MBNA PPI Award “Interpretative” Calculations?

[matttaylor3331]

hello all

 

 

this is my first post back in a while, and I still haven't heard anything back from MBNA. its in the hands of the FOS. I have a complaint with HBOS as well and I think they have short changed me by about £15,000 as well. this is in the hands of the FOS as well.

 

 

HBOS seem to be even more abrupt than MBNA (if this is actually possible) I have sent registered letters etc. and have had zero response. I currently have FOS on their case though after explaining that I don't think the amount is correct and I want a re working of the redress.

 

 

I mean surly I cant be wrong about £15,000 (HOBS) or £7,000 (MBNA). not when I have categorically agreed one amount of redress. something still smells a little funny. its good to see that the transparency of the situation is clear to all (NOT).

 

 

I live in hope that this will be sorted not just for me but to everyone on here that sees that there is something all a little odd about it all. IF we don't get what we all think is owed back to us then at least we know where the bankers bonus' are coming from. Merry Christmas to you Ken and AfterMidnight et al.

 

 

If I hear anything I will keep you all posted and suvin50 this is good news lets us know the update situation and how long has your complaint been with the FOS for a recalculation?

[AfterMidnight]

Hi Suvin50

 

 

Re: "I have just had a phone call from an adjudicator at fos. They are going to tell MBNA to recalculate their offer."

 

 

That sounds like good news, or at the minimum a good progression for you - will be interesting to see what they eventually come up with. Would I be correct in thinking your complaint there was more to do with estimates of premiums in a period where there was little records, as opposed to what they were doing with your known figures?

[AfterMidnight]

hello all

 

this is my first post back in a while, and I still haven't heard anything back from MBNA. its in the hands of the FOS. I have a complaint with HBOS as well and I think they have short changed me by about £15,000 as well. this is in the hands of the FOS as well.

 

 

 

Hi Matt

 

 

Good to hear from you and thanks for the best wishes. Generally I think many people here are awaiting attention at FOS and have been for some time. Time will tell as to when these all reach a adjudicator's desk - and see if they understand and get it all to any depth.

[suvin50]

My card ran from 1996 til 2006 but they had no records for the 1st 3 years. First offer did not include anything for the first 3 years but was calculated correctly using the old SS. I complained to fos who told them to use averages for the missing 3 years. They did this and recalculated the whole offer using interpreted calculations. So, for the extra 3 years, they increased the offer by £250. Using the original calculations it should be nearer £7000. Will see what happens now.

[ken100464]

Yes well done Survin and always good to know where we are all at with things.

 

Least you got a recalculation which I always thought could be the hardest thing to get FOS to order. Be interesting to see what version they come back with. Just holler if you need anyone to have a quick glance to confirm what version they have used. I would demand FOS demand a copy of the workings out for you to check. Be very good if you were able to post which version you had first and which version gave you the extra £250. Dates would also be good to see if they confirm what we think the timeline was for all this.

 

Since I last posted I had a closer look at my own claim and lo and behold I have occasions where they apply a Full because the recon goes into debit but the actual balance did not. They are not even following that very tenious paragraph in the FOS guidance.

 

Thank you Matt merry xmas to you also. Welcome back to the thread. As you will see its probably moved on from where were at before.

 

My claim seems to be stuck in same pile as AM's at FOS.

[suvin50]

I am still waiting for MBNA to provide info on which versions of the SS they used. First offer was made in April 2012 and was based on 6 years PPI premiums.

Breakdown of the offer was:

Total amount of PPI premiums: £2,763.07

Total amount of associated interest: £2,627.70 (no details of the interest rate that this was based on).

Applicable 8% interest: £2,261.18.

The revised offer was made in August 2013 and included the missing 3 years PPI payments. Breakdown was:

£3266 premiums

Associated interest £3617 (no mention of interest rate)

8% interest £996

Wow...how do they justify the revised figures?

[ken100464]

Magic lol thats how, MBNA magic.

 

But seriously well done there in getting a revised figure. Only advice is do what your doing and get hold of that spreadsheet. You have the latest calculation that I will have seen and I am interested on how that 8% has fallen so badly.

 

I doubt they will let you see both spreadsheets so it will be difficult to ever say how. But it dont look good does it. But this spreadsheet is key to going anywhere with it and they must and will be ordered by FOS to release it to you.

 

So good luck. Keep posting all valuable stuff

[GRUMPY OLD GIT]

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.

