MBNA PPI Award “Interpretative” Calculations?

[ken100464]

whatitsdue.

 

Further from AMN's answers above my comments are as follows.

 

By allowing yourself to be sidetracked by the interest part you are in AMN's words allowing the opposition to field a 17 man team against you.

 

To get to disprove the banks interest calculations you are going to have to have access to a banks mainframe computer and all your data for the life of your account. If you get a SAR, within it will be a transaction log. Its about here that you realise that you need a much better computer model to prove or disprove anything.

 

But what about the 17 man team.

 

Read this go to about halfway down. Pays the account off in full or pays minimum. Thats the two bits you need to study and quote at your adjudicator. Its his guidelines built from the regulators rulebook. It isnt our rules its his own.

 

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/ppi/redress.html

 

Now read it closely and see the words ALWAYS and CONSISTANTLY. Is that what your account did???????????????? If you did then the bank IS allowed to do what its doing.

 

But crucially if you didnt then they shouldnt. So what is this 8% additional payment. Yes thats what it is. An additional sum to compensate for having your money.

 

But this is the 17 man team. The bank is SWAPPING the contractual interest for this 8%. You lose. And lose big time. This is the difference. Your adjudicator is being misled and being lazy and a fool.

 

He is allowing the bank with fancy words to mislead him to a position where he is disregarding disp 3.7, PS 10/12 exp 6 (both regulators rulebook) and FOS own guidelines. Just because the bank is saying its giving you an extra 8%. Yes its giving you an extra 8% after missapropiating the same amount at your contractual rate at the time.

 

That is the 17 man team. The adjudicator (the ref) is a homer and will allow blatant fouls by the home team. Appeal to his rulebook until the ref is in such a corner he cant rule anything but for you.

 

Your interest thoughts although interesting and probably right are without a mainframe unproveable.

 

The 8% additional (swapped) is proveable and has a rulebook and guidelines to back you up. Point the adjudicator to this and point out ALWAYS AND CONSISTANTANLY are not possible if both types occurred within your account. And if your spreadsheet has F and M's that is exactly what they are saying. That the meanings of ALWAYS and CONSISTANTLY do not mean what the dictionary says they mean. Funny old world I actually understand ALWAYS AND CONSISTANTLY to mean something different to MBNA.

 

So ask your adjudicator who should he rule for. You a consumer who just wants your redress calculated by the regulators preferred method (a method MBNA were doing till summer 2012 after being caught doing something similar to our complaint before) or a bank who isnt using the regulators method, isnt using the ombudsmans (his own company) guidelines and is abusing meanings of english words to short change a consumer yet again after they have been caught miss selling. ????? They are supposed to put you back into a position you were as if the ppi hadnt been applied. By not removing the full contractual interest that accrued over the accounts lifetime from the PPI premiums then how are they putting you back to where you should be???????

 

Lazy adjudicator.

[AfterMidnight]

One other small point in addition to ken's above post. Even if you or anyone else does not have both full and minimums (F&Ms) on your calculation breakdown from MBNA - there is another argument too. That is the "calling" or "painting" of payments as such of either criteria by MBNA - is usually done non-consecutively across months - unless you indeed always did either behaviour across the entire period where PPI premiums were taken. So - I would expect if that has not been the actual case, you may have, whatisdue, some months identified as being F'd or M'd - and some months which were held to be not - and neither of those are invoked for that month's spread-sheet entry. I suspect a formula based on "near-enough" flags such payments as either criteria. So, if say, you had just Ms and not Fs, but these are not for every month - then that is identifying within the four-corners of their own supplied spread-sheet, that this behaviour did not apply consistently...(see ken's point about that).

 

 

And...have a look at your sheet and see if what they declare F and M actually make sense as being painted as such. Interest complexities can make that not clear-cut, but I have seen some examples where defining one of those appears to be stretching credibility somewhat, even if MBNA claim it was your conceptual intention to pay all or least possible value, regardless of if you did or not.

 

 

Highly questionable interest-rate swapping procedures (card and surplus - being cumulative retail rate; and 8% simple pots), based on frankly wrong and completely misapplied interpretation of the rules (F and/or Ms can be used occasionally!), and all itself based on assuming within their unique-style calculations: payment values to be something that works to MBNA's advantage (painting some payments as F&M). Yet the firm reply with a straight face. Or maybe the straight face is applied very temporarily when dealing only with public and adjudicators...an expression we can hope may be changing permanently soon once what is procedurally being done is caught on to...

[ken100464]

Whats its due.

