but then just say they will pay what they please to the punter.

[Old Cogger]

can see a fine for MBNA if they continue on that front for too long>?

[ken100464]

Mike.

 

Can you advise if it is worth writing to the FSA just on the off chance they will start to look closely at this lot?

 

I know FSA dont like individuals complaining but this seems so far out of what they should be doing and I presume they are thinking it wont matter if they skoot the UK market.

 

It is a very complex set of calculations and I think an adjudicator off the street in FOS would be totally lost with it. But you can see from the number on here with these spreadsheets that something is indeed going on.

[Old Cogger]

All FSA would state = not look into individual cases but will file with any other cases on this subject (means need a lot of people to complain) as I see it, but why not in time may take some action? that has been what others have stated after they complained, also referred to the FOS by FSA as not really their area.

[dx100uk]

the fsa made NO ruling on if/if not £12 fees on credit cards were lawful or not

 

it was only for bank charges.

 

Dear Mr. Hoang,

Thank you for your prompt response to my letter of 13th October 2010.Your letter indicates you believe your charges are in line with the Office of Fair Trading Guidelines. In order to make it clear to you that OFT did not give you permission to charge £12.00 I include these quotes from OFT “We are not suggesting that default fees should be set at £12, and a court will certainly not consider that a default fee is fair just because it is below the threshold”. “We consider that a contract term is likely to be unfair if it requires consumers to pay more as a result of a default than the court would order them to pay if they were sued for breach of contract. This means that a default charge should not exceed a reasonable pre-estimate of the administrative costs that the consumer ought to have realized would be likely to be incurred by his or her card issuer in dealing with defaults”.

In order for you to charge me £12.00 you must demonstrate to me that it cost Capital One £12.00 by you receiving my payment two days late.

I was only requesting that you to return all charges to my account that reflects negative balance on my account, however as you have pointed out in your letter to me of 8th December 2010, you have charged me £20.00 many times and occasions.

English Law is very clear the House of Lords held that a contractual party can only recover damages for actual or liquidated losses incurred from a breach of contract. Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd. I now require you to repay all my charges in total of £676.00 including 8% interest £338.99 of total sum 1,014.99 to my account within 7 days.

Failure to comply will result in court proceedings being initiated,and let the Court decide if the charges are in proportion to actual costs in addressing any breach of terms and conditions/and or loss.

Court action will also include a claim for costs and section 69 interest at the Courts discretion.

In the absence that you can furnish me with figures which represent a true fee/charge that is not undue enrichment,I will be asking the Court to order your disclosure of the same.

In consideration of any charges which you consider outside Limitation,I will be seeking to rely on section 32c of the limitation act 1980 citing the precedent between Kleinwort Benson v Lincoln City Council.

This has been widely accepted by County Courts in recent years.

I trust this outlines and clarifies my position

Yours Sincerely

[matttaylor3331]

ken,

 

i spoke to a firm today and basically i was advised to do the following as these guys have got a full redress back of MBNA.

 

I spoke to the PPI department requesting the calculations and an explanation as to their workings

 

I have also written a letter, recorded post, stating that the settlement is accepted in part payment until the final workings are agreed. i have also included the 2 pages from the FSA guideline stating that i assume the redress is carried out in exactly the same way they have been told to.

 

i have also stated that if the workings are deemed to be incorrect i will hold them in breech of their contractual settlement and chase the extra through the FOS and FSA.

 

the firm i spoke to said it can take a while but they usually pay up.

 

its about time this was mentioned to the national press.

 

once i have my redress statements i will post up and see where i go to from there. i also want to see the calculation sheet so i can run it through the FOS spreadsheet.

 

if anyone else has any further news i would be good to be kept upto date

 

Matt

[ken100464]

Aftermidnight.

 

Any further news from your end.

 

Anyone else reading this

 

FSA have been informed and are really interested in them not calculating as they have been told to do. (Within the FSA guidelines and FOS examples. All publicly viewable) If you havnt got a complaint in to the regulator get one in. They wont help you individually but for the greater good its worthwhile. They did say that if lots of complaints come in they would investigate.

 

Our MP is now involved so again another avenue for you.

 

Mine is now with FOS after MBNA tried to timebarr me using the initial PPI complaint as the starting date. (utter scumbags) FOS have accepted the complaint so that £850 off them.

 

This bank wriggles like no tomorrow. Glad they are leaving our shores. You wont be missed

[matttaylor3331]

Ken

 

I am still waiting for the full break down of the calculation to arrive, i have telephoned them and sent letters that have been signed for to show that they are in receipt on them but still nothing is forthcoming.

 

I have following the spreadsheet and on 1 card i am in the region of £7,000 shy of what should have been returned to me.

 

I have just requested that they email me them.

 

i have called the FOS and apparently i have to wait 10 weeks from the point that the FOS said that they should pay up until i can lodge another complaint.

