MBNA PPI Award “Interpretative” Calculations?

[hermanthegerman]

http://oi44.tinypic.com/24zkghs.jpg

[hermanthegerman]

Hopefully the above works.It is the original letter of settlement I had from Mbna in Dec 2009.

[citizenB]

Thanks herman. I wonder how many others have been caught out like this ?

[ken100464]

Thank you Herman and well done on your re calculation.

 

With this evidence and the claims company on Angry Cats post it does make you wonder how many accepted these heres what we calculated heres your cheque letters?

 

Still makes you wonder if the Regulator/Ombudsman was/is actually getting its calculators out or was it just relying on those words " Calculated in accordance with the FOS guidelines"

 

Clucking bell I thought we were being done over. That initial award is 28% of what Herman eventually got. Interesting the one thing they never mess with is the one thing most people can add up. The actual PPI premiums once they have the SAR.

[up2meears]

Had a read through this thread after seeing Cit B sticky, very enlightening and informative. Well done Herman on your re-calc.

 

I too thought my calcs were wrong. I wrote and accepted their cheque in part payment and asked for a break down of how they came to the amounts. The reply I received was, we've paid you and we wont be looking at it anymore, and no they didn't send a breakdown.

As I was quite unwell I didn't pursue it (along with charges) but am fighting fit again now and have the energy to go for it.

 

My PPI was refunded in May 12 and consisted of

PPI £1,2xx.xx,

Associated interest was £5xx.xx

8% was £1.0xx.xx - I have no idea how they worked out the interest. Is it worth me asking them to look at it again?

 

Keep up the good work guys

Up2

 

p.s Court papers served for unlawful charges

[gettingsorted]

Hello and welcome Up2.

 

Go for it.......you have nothing to lose. I'm starting to wonder about my partner's calclation in 2011. Am writing to them to get a copy of their calculations for him.

 

GS

[ken100464]

Up 2.

 

Can only echo Getting Sorted. The thread follows our thought processes. We know there are these spreadsheets. We now very recently (in the last few days) know they were up to something before. We know between end of 2011 and June 2012 that they seemed to be calculating correctly when challenged but certainly seem to be doing something strange again now.

 

First stop methinks is to ask for how they calculated your redress by getting hold of that spreadsheet. Thread tells you what you are after.

[gettingsorted]

Up2 - Read the thread - please don'r lose heart in the first few pages as it can seem quite complicated - believe me - it took me a long time to get my head round it......

GS

[gettingsorted]

Good morning AM

 

Perhaps asking what factors/reasons in people's experience made FOS uphold a successful claim in people's favour may be an interesting one. There are also case studies on FOS site to search through

 

I used the same letter exactly for my claim in 2011 as I had used for my partner's earlier in the year (we did have the same reasons for misselling) his was upheld; mine was refused. Yet another example of MBNA's inconsistency ......

 

Still ploughing through the paperwork and researching !

GS

[AfterMidnight]

Morning again

 

Gettingsorted - yes,

you have to feel happy with it and feel you have done your best

- but there will come a point when any of your improvements are decreasingly incremental

and it has to finish at some point

 

Tricky to get balance once you are in that zone.

 

Since you seem to be one of the first with any progress on the particular issue of late-2012

-on MBNA redress calcs in recent times (that we are aware of)

- anything you need, bounce around on the thread

and I am sure some of us may have an opinion on emphasis or clarity.

 

Your point though is to try to win for you, yourself, as opposed to making every point of everyone's case

unless it helps your own, and that would be more than good enough for everyone else - I believe that I can safely say.

 

 

Paulaand - Although MBNA say their letter is final,

it does no harm at all to write to MBNA and offer them a final additional chance to settle outside of the FOS arena,

as it does not in itself preclude you from taking to the firm (or vice versa).

 

Chances are low, though, of them changing their minds, but for the cost of a stamp,

or e-mail effort, it may well be worth it, just in case.

 

If you can come up with any additional or more detailed reasons on yours being a misselling case, the better

- have a real think about reversing their argument that it would have benefitted

or been required had you needed it.

 

Would an employer have paid you if off ill anyway?

 

Was what exactly how little would be paid out under a successful claim clearly explained

(covers a lot less than one might assume) to allow you to make a value judgement.

 

Were you in somebody else's employment anyway?

 

Did you have any illness they did not ask you about? Your prime reason may be failure

of MBNA to explain the benefits and related costs of those clearly, but the more specific the better.

 

No harm in re contacting MBNA, but be prepared for a wait and get a

 

"we've said all we will at the moment till FOS" communication eventually back.

 

AM

 

AM

[gettingsorted]

Hi

Can someone point me to something which states that an account cannot be sold on whilst in dispute - I know I have read it somewhere but I can't seem to find it .

Thank you

GS

[dx100uk]

its only guideline that's all.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?214306-MBNA-Sold-My-Debt-Whilst-It-s-Still-In-Dispute

[gettingsorted]

Thanks Dx

GS

[GRUMPY OLD GIT]

Looks like I have also been short changed by MBNA!