 

If you post up your MBNA spreadsheet either AMN or myself might be able to see a Full that blows all the above rubbish to your adjudicator out the water for you.

 

Up to you if you wish us to look. Just mask everything applicible to you. The spreadsheet number is of course of use to the overall cause as it shows an evolving MBNA mind and therefore not a simple mistake.

 

My humble apologies if you already have but this thread is soooooooooooooooooooooo long now it is war and peace on steroids.

[whatisdue]

Ken, A.M. everyone

 

 

Many thanks for your input again.

 

 

I must admit I was nervy about doing what you have asked before. Though things have gone so far with the adjudicator and with the fantastic help I have been getting from yourselves. I am now quite confident to post up my calculation sheet and letters from the adjudicator. Please give me a few days to get this done.

 

 

In the meantime please read the response from the adjudicator on my request as per 3.9.4.

 

 

Also can I have your comments on the possibility of a provisional decision is this a good or bad thing as I await for a decision on my case ? read on ...

 

Thank you for your email. I am looking into your requested for copies of MBNA’s correspondence with our service and I will be in contact shortly regarding this.

I note you have raised several queries regarding your redress calculations. As I have explained previously your complaint is currently awaiting allocation to an ombudsman for a fresh review of the evidence and facts. Due to the number of complaints we are dealing with our waiting times for allocation to an ombudsman are longer than we would like, and I am conscious of how long you have already been waiting. Therefore, so that your complaint is not delayed any further I will make a note of the points you have raised and mark it for the attention of the ombudsman to consider prior to them making their decision.

It would be helpful if I explained what may potentially happen once your complaint has been allocated to an ombudsman. An ombudsman will review the whole file and weigh up the evidence. They will then determine whether any additional evidence or information might be needed. In the event that something is needed an ombudsman may issue what we term a provisional decision. A provisional decision indicates what the ombudsman is minded to say in his final decision, however it is tempered by the invitation to both parties to provide any comments or evidence they might wish to.

In your case it may be that a provisional decision may be appropriate and the ombudsman will decide if this is the case within a month of receiving your file and we will contact you to inform you.

 

 

Whats its due.

 

If you post up your MBNA spreadsheet either AMN or myself might be able to see a Full that blows all the above rubbish to your adjudicator out the water for you.

 

Up to you if you wish us to look. Just mask everything applicible to you. The spreadsheet number is of course of use to the overall cause as it shows an evolving MBNA mind and therefore not a simple mistake.

 

My humble apologies if you already have but this thread is soooooooooooooooooooooo long now it is war and peace on steroids.

[ken100464]

Whatisdue. I suspect all the adjudicator is saying is it's too complicated for him so he is passing it up the line. Nothing more.nothing less.Now it is time to get you head really around the method and get any additional information you can into FOS. Don't delay now as this is live and your decision good.or bad is imminent. GET THAT STUFF POSTED ASAP otherwise we won't have time to help you.

[AfterMidnight]

whatisdue - yes, it probably just means that even when the adjudicators boss (ok, not strictly, more a more learned colleague) has a look at it, they may not give a definitive answer but one that is couched in "this is what I think so far". I don't know how many Ombudsperson's initial decisions are later revised by themselves (few I suspect), so a very good time to get your argument sharpened if possible, and I do not doubt your keen-ness on that front. If you do post up here your MBNA spreadsheet (remove names and account numbers, leave figures, headings, calculation type number) there are a few people on here who can likely give you some very targeted (if not necessarily simple) specific points and supporting info to fire off based on their thoughts so far based on similar situations. This may involve changing the focus of your "argument" a bit to make sure the significant bases are covered and deprioritising some elements. I can see why you may have held off an SAR ask, to perhaps then include any current stuff, but I think the time has come to also do that - it will take some time anyway.

 

 

Lastly on the provisional bit - if done, it is a bit of an FOS expediency I reckon - they fire off their intended likely (if not deepest possible) response, if you accept it then that is endpoint. Same with MBNA, in less binding way. It is a kind of simplifying step that says "lets see if anyone admits defeat based on what seems to be the case here". If so, this means no further FOS effort is required - and could be a proposed compromise, or a finding for you, or for MBNA. Lets see what we can do to make that finding for you. Although first crunch time is likely approaching, it may take a time for all that to filter through - I understand in a further expediency they send the preliminary decision (sometimes anyway) to the "losing at this stage" party first to mull for a time, and non-reply is considered probable acceptance.

 

 

Further submission from you may not reduce the time between now and an Ombudsman taking a look, but may extend that process a little , once started. over time. This may be a necessary evil....