 

Good Morning,

With reference to the above, I have written again to MBNA requesting a full explanation of how their Redress spreadsheet calculates payments; a full breakdown of same. I have also informed them that their calculation is incorrect and that I require a re-calculation in line with the FSA/FCA Guidance. My letter was sent by Recorded Delivery and was delivered to their offices in Chester yesterday. I do not expect to hear back from them prior to Christmas, in the meantime I will be preparing my PPI complaint for the Financial Ombudsman Service, which I will post January 2014.

[gettingsorted]

Hello all - haven't been around as I have been really unwell ..... am finally getting everything together to send to the FOS and was wondering if AfterMidnight you would allow me to use the explanation in your post of the 29th October in my response to them.

Thanks

[AfterMidnight]

gettingsorted - more than happy for you to use any previous post as materials to quote from, or base from, in your submission to FOS. Glad you are now able to get things together now to send.

[ken100464]

Hope you feeling better GS

[gettingsorted]

Thanks AM

[angry cat]

I also hope that you are feeling better GS!

 

Looks like the FOS will be getting busier next year with their MBNA complaints...!

 

I am still waiting for the remainder of my SAR information, before I can proceed further.

[gettingsorted]

Sorry - I hadn't realised you had sent me get better wishes sometimes I do not get notifications about new posts.

 

Thank you very much - I am much better but have a way to go yet still;

GS

[gettingsorted]

Hi - nearly done; just need a some advice on how to phrase a couple of things ....

 

1. As regards the overlimit fees - how can I put that I have used MBNA's figures as a ???? to see where I would not have been overlimit but this does not mean I agree with their figures.

2. I want to ensure, as advised in this thread, that I see any response they receive MBNA - something the FOS do not necessarily do, how can I phrase this request. ?

 

Thank you

GS

[ken100464]

GS.

 

1) The way I have phrased my claim is to say I want x OL's repaid. I have used the CAG spreadsheet to list these not MBNA's. The reference to MBNA's spreadsheet is just confiming even on their figures, which you dispute, then these OL's were not OL's because your recon balance was below the stated limit. Therefore there can be no dispute on these OL's as both your figures and MBNA figures BOTH say you are below the limit.

 

2) I would just ask for it GS. Part of the complaint is MBNA are not being clear in what they are doing which is against disp 3.9.4. They should be explaining to you what they have done not hiding. How can you judge if if the redress is acceptable if the bank explains diddly squat. And if the adjudicator doesnt disclose this then just shows who side they on.

[AfterMidnight]

GS.

 

2) I would just ask for it GS. Part of the complaint is MBNA are not being clear in what they are doing which is against disp 3.9.4. They should be explaining to you what they have done not hiding. How can you judge if if the redress is acceptable if the bank explains diddly squat. And if the adjudicator doesnt disclose this then just shows who side they on.

 

 

 

Yes, agreed. If it were me at this point I would state it unmistakeably, but nicely, with a little indication that you may escalate if not. Something like:

 

 

" Please note that, owing to a substantial lack of provided information (against DISP 3.9.4 required practice) previously on the part of the firm, I now specifically ask that I wish to be given full and non redacted sight of the firm's response to you of the points I have raised. I would rather, please, that this was something copied into me on receipt, as opposed to my necessarily having to invoke FOI or SAR or additional rights either with your organisation and/or the firm. Your co-operation on this point is both requested in the strongest terms - and is also very much appreciated. Thank you in anticipation of this point being noted as an action point, awaiting action on receipt, at the front of my file."

 

 

As ever - if that helps in any way feel free to take any elements or ignore/simplify!

 

 

AM

[whatisdue]

Hi Ken / GS / AM / GOG.

 

 

I have not written anything for a while but am rest assured still following the thread. I had a e-mail from my adjudicator after they had got back to MBNA to try and explain why my my redress was producing 8% simple when according to their calculations my account balance never went into credit. The adjudicator said that MBNA were willing to give a refund of some £135 for O/L charges. This was after the adjudicator had accepted that the redress amount was fair and nothing more was oweing. I asked the adjudicator to explain to me how they had come to this figure ad also on what interest rate was the refund of O/L charges based on. As by my logical calculations the O/L do not add up to that. Also there is no interest added onto this which I know there would be given the very interest charged on the account balance of which the O/L charges is included. I also notice on the V20D_B037 spreadsheet that the £12 O/L charges are listed under a column called 'other transactions' which included other figures one @ some £4,000 and I wanted to know why this was ? if anyone can help or advise me on this would be grateful. Anyway the bottom line is that the adjudicator never got back to me on my questions of how the O/L was calculated and where is the interest and rate of interest charged on the £12 O/L and I never heard of the O/L refund again. Only to know that my case is in the queue for an ombudsman review and decision. I will write again asking for an explaination. I Also never heard anything on a comparison of redress using another build by MBNA say V20_B022 ad I have yet to use the recalculation ordered by ombudsman on ref DRN2983130 but rest assured I will after the xmas holidays are over and things are back to normal.

