MBNA PPI Award “Interpretative” Calculations?

[AfterMidnight]

Hi all

 

Not a great deal I can add, GS, to the above from ken in terms of explaining MBNA's methodology. Worth recalling though, for emphasis in your submission that a central tenet in all and every (FOS/FSA/FCA) publicly-available regulatory published "firm should do" - in terms of redress calculation - is to also explain clearly to the customer how it has been calculated. While the fact of this method's opaqueness on it's own, is arguably not sufficient cause for justifying a demand for an unquestionably mandatory recalculation: factors such as those you have identified highlight two things. One is that already mentioned lack of definitely-should-be offered transparency, while the other is that even though the firm have decided to calculate our redresses their own way (kind of permitted, if it is done in a fair way) then that the method they then choose to use unfortunately defies even a concerted examination by several interested and dedicated parties - who are consequently trying very hard to understand it even with provided calculation figures existing being as detailed as the firm is willing to supply.

 

If you think about it (perhaps worth putting this simply in your submission, just a suggestion) - any firm who chose to "go their own way" for redress for perfectly valid and honest and defendable reasons, would actually find it easier and less potentially troublesome if they explained chapter and verse in accompanying notes for each and every redress - as this is as clear-as-can-be as the requirement and/or advice as near or actual stipulation from "the authorities". Why invite risking slaps/trouble unnecessarily by being vague if there was no potential profit or gain in it. If the intention was truly to merely reflect better exactly the situation of individual customers, then some guidelines on how this method was nearer reality, and more appropriate than the published examples - would be genuinely beneficial all-round. If nothing to hide - then clarity is the best bet. If everything is kosher, then we, the firm, have nothing to hide, so therefor we will volunteer how it is all done, completely being within our documented rights to do so. Who would need any degree of obfuscation if their method was laudable and clear? Unfortunately this bank chose to send three sparse lines in a letter, with pre-arrived presented total values. Then (when really pushed) send a follow-up spread-sheet that defies concerted logical analysis? So, while, as said, lack of clarity - while not in itself a sure-thing for the obviousness of a recalculation - is certainly an indicator that deeper investigation and consideration for taking this seriously as a fundamental-problem case is merited by Mr/Ms Adjudicator. [ Step 1 is getting anyone looking at it to think independently - that - "hmmm, I see their (your) point here", - preferably on an instinctive, or felt "I don't get any merit in this either" (as opposed to a detached intellectual point of simply appreciating over-simply, that as in most things in life, people can have different views.).

 

So, a rambling way of suggesting here, GS, really, that the very, eh, un-understandability of it - is in itself a point worth drawing reasonable attention to, as I am sure you will have decided to do so anyway. You do not have to explain the exact mechanics of random and inexplicable entries that pepper and populate your VO37 calculation - drawing systemised attention to them is fair enough.

 

I ended up circling many of their spread-sheet value entries and listing them, and then referring to them in turn, when I submitted to FOS. While drawing attention to the more obvious and consistent or semi-consistent mechanisms that obviously disadvantage you, there were some inconsistencies I could find and did not or could not present any "perhaps-MBNA-justify-it-thus" ideas or statements for those points. Merely drawing attention to these entries - either apparently random, or caused by a well-convoluted unknowable formula or made-up rules - and their existence, I felt was enough.

 

I realise you will be looking for specifics to trip MBNA up with, in some sense, to reveal what the scoundrels are up to. But arriving at a consistent and all-explaining MBNA model may be a bit futile. This may simply be - that the best way that the firm arrived at for minimising the big payments that were rocking their foundations, was to adopt a non-standard method which was itself somewhat opaque. And...and...then take things... a step further. You may be looking for logic, in some of your points, where that simply did not exist. Most of the elements which are not understandable, are probably not the product of a rigorous approach. It is not difficult to imagine someone at Desk A producing the report using a deliberately-flawed but understandably so, computer model methodology. This passes to Desk B, where this offer is "improved" by making some arbitrary-by-human, and, identified-as-opportunity, decisions based on F&Ms determination, where that could indeed be "helpful". This then passes to Desk C, where the offer further "benefits" from someone (perhaps best described as creative but not careful!) whose task it is to swap things around, and take values out, and consider perhaps alternative ways of looking at things for "produced and not calculated" values - all to produce a lower redress. The Department then meets targets. This sounds all a bit cynical perhaps, but it does fit the facts of what we have seen. A very long winded way of me saying that I suggest you make the point of opaqueness well, without being hung up necessarily on feeling as though you have to explain all the weird-stuff. Where you have no "they did this, because they do it this way" reason to put across, just point to it, itemised as such, IMHO.