[whatisdue]

Whatisdue. I suspect all the adjudicator is saying is it's too complicated for him so he is passing it up the line. Nothing more.nothing less.Now it is time to get you head really around the method and get any additional information you can into FOS. Don't delay now as this is live and your decision good.or bad is imminent. GET THAT STUFF POSTED ASAP otherwise we won't have time to help you.

 

 

 

Ken, A/M, everyone,

 

 

please find attached my build V20-B037 ( I left in the prod account number) and also the letter from MBNA that followed a couple of weeks after the calculation sheet was sent. Also attached are the two letters from the FOS adjudicator on questions I had raised. Notice the answer on the 8% is different to the one I received on e-mail after by the adjudicator had got back to MBNA on why 8% was producded on an account in debt. The rest of the communications between myself and the fos are on e-mail which I can post to you if required.

[ken100464]

WHATISDUE Thanks for this. Your adjudicator doesn't understand the problem. They quote what the bank is supposed to do then accept what the bank is telling them is correct. Basically the adjudicator isn't questioning the sums just accepting them.on face value. They are describing ps 10/12 exp 6. The banks spreadsheet looks like ps 10/12 so it's all good. But the adjudicator is being hoodwinked. Far from me to say what to do and it is late and I want to look at your spreadsheet closer. But you can take it from me what the adjudicator is saying at the start of his letter and then what he is allowing MBNA to do is not the same thing. So it's clear FOS do think the bank is doing it right. But they ain't so hopefully when it dawns on them that they are being taken for mugs this is really going to blow up. Drop you interest rate arguement and focus on methodology is my advice. If it was me I would be refuting the argument that MBNA are doing what the adjudicator in his letter says they should be doing. And if he doesn't believe that he is being taken for a mug he needs to run your figures through a computer model he knows is compliant. He might be in for a nasty surprise. But also he could make a name for himself for uncovering a brewing scandal. For if that letter is really what Fos think is happening then trouble is brewing. Just give us a day or two to.look at your spreadsheet. Do you have a date to reply by?

[ken100464]

Whatisdue. Read both did letters. Both are quoting ps 10/12 and then go on and try to justify MBNA figures. Both letters are wrong in their understanding of MBNA figures. As you have pointed out how if your account isn't in credit are you getting 8%. Not possible when they actually quote you get this when in credit. Mate seriously method method method. Quote back at an WHAT they are saying should happen and ell them that it isn't happening. Tell emergency.to put their name to that decision an they could be seriously embarrassed soon because they didn't check. And if they feel they don't have the maths skill to deal with it then let's have a.maths ombudsmen. Because this is what this needs. Keep on at em your doing great. But quote their letters back to them and say this isn't what MBNA are doing. Perhaps ask when was the last time a consumer's claim was actually checked maths wise by either FOS or FCA. Because they may well be surprised here.

[whatisdue]

Ken,

 

 

A quick note to confirm as of yet I have no reply date. The last contact with the adjudicator was for 3.9.4 request to see all correspondence sent by MBNA to the adjudicator to say they are correct in my redress and for the adjudicator to be satisfied it is . I have not see a thing on this and yet despite my findings i.e transfer of monies from high contractual rate to return at 8% The adjudicator remains satisfied redress fair and reasonable. I would not have thought that anything such as a provisional decision can be made until I receive the information on what MBNA have told the adjudicator. I was advised it would be at least a month. I posted this adjudicator response previously.Many thanks for your help along with A.M. and anyone else who can help me.

 

 

I believe that I really need examples of flaws in the methods to show recalculation as per FCA app 2 ex 6 is the only way to resolve this. I am hopeing that with your help I can achieve this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WHATISDUE Thanks for this. Your adjudicator doesn't understand the problem. They quote what the bank is supposed to do then accept what the bank is telling them is correct. Basically the adjudicator isn't questioning the sums just accepting them.on face value. They are describing ps 10/12 exp 6. The banks spreadsheet looks like ps 10/12 so it's all good. But the adjudicator is being hoodwinked. Far from me to say what to do and it is late and I want to look at your spreadsheet closer. But you can take it from me what the adjudicator is saying at the start of his letter and then what he is allowing MBNA to do is not the same thing. So it's clear FOS do think the bank is doing it right. But they ain't so hopefully when it dawns on them that they are being taken for mugs this is really going to blow up. Drop you interest rate arguement and focus on methodology is my advice. If it was me I would be refuting the argument that MBNA are doing what the adjudicator in his letter says they should be doing. And if he doesn't believe that he is being taken for a mug he needs to run your figures through a computer model he knows is compliant. He might be in for a nasty surprise. But also he could make a name for himself for uncovering a brewing scandal. For if that letter is really what Fos think is happening then trouble is brewing. Just give us a day or two to.look at your spreadsheet. Do you have a date to reply by?