Wonder, how many others will step forward?

[AfterMidnight]

Welcome to the thread Grumpy

 

We have built up our knowledge of the ins-and-outs of MBNA's PPI redress short-changing spree: based on people adding their bit to the overall picture - I guess you are more of a reader than a poster over the years, but I for one we would like to hear more of your story.

 

Same applies to anyone else following this thread who may consider posting their relevant experience. It is coming up for an interesting time as people who had this, and had an uphold earlier from FOS (so cases started a good while back) - are starting to reach the bit about explaining more to FOS adjudicators.

 

AM

[ken100464]

Grumpy what build number is your spreadsheet and where abouts in the saga are you.

 

FOS? Paid out? Just got you cheque? or just realised by reading this thread something isnt quite right

[up2meears]

Had a read through this thread after seeing Cit B sticky, very enlightening and informative. Well done Herman on your re-calc.

 

I too thought my calcs were wrong. I wrote and accepted their cheque in part payment and asked for a break down of how they came to the amounts. The reply I received was, we've paid you and we wont be looking at it anymore, and no they didn't send a breakdown.

As I was quite unwell I didn't pursue it (along with charges) but am fighting fit again now and have the energy to go for it.

 

My PPI was refunded in May 12 and consisted of

PPI £1,2xx.xx,

Associated interest was £5xx.xx

8% was £1,0xx.xx - I have no idea how they worked out the interest. Is it worth me asking them to look at it again?

 

Keep up the good work guys

Up2

 

p.s Court papers served for unlawful charges

 

I have had a reply acknowledging my email. Will let you know their response once received.

 

Am also trying to prepare my bundle for the charges which they have said they are defending

 

Up2

[GRUMPY OLD GIT]

Welcome to the thread Grumpy

 

We have built up our knowledge of the ins-and-outs of MBNA's PPI redress short-changing spree: based on people adding their bit to the overall picture - I guess you are more of a reader than a poster over the years, but I for one we would like to hear more of your story.

 

Same applies to anyone else following this thread who may consider posting their relevant experience. It is coming up for an interesting time as people who had this, and had an uphold earlier from FOS (so cases started a good while back) - are starting to reach the bit about explaining more to FOS adjudicators.

 

AM

 

Yes, I am not one for posting, unless I have something important to say.

 

MBNA, sent their PPI Redress cheque very quickly after I claimed my PPI refund.

I know from my own statement figures that the amount is incorrect. Therefore, I have written to MBNA for an explanation and documents relating to how they arrived at their calculation, of which I believe I am entitled.

[AfterMidnight]

Thanks Grumpy - you sound as though you have that sussed, and have your inquiry off to MBNA, as many of us did, at various times, over the last 16 months or so.

 

 

A few points I think may be useful to recap on for anyone arriving at this thread in a similar situation. The advice I would give anyone in a similar situation who may be reading - is to watch your timing on things. This thread is largely about anyone who received an award value calculated by MBNA for misselling of PPI - from summer 2012 onwards (and very probably also for a period of value calculation earlier backwards from a point in 2011). There seems to have been a period when it was broadly calculated OK, for a period at some point in 2011, up to June/July perhaps of 2012. Then, after that, a lot of awards have been highly questionable. If in doubt if yours seems OK, ask here I would suggest, or start up a thread of your own with the question. Typically, if yours is substantially less than you would perhaps expect from this being calculated another way: Then...what happens is:

 

a) After receiving either a directly approached, or through FOS upheld, "offer" - you get a simple letter from MBNA with a three line "calculation" within the letter adding up premiums and two types of interest - and then a quick cheque from MBNA.

b) You suspect something is wrong with MBNA's calculations/methods, or perhaps just with the almost indecent speed of willingness to give you a cheque without you seeing or signing anything!

c) A quick search shows you are not the only one. Either at this point, or earlier, you ask MBNA for their details of calculation.

d) Eventually you get an unaccompanied spread-sheet with MBNA's calculations, which is largely initially totally unfathomable, and different, and comes with no explanation. (the VO_BO numbers we refer to is this spread-sheet).

e) You may complain further to MBNA and pick on some points, or ask for more information please.

f) You don't get any more information, beyond perhaps some simple misdirection...if anything.

g) Your only recourse is to join in with the situation where most people who post regularly on this thread currently are: having complained to FOS, and possibly FCA / MPs, etc. too.

h) You.....wait.....a long time...and see if FOS have largely understood, OR have oversimplified your compliant perhaps to be one which merely does not understand that account reconstruction (as opposed to simple values/interest spread-sheet way) is, in principle, valid enough - if so, you discuss this a bit with FOS, with a risk that they potentially still very much miss the point perhaps.

 

FOS have perhaps really yet to appreciate or understand what MBNA is really doing - behind and masked by that chosen spread-sheet approach, so there is, as of yet, not a procedure or recognition or precedent weight in place there at FOS, as arguably they do not recognise or have a grasp of the nature of the problem as of yet. The above points around g) or h) is the furthest state of play reached with most people with similar complaints, as of yet, as far as I understand it.