 

I guess I am saying really, that when you say - to us or FOS - that some of their calculations and steps are unfathomable - well that's the point really - and it is fair enough to simply state that fact while pointing them out.

 

Goal really is to make FOS uncertain enough of MBNA's method validity. That the easiest thing then, all-round, to ensure justice is done, is simply to ask the firm to recalculate exactly as per precisely a known basis that is considered and published as fair by FOS and FCA. (Example 6 anyone?)

 

I would expect the FOS process to broadly be that of considering your view (clarifying and doing so now) and then the corresponding MBNA response (once arrived), then at that point (albeit that there may be further to-and-fro steps later) forming an initial, even if unofficial opinion. They will either "buy" MBNA's thoroughly and expensively prepared let-me-explain-everything-there-is-no-problem-here explanation; or not. In your shoes, I would considering demanding (now), given the nature of the supplied very impervious/random calculations: that you require sight of any MBNA defence or justification or explanation of their calculation methodology - with responses to highlighted specifics raised in your case - as will be received by FOS from MBNA. Point out - that this is something that should have been given to you at the very first point of MBNA accepting your policy was miss-sold. You are merely requesting your rights. A thorough explanation to be passed on please. Perhaps that may not be permissible under FOS standard operating procedure, but well worth asking for strongly, I reckon. If anything, doing this should at least encourage FOS to take these as serious potential allegation of misdirection, as opposed to potentially simple "customer wants it one way, firm wants it another, what's new, ho hum".

 

So - all my encouragements in your summarisation to FOS, gettingsorted, regardless of how you end up doing so - once you have decided what to include and what to leave out. If you point out flaws in method, great. If you mention that no-one to your knowledge can remotely reproduce or understand any logical justification for some bits, that can be an extra point. Attack the explainable and unexplainable too, in my view.

 

AM

[gettingsorted]

Hello all

Yes its that time again ! I try not to look at anything in the evening or during the day - cause I can't concentrate

Thank you both AM and Ken....sorry about the grey hair ! I am greyish too but being female spend a fortune hiding it ! - you're help and overviews have been of great help - and hope they will continue. I have now printed off the whole thread so I can sit down and begin highlighting the bits I want to use and start to put together my further information for the adjudicator - I am not going to bring it down to precise mathematical figures - as you have both said and I agree that down that route lies trouble as we can never calculate it correctly. I am going to use the methods and phrasings and so on that you have both advised. I will probably disappear for a couple of days to drown in paperwork - unless there is something I really don't get !

Did you see this on this month's newsletter

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?404113-FCA-disagrees-with-60pc-of-smaller-banks-PPI-claims

Would it be an idea to mention it ?

Oh by the way in the middle of all this had a letter from FOS saying Barclaycard was going to make me an offer - I shall wait in anticipation for their calculations I think I might go back to Next after all this has quieted down.

Thanks

GS

[angry cat]

I would use anything you feel would help your case.

 

Shame the NWNF firm didnt say what they had found but it certainly was a healthy increase indeed.

 

Interesting link from AC

 

Yes, the link is indeed most interesting...

 

I have just discovered that I had a PPI claim upheld in 2009 and as per the link, the PPI Redress amount was/is incorrect!

Am in correspondence with MBNA currently and am awaiting the result of a FULL SAR that I have just made. I actually have all of my statements and original documents. However, I have specifically requested the formula/spreadsheet showing exactly how Gail Powell arrived at the figure re: the PPI Redress.

 

Please note, although MBNA upheld the PPI mis-sale (long battle) payment has on just been credited to me; long story...!

 

Further, I have a colleague who recently received Redress; that calculation was made on an reconstructed account. Again, the amount paid, is incorrect!

 

Obviously, MBNA Limited cannot count!?

[gettingsorted]

Keep us posted please Angry Cat ........thanks

GS

[AfterMidnight]

GS - you will be busy I am sure over the next few days, but you will find some opinions and thoughts on here from some of us I am sure, if you need those, and you ask for those.