[ken100464]

Whatisdue.

 

Good no time scale so gives AMN time to look in also as I value his view.

 

Please could you be so kind as to post what you adjudicator sent you re the 8% AFTER they had contacted MBNA again. Lets see if the wording is still compatable with PS10/12.

 

Just to get you started tho look at your line 22 May 09. You paid £75 that month. Thats what really happened and that is what FOS are saying the bank should use to construct your notional balance. So the figures on the left are what really happened on your account. You have to take MBNA's word on this because without statements or a SAR you cannot prove or disprove these figures. (My SAR agrees with this side of the spreadsheet so dont be fretting too much here)

 

But what do MBNA do.? They say that you paid a minimum that month so it is their right to now work out what you would have paid if there was no PPI on the account and therefore your balance had actually been lower. (They will say they are following FOS 2013 guidelines. The ones we have posted. The ones that say they can do this if you the consumer CONSISTANTLY paid minimums. But what does CONSISTANTLY actually mean and what did FOS mean by CONSISTANTLY.) My definition of consistantly means what most peoples would be. That a string of repetitive actions occur. So MBNA by doing what they are doing are saying you are CONSISTANTLY paying a minimum payment. Its up to you if you agree by looking at your spreadsheet if you feel that you have consistantly been paying minimums.

 

All other spreadsheets I have seen have full payments on aswell so yours is slightly different but it does mean we are only talking of one sum they are doing wrong not two like all the other spreadsheets. I personally think although there are alot of minimums on the spreadsheet anyone would be hard pressed to say that you were consistantly paying minimums.

 

Ok back to line 22 May 09. So MBNA have decided you paid a minimum amount off the account that month. (Perhaps this is why statements were never forthcoming in MBNA SAR's? Because it would be easy to check wouldnt it as the minimum payment has to be on a statement to give the consumer an idea of what to pay. Otherwise we wouldnt know. How convienient MBNA.)

 

Right so what do they now do. Simple they work out what the minimum payment would have been if your account had a balance of £5513.97 (very right hand column) which is your notional (recon) balance. They say a minimum payment on this notional balance would have been £73.28. Surprise surprise this is what is under the column AMOUNT in the centre under reconstructed payment. Next to this is a sum of £1.72. The difference between what you actually paid and what MBNA are saying you would have paid if they hadnt miss sold you PPI. (Nice to know an assumption is worth more than what actually happened. And interesting one of your FOS letters stresses this is what they expect the bank to use. Actual payments)

 

Now here is the trick. What is the point of applying arbitory maths to an account, dressing it up as something FOS seem happy for the bank to do if a particular consumer behaviour applies and then leaving the bank with a sum of money which doesnt seem to have a home. (The £1.72)

 

And this is where you lose your money (associated interest). The FOS guidance seems to indicate that where the bank decides you CONSISTANTLY are paying minimums and the bank decides to work out what you have overpaid because they think you would have continued to pay minimums with the new balance then the bank should compensate you for having your money. They do this by awarding you 8% simple on this sum of money. But what FOS guidance doesnt say is that the bank is allowed to remove this money from the account/notional balance. This 8% simple on this sum is in addition we think to the PS10/12 exp 6 sum. ie the bank is going one step further and compensating you more than PS10/12 exp 6 would have.

 

But what do MBNA do. Back to your line May 09 . In April 09 your redress was £130.47. (this is made up of PPI premium and associated interest over the preceeding 3 months) Now take your original balance for May 09 £5688.55 subtract £130.47 =£5558.08. Now subtract both the ppi premium and associated interest for that month. £5558.08 - 45.37- 0.46 = £5512.25. On PS10/12 exp 6 compliant workings out this would be your new notional balance. Now what do MBNA have ??? £5513.97. A difference of ??? oh yes £1.72. Your notional balance is £1.72 more than it should be. Why does this matter?

 

Its where the trick is. Well that £1.72 because it is still in the notional balance attracts interest at the card rate for the lifetime it is in the account. Indeed that £1.72 unless you closed the account has been busy attracting associated interest since May 09. In return they are giving you 8% simple on this £1.72. You are losing the difference of interest at the card rate applicable at the time and 8%simple.