 

Timing-bit-warning, is that MBNA may spin you out a bit, in terms of giving any information requested by you on the basis of your having received an initial value-calculation-based complaint. You offer letter date (and cheque shortly afterwards) was their final response as they see it. If you wait a few weeks for your spread-sheet, then spend a few more getting-you-head-around-it as much as possible, you may then query MBNA again and may they give you the old we will reply-within-four-weeks-from-now bit, then, emmm, four weeks later another "actually four weeks from now" letter... your time can easily be eaten up. To be safe: you have at latest in anyone's book six months from the date of MBNA's value award to then get a compliant that you are happy with into FOS. This is different than an initial PPI complaint, where you can generally go back a long time ago. My advice therefor is - assume you will get nothing of any value to your pointedly questioned letter to MBNA asking as to why they have miscalculated their offer. Use this time to have a FOS submission prepared on the basis you will get no sensible answer from MBNA. You can send this soonest to FOS after either 8 weeks from having no joy with your complaint, or - after you have received a final response from MBNA. If you take an approach the same way as MBNA do: that your (questionable) award letter is their final response, it would make a degree of sense to parallel anything you may be querying to MBNA alongside with a solid FSO submission - all happening at the same time.

 

In some cases - MBNA have, I believe, actually tried to state that their first ever response to your initial first ever complaint to MBNA , i.e. around the time of your first ever "I think this has been mis-sold" application, is in fact Day One for your overall complaint, which includes complaining about calculation value. That is they have tried to state that you had six months to complain to FOS at that point, and you didn't.

 

In summary then - IMHO - complain also to FOS as soon as you can: and just state that you are not objecting to the overall, in-principle, method that MBNA have chosen to use (account reconstruction) - but the cloaked fact that hidden behind this - there are assumptions, inventions, procedures, deviations and calculations, that all merit a look with a very critical eye - to reveal how consumers are being disadvantaged - with people's money being kept by the firm and their tax bills increased.

 

In theory it is FOS's job, not a member of the public's, to be able to be professionally critical, so at its most basic, a very simple form-based complaint to FOS, based around the above paragraph should - in an ideal world - suffice. But it does no harm at all having a familiarity with the detail arguments as expressed on people's posts, even if it does all get "it's kinda complex" quite quickly.

 

AM

[ken100464]

Good summing up AM of where we are indeed at.

 

For your own interest I have come across a July 2013 reconstruction with the tax taken off so must be nearly the latest version.

 

Interestingly the actual account did not have a full payment one month but there was a couple of hundred left within the balance. However the recon balance did go negative.

 

So MBNA have decided this is a full payment and done their calculation and everything that goes with it.

 

So they have made an assumption on an assumption when actually there is an actual event which did not fit in with what they want.

 

Scary if the regulators and FOS dont get this.

[AfterMidnight]

Hi Ken

 

That is interesting - I wonder if the "wonderformula" event is triggered by a formula, or a human. Guess we will never find out, largely irrelevant, but my guess is formula, probably based on payment value proximity to either calculated (say 5%), or a payment sum (say) within 90% of total. The arguably near-criminal thing they then proceed to do under the trigger circumstances is the main horror point though.

 

I may soon send some small appending supplemental information on my own case to the FOS, additionally spelling out F&M dubiety, the "every month" argument, etc. Given that it may be a time before they look at mine, though, I sincerely hope someone pauses for thought at FOS before then. An adjudicator recognising these MBNA calcs as, just possibly, being a bit beyond prior experience, and passing a few files to Calculations, with a hint or two of what to look for...would be a wishful, but good start.

[up2meears]

Well I've had a reply from MBNA and it's what I expected. i.e, we have paid the correct amount and that's the end of it - They have now provided a spreadsheet showing their workings (using build V20_B017 - still not sure how the build works despite reading the thread a few times )

Anyway, what I can't understand is how for example (using the JMP partnership redress) the difference between their PPI premiums and mine is just over £600. and yet the difference in interest is over £9500.00??

 

What am I missing here that they are saying this is correct. Is it because mine only goes back to 2000? or because the account was usually up to its max limit?

 

If somebody can explain this in layman terms I would be grateful.

 

They've put at the end of the letter Although I do not believe that we have done anything to warrant you writing to the FOS, that is your right Is this worth doing do you think?

 

Many thanks

Up2

[ken100464]

Top right hand side of your spreadsheet. Third column in. Is it named surplus redress?

[up2meears]

Hi Ken, thanks for looking in

 

No, it doesn't say anything like that. Looks exactly like After Midnights PDF in #4

 

Cheers

Up2

[ken100464]

Sorry think we miss understood.

 

Where the lines across start half way down there is a set of column headings. This should be directly below your total amount they say they owe you.

 

The third in on the right hand side says surplus redress?