 

Maybe it is just selective exposure on my part, but I do feel, (even if not actually necessarily for our exact complaints with MBNA) that there is a bit of a dawning regulatory/industry/public realisation that is not just the yes/no decision making that is and has been the problem with regards to PPI. How the redress is communicated and disclosed appears to be being highlighted more than in the past, when it was simply "they turned me down" that was only the order of the day for general exposure. Emerging evidence also indicates more doubt is merited over the (blasé) "we have just calculated this to be £x, here's your cheque" approach. Hence angry cat's timely pointer to the first of the two FCA thematic approach publications is relevant perhaps also in pointing to the prevailing mood towards (hopefully) consumers and regulators not necessarily accepting the first offer as right, just because the firm just say it is all done compliantly, under the consumer misapprehension that "its complex, they must be right".

 

Thinking about your expanded FOS "reasoning" submission (and apologies if this ever seems to be telling you things you already have considered well), a couple of minor thoughts. I would consider structuring it with the aim of remorselessly pointing out that your request for a neutral/untampered/acceptable recalculation - is the only and sole available way to end the apparent disparity between MBNA's own-brand and proprietary adopted statistical approach, and everybody else's. e.g. opaqueness itself hiding method justifies an open and proven acceptable-only recalculation / methodology in its own merit of inventing and mis-using surplus ...justifies recalculation / further arbitrary vanishings and inconsistencies (like F&M when suits) - justifies recalculation / applicable interest being presented as fact without calculation...justifies recalculation. If you can just slot in examples to prove these points, you will be well under way in my view.

 

Other point is that perhaps instead of just pointing out general industry mis-practice materials (where you could perhaps be wrongly initially considered jumping on an overall industry accusation overall bandwagon), it may also be worth more than hinting that you suspect you are the tip of the MBNA iceberg - it is the method and bespoke liberties that are at fault, not "the way you operated your account". The more realisation at FOS that they should not (in view of things perhaps to come) be accepting blithely a firm's word that it is all OK - the better, I suspect - for staff there and us.

 

So - find your own balance, I suggest, between hammering away at your own case, while also putting the fear into the reader that they may be strongly at risk of losing credibility by being one of the first to have exposure to, but then missing truly-understanding, what turns out in later retrospect to be a big and obvious (fined!) scandal.

 

Enjoy posting that letter, both for having done thorough detailed work, and in the mind-frame of tides beginning, perhaps, to turn a little.

 

AM

[hermanthegerman]

Just came across this on the net:

http://www.jmppartnership.com/page11.htm

 

Of course, I am not interested that the above comes from a NWNF firm, just the content!

 

Hi all,

 

I have spent the past two hours reading this thread.Regarding Angry Cats post about Mbna not being able to count I can confirm this.In late 2009 I had settlement via the FOS of around 3k for PPI.Queried within the 6 month period but got the usual guff about being in line with FOS guidelines so basically accepted that at face value.The fact that I was still paying off the account two years or so later in Jan 2012 was really bugging me,and I sent off an email to Ian Doherty(head honcho at MBNA) asking for a recalculation.The reply stated matter would be investigated and a few days later had a letter from them stating original calculation was 8k short and cheque duly rolled up three weeks later.If it helps anyone I still have both letters so could post up.

 

Along with many others I have been royally shafted by PPI redress over the past few years and wish I had read threads like this whilst my complaints were still at the FOS,unlike now when they are time barred.

[ken100464]

Herman

 

Welcome to the thread and thank you for the reply. Sight of your letters minus your id's would be most welcome. I believe with your permission if you allowed them to be part of GS reply to FOS they could be the factor requiring the adjudicator to look very closely at her reply, not wanting to be the person to be in the firing line if this starts to ballon into another scandal.

 

This would I think help in where AM was going with the idea for GS. To point out to the FOS adjudicator that we the consumer are aware of what MBNA are up to, that we the consumer are talking and spreading the word and that GS could be the start of another bank scandal that will not just engulf the bank but it could be seen to engulf the ombudsman service. Are they really impartial when they are activley shielding a bank not following its own guidance or the regulators rulebook so that that the bank can avoid paying out all what it has taken via a discredited insurance [problem].