 

 

I greatly appreciate the advise and the help i have received on this thread in my pursuit of proper redress on my PPI claim from MBNA I wish everyone a happy xmas and that the new year brings and delivers us justice on our claims with MBNA.

 

 

Let us never give up in our fight in the battle for justice which will surely come !!

[AfterMidnight]

Hi whatisdue (and all) - have a good refreshing (refreshmentful?) break - and I'll look forward to hearing and sharing how progress is for everyone in the early part of the year.

[gettingsorted]

Hello all - hope you had a good Christmas and New Year; unfortunately I'm still struggling with my health but getting there.

Do you recall I wrote (or my OH did) to ask for his calculation from 2011 and we thought it would never turn up - well on Christmas Eve a spreadsheet arrived with a short 2 line letter - of course no explanation, so obviously the leopard doesn't change its spots ! but I think its a new version V20D_B040 and you are not going to believe this (well maybe you will as its MBNA) but it doesn't agree with the refund he received in 2011 ! They may have shot themselves in the foot here .

The premiums are the same but the Assoc interest on the s/s is some 1300 less; the 8% is some 399 more and the award is some 900 less.

If anyone is interested I shall post it up for perusal.

Final papers going to FOS this week....

GS

[AfterMidnight]

If anyone is interested I shall post it up for perusal.

 

 

Hi GS

 

 

Very interested indeed to have a look, presumably new version (last I heard I think was BO38) has tax deducted at source - or maybe it doesn't get in to that. If you post up when you have the time that would be good. Still have the accompanying letter from 2011 which "explained" the calc total that the new spread-sheet one differs from? Putting that up (de-personalised) too? "Lurve" to see them explain that one away....

 

 

In any case, hope you feel better as year goes on.

[gettingsorted]

Here are the papers from MBNA: the initial offer letter - which was the money we received and the spreadsheet received in on Christmas Eve !

Look forward to hearing your opinions.

GS

[AfterMidnight]

Hi GS

 

 

Thanks for posting the two "versions of events" - pretty blatant example of the, eh, art and craft of mis-selling PPI redress minimisation by MBNA. There may well be more debate and analysis, but, at first look only, you have yourself something quite convincing that later creativity by the firm has an "unintended" effect of allowing them to retain what is customer's money in comparison to a version that was "more PS 10/12 compliant" as per used earlier. Certainly something worth drawing attention to as divergence at MBNA, but TBH I will have to remind myself a bit more still through reading older posts of your case - to see how this perhaps helps best your own current argument.

 

 

If you look at period around June 2002 in your MBNA spread-sheet you will see that under, ehm, MBNA's current understanding of their rights, they felt they could charge you interest when they owed you more than you owed them. Ignoring the smokescreen MBNA version of your reconstructed balance, that is very clear. They decided using their own selective criteria that they could then label (overpayment) and process (8% simple from then on) accordingly some sums - as your payment of that time was near full. Full, that is, of your MBNA-version "reconstructed balance", not your actual... of which it is somewhat adrift. A good point to grasp.

 

 

Further analysis probably required, and in some senses this is not what actually in any case happened in reality in this particular case: but period of 2007-8 starts to look quite almost "amusing" if it were not such a serious point. They happily monthly charge you around Feb 08 : £2.50 plus on balances of c. £100, and... with a straight face give you c £22 interest on the £3600 odd they owe you. So - they give you less than a quarter of their charge rate - and theirs is cumulative, yours isn't. Two cases of one rule for the bankers....?

 

 

Basically, you can't even tell if your earlier (still in figures unexplained) award was PS 10/12 compliant, but this does show that something is badly amiss in several places.

 

 

As said, will need to remind myself of your context again, but your job is probably boiling all this down to further embellish that complaint...more reason than ever to request a truly PS 10/12 compliant redress value being recalculated.

[ken100464]

Cant add anymore GS.

 

Its all same same and indicates just what a fantasy the later spreadsheets are.

[gettingsorted]

Thanks both - yes totally agree with you both; this is what in fact made me start wondering as my OH's award was much more than mine - yes I knew he had paid more but the interest did not seem right; when he received his offer I had used the old cag spreadsheet and it was within a couple of hundred pounds but on mine it was out by a long way.

I am now rejigging my response to the FOS because of this.

 

Thanks AM for those points which I shall add in; that's the next section I am working on.

speak soon

GS