 

may i ask if the FSA were interested or the FOS in your dealings.

 

as soon as i have the spread sheets im gonna post on here to see what everyone thinks but im guessing that they have been calculated just some kind of voodoo magic.

 

Matthew

[ken100464]

Matt.

 

FSA not FOS. My complaint just gone into FOS so nothing from them.

 

FSA said as is their want that they wont reply to individual complaints but if the background noise starts to part and the same complaint about the same company keeps coming up they will be having a look see.

 

So an email to FSA would be good if you have proof that they are shortchanging you on FSA/FOS guidelines. These are explicit in what the company should be doing.

 

The spreadsheet already flagged up on here is doing nothing of the sorts. As you say they are underchanging punters by at least half. I am not sure why many more arent picking this up

 

Not sure about voodoo magic its certainly some black arts they employ to get away short changing again after being caught with their fingers in the cookie tin.

[AfterMidnight]

Ken / (Matt)

 

Following from hearing, Ken, of your own subsequent reply a number of posts back, from our friends at MBNA, to our very similar situations, I have had since then, on my to do list, getting my FOS submission off and away. Funnily enough I sat down to do this finally tonight, something I had been putting off due to the complexity of making sure my arguement was utterly comprehensive and convincing. I did send MBNA one "oy!" communication directly after receiving the breakdown, and heard nothing back. I guess I have been suffering from procrastination owing to the complexity of assuring myself I am proving it all convincingly to your average FOS initial case worker. ...And trying to work out exactly what the bankers are up to with their method, so I can point this out myself comprehensively to a previously uninvolved person.

 

So - I will send off both FOS and FSA communications in much the same way you have, FOS one may not be as perfect as I would like. I know that they do not neccessarily expect the complainant to be knowledegable and guide the way, but experience from a previous FOS case (for something else) showed me that the adjudicator was more interested in closing and filing the case in a simple way, than neccessarily understanding all the points raised. At first anyway, until I suggested re-looking after an initial decision, which then resulted in a compromise success. May be a while before the FOS get around to looking at the case, I should be OK within the six months limit for a while yet...but will submit it now.

 

Will e-mail FSA too as said (presumably contact email easy enough to find on their site) to aim to add one more voice to the groundswell.

 

Will let you know of any movement, and hope goes well for everyone else too.

[ken100464]

Aftermidnight.

 

Be careful on your timings.

 

Despite me thinking its a seperate issue. They accept the PPI was miss sold, its the redress thats wrong. They let me believe they are looking at the second aspect waste time then in the last correspondence point out the time runs from offer which they then state was the final response. Not from when they decide the second issue has reached impasse

 

For me they then state the 6 months runs from then and even name a date upon which they would argue its time barred to FOS.

 

For them to be using that as a tactic indicates they are starting to feel heat. If they were so sure they wouldnt be trying to artificially manipulate time barring because they would be confident.

 

Like I said at the start my case keeps taking FOS back to the publically viewable FSA guidelines and FOS examples. MBNA are not doing either.

 

Yes FSA have an email on website.

[matttaylor3331]

hello

 

i have an update, its only taken a month but its a update

 

i have today, received the redress calculation results from MBNA and firstly there are a couple of interesting notes, one was carried out on the 8th december when it should have been and the other was carried out on the 8th July when i made my complaint to MBNA. which they rejected.

 

They have used 2 different builds to calculate one is V20_B022 and one is V20C_B031. i am going to post onto here tomorrow once i have PDF'd the two documents.

 

both sheets have errors in but one the associated interest is deffinitely building up and one keeps getting knocked down.

 

Ken do you have a contact at the FSA who you complained to and ill send the same complaint to the same person, failing that what was the address that you used to lodge a complaint to.

 

I some one can go through the figures as well and advise ill keep you all posted

 

Matthew

[ken100464]

[email protected] or [email protected]

 

They wont answer your complaint direct but will respond to say they have got it.

 

If you have two builds (which if giving different answers??????) then advise FSA of what you have to guide them.

 

I certainly only have the one build so unless they are saying one supercedes the other having two looks dodgy. You wouldnt spend time and effort creating two programs to achieve the same purpose unless there was something in it for you.

[ken100464]

My build is V20C_B031. Was run in late summer 2012.

 

I believe aftermidnights was the same and his was run within a couple of weeks of mine.

 

Would be very interested when your V20_B022 was run and if it bears any resembalance to the other one

[AfterMidnight]

My own was V20C_BO31 as Ken mentions, and I would be very interested in differences between versions too. Makes you wonder if they are evolutions of each other, or if there is a wall somewhere with a big flowchart that states if the customer's account ever occasionally clears, use this worksheet / alternatively under these diifferent parameters, use this other one. If so, then using different criteria, or applying inconsistently to suit is something of a no-no I understand. But the walls of MBNA Towers are very deliberately opaque....