 

We are telling the regulator, we are telling the ombudsman what to look out for and indeed pointing them, leading them to the point where this bank is not following what they are saying the banks should be doing. What more can be done. Press? Legislators, court action? Why would FOS wish to cover this up? Only one reason in it for them and that would be a strong allegation to make.

 

This should not be for the unsophisticated consumer to be having to do this it should be for the well paid regulators/ombudsman staff to not always side with the banks. Here is where Herman's letters would be useful. Evidence of an adjudicator who we as consumers trust siding with the bank who then years later has to admit that they calculated wrongly. The proof in the letter that the FOS didnt do its job.

 

If as the evidence is stacking up that this bank was up to something before and were doing it with FOS backing which then by the evidence now starting to appear has been proved to be wrong it beggars belief that 1) the bank has the cheek to attempt it again and 2) the regulator/ombudsman would trust anything other than a PS10/12 calculation from this particular bank.

 

Again thank you Herman for your post. As you say a pity this thread wasnt around in your day. Knocking ideas back and forth has been most helpful for me.

[gettingsorted]

Good morning

 

Yes please Herman it ould be most appreciated if we could have sight of the letters and I would appreciate it if yiu would allow me to use them with the fos. Have decided to contact the no win no fee company to see if tgey are willing to give me more info - they may want me to sign up.

Is it worth putting another post up with a very simple heading to see if we can pick up any more caggers like herman who have managed to get some sense with mbna or that are unhappy with their calculations ?

GS

[hermanthegerman]

Will post up over the weekend if that's okay.Need to work out how to do it too.When I get them up feel free to use them as you wish,even with the FOS.

[gettingsorted]

Thank you

GS

[citizenB]

Herman, that would be brilliant if you could post them up for us. I have posted some instructions below which should help, but if you are struggling, then just yell and someone will be only to pleased to help.

 

 

Dx100 – Instructions on uploading pdfs

Scan the required letters/agreements/sheets

as a picture file

remove all personal info including barcodes etc. using paint

but leave all figures and dates.

Go to one of the many free online pdf converter websites

convert the image to pdf format.

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

open a new message box here

hit go advanced below the message 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

NB: you can set where it goes in the post by hitting insert inline.

Then hit reply button

 

 

[ken100464]

If as we suspect something really is remiss then the regulator/ombudsman would be hard pressed to avoid anybody asking for this to be looked at again even if they settled yonks ago. As the regulator I think I would be asking MBNA to recalculate every claim back to whenever they can prove they were doing it as per the regualtors rules. Just my view tho.

 

Scandal upon a scandal. Press would love that. And the banks wonder why no one trusts them as far as they can throw them.

 

GS your post about a new thread picking up any caggers. Suggest as site team (citizen B) is watching then they would be the best to advise you on that idea. I have a feeling and have seen site team referring to this thread on other MBNA PPI threads.

 

And yes Herman thank you for the kind offer most appreciated.

[citizenB]

 

 

 

GS your post about a new thread picking up any caggers. Suggest as site team (citizen B) is watching then they would be the best to advise you on that idea. I have a feeling and have seen site team referring to this thread on other MBNA PPI threads.

 

 

 

Not quite sure how you would want to proceed with this. Perhaps if herman's posts were copied into a new thread - with a heading that identifies that MBNA had "got it wrong" first time round and have been forced to admit this and rectify the problem. With perhaps a link back to this thread.

 

Discuss it amongst yourselves and just let either me or another ST member know and we will sort it out for you

[citizenB]

I have just reread herman's post and notice the FOS were involved. So how did they let this one slip through ??

[hermanthegerman]

You are right Citizen B the FOS were involved with the initial award of around 3k.Theyre we're not involved when I asked MBNA to reconsider calculations for a second time in Jan 2012.Mbna just rolled over in response to my email of that time,which was a very nice email asking them to reconsider in light if some info I had on a different claim I made.There is more to this than I have summarised in my initial post on the subject.At no time did they mention I was out of time or quote the timebar.

 

Unfortunately I'm working now and tomorrow so can't do an I depth post with pics till Sunday but I promise I will.

[citizenB]

Many thanks, Herman.. no hurry.. when you have the time is good

[gettingsorted]

Not quite sure how you would want to proceed with this. Perhaps if herman's posts were copied into a new thread - with a heading that identifies that MBNA had "got it wrong" first time round and have been forced to admit this and rectify the problem. With perhaps a link back to this thread.

 

Discuss it amongst yourselves and just let either me or another ST member know and we will sort it out for you

Maybe we could start a thread along the lines of

"MBNA Redress - are they getting it wrong" or similar with a brief explanation and a link to this thread as I would never have found it without being pointed here.

GS

[hermanthegerman]

Jan 17

Brandrick, Matthew

Show details

Good Afternoon Mr

 

I can confirm that we have re-calculated the refund for your account ending as requested. I can confirm that the details of the refund are as follows:

 

Total amount of PPI premiums charged since sale date:

£2,537.74

Total amount of interest associated with the PPI premiums:

£7,840.64

8% amount:

£756.84

Less amount of refund already received:

£3,210.57

Total amount payable to you (having deducted the amount of the

previous refund) :

 

£7,924.65

 

A cheque has been raised and will be sent to you under separate cover. We have requested the cheque is created and sent as a priority.

 

Regards

 

Matthew

 

Matthew Brandrick

Executive Complaints Case Manager

 

This is the email I had from Mbna confirming recalculation.Will also post initial calculation they made in 2009 on Sunday

[citizenB]

Very nice indeed, Herman.. more so as it was unexpected

[AfterMidnight]

Thinking about gettingsorted's point too, about people finding/getting the thread: I had a review back through, (Herman - yes, it's long, when you work through it all). And while it makes interesting reading in terms of how some initial suspicions were eventually (by being bounced around and helped a great deal in getting there) evolved into a pretty good idea of what MBNA were up to (and seem to be still doing). I think that anyone coming afresh to it may need a bit of an overview of what the problem is to catch interest appropriately.

 

If worth doing. questions are perhaps then:

 

a) New thread with a more obvious "Your MBNA PPI redress calculation is/was PROBABLY DELIBERATELY WRONG", and a post then link here?

b) Promote thread to Sticky? (Not used as much as used to be? These (In MBNA section) could perhaps benefit from a bit of a clear out/update, perhaps - don't mean to sound ungrateful for what they are!)

c) Can anyone Edit the initial post (e.g. myself as OP) to give an overview of the thread for newcomers? Retitle it would cause problems I suspect, with links.

d) CitizenB's suggestion re. take it from Herman's post as another, but related, thread which points here too.

 

Any would seem fine to me.

 

AM

[AfterMidnight]

Looks like MBNA perhaps used arguably dodgy re-dress methods earlier, then cleaned up act, found it hard to bear, and then, in mid 2012, thought enough people had looked the other way to start up ignoring (or at minimum well-bending, and being highly creative with) enough rules to make the cumulative effect somewhat better for them.

[hermanthegerman]

On a break at work

 

As I said earlier I'd had initial adjudication from Mbna via FOS in late 2009 and really wasn't happy with the calcs.Sent letter to Mbna within six month period and their reply was that was calculated correctly.Felt I had no option but to accept that as so.There were others in the same boat on CAG ,Landy for one,who is mentioned on this thread.

 

In late 2011 I had settlement via the FOS for another MBNA account,a Virgin card.Id only paid £120 or so in PPI premiums but the contractual interest came to about 4x the premiums.It was obvious they'd calculated the redress differently.Once I had cashed that chq,I sent the query to Mbna asking why they'd calculated the redress differently in 2009 and 2011 on 2 different settlements.Then came the reply with the recalculated redress for the first Mbna card which I posted earlier.

 

Hope this all helps

[ken100464]

Herman

 

This is helping no end.

 

When things like this happen there is nothing like having facts to back you up when trying to work out a process.

 

MBNA seem fond of methods that do not treat the customer fairly. Your information plus Angry Cats link to the claims company proves that.

 

People like your goodselves must have felt like we were doing early on but followed it through and seem to to some extent been given the redress due.

I hope in time anyone following this thread will also be successful.

 

But what are the regulator's doing????????????? This is their job. This is what they are here for. If MBNA have been caught once surely a second time being creative is a big no no.

 

Early on in this thread we were asking people to email the regulator. I still have my reply so they cannot say they were not aware.

[citizenB]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?408152-MBNA-PPI-Redress-Have-they-got-YOURS-wrong-!!&p=4387184#post4387184

 

Ok guys, the thread dedicated to herman's successful recalculation can be found in the link above. I will also make it a stikky.

[gettingsorted]

Thank you citizen b

GS