 

As each month goes by that they declare a minimum then the amount they have shifted becomes bigger. By the end of your account they have moved £776.86 this way. That is £776.68 that is not having its associated interest removed from the account and therefore why your calculations and MBNA's dont match.

 

Come back if you dont understand any of that. The trick is fiendishly well hidden. Concentrate on that one line. Accept all their figures as correct for the timebeing. Your actual account is what happened on the left. Your acual balance is under balance. Thats what actually happened.

 

The reconstructed payment is the method they use to find sums to remove from your account. It sorta follows FOS guidance except FOS says the consumer must CONSISTANTLY have paid a minimum. FOS guidance seems to allude to the fact they should if they are using this be paying the 8% in addition to the PS10/12 exp 6 method not as an alternative.

 

I can only say once you get it then it all becomes simple and you will be able to use your own words not mine to bring FOS to account. But concentrate on that one line. Get that and every other line with a M on that spreadsheet does exactly the same.

 

From everything I have seen in your correspondence so far FOS think PS10/12 exp 6 is what MBNA are following. But I would bet my house they are not actually running the figures so are relying as we have found out on the banks positive assertion that they are following what they should be following.

 

Method keep it to method and you should eventually get a recalculation hopefully.

[ken100464]

To help you here is the FOS guidance again.

 

consumers who consistently make the minimum payment each month

 

Another example where a consumer might have paid a different amount to their credit card account is where the consumer consistently made the minimum contractual credit card payment each month. In that case, it seems likely that instead of paying the same amount to their credit card account without PPI, the consumer might have paid the (slightly smaller) minimum payment rather than the amount they actually paid to their credit card with PPI.

Based on examples of good practice we have seen, the example below shows how a business might set out how it has calculated compensation for a mis-sold regular-premium PPI policy added to a consumer’s credit card where the consumer consistently paid the minimum contractual payment

 

 

what we have calculated

 

• if you had instead taken out your credit card without the PPI policy, your credit card balance today would be £2,642.94. We know this because we’ve looked at your credit card account from the day it started until now and worked out what the balance would have been without the cost of PPI and any interest and charges you paid as a result of PPI being included on your account; and
  
• the payments you have paid have been slightly higher than the payments we have assumed in our calculation. The difference between the payments you have paid and the payments we have assumed you would have paid to your account without PPI is £518.73.
  

what we will do

 

• We will cancel the policy for you and will pay to you the difference between your credit card balance today (£5,832.91) and what your credit card balance would have been without the PPI policy (£2,642.94), which is £3,189.97.
  
• In addition we will refund to you the extra monthly payments you paid as a result of having PPI added to your credit card and we will also add interest at 8% per year simple to compensate you for the loss of use of that money. That adds up to £518.73 plus interest of £127.60.
  
• In total therefore we will pay you £3,836.30 compensation (£3,189.97 plus £518.73 plus £127.60).
  

[ken100464]

Reading that again not so sure you want to be asking for this to apply in addition. Think you want to argue that you didnt CONSISTENTLY pay minimums so want a PS10/12 exp 6 calculation.

 

Hopefully some bedtime reading for you.

 

Good luck

[whatisdue]

Reading that again not so sure you want to be asking for this to apply in addition. Think you want to argue that you didnt CONSISTENTLY pay minimums so want a PS10/12 exp 6 calculation.

 

Hopefully some bedtime reading for you.

 

Good luck

 

 

 

 

 

Ken,

 

 

I am still trying to get my head round the example you have given me. I still need help on this. Though there are some things that I think are very important to point out first.

 

 

1. I did make minimum payments on the card from about May 09 to about February 10.

2. I started overpaying the minimum amount from February 2010 to June 10 to bring myself back under the credit limit of £5,700 as you can see on the spreadsheet.

3. Then from July 10 right up the end of January 2013 when my PPI stopped I consistently and I must stress ; (this is why I knew my redress was wrong when I received it as the new balance each month was more reduced by my overpayment than paying the minimum amount which took very little off the balance which of course included the PPI element. I consistently overpaid the minimum amount on my credit card by an average of £50 to £60 a month in an attempt to the clear the debt.

I can give you an example as I have one of the statements

The month of October 12 had a PPI amount of £34.05 (classed as payment protection cover on balance of £4,276.73 on 21/9/12). I paid £155.00 for that month. The minimum amount for the month was £97.69. Please remember that MBNA credit card payments are in arrears. Though this example clearly shows what I did from July 10 up to January 13.If you look at the spreadsheet on the right hand side you will see my payments are consistent under the Pmts column. I can assure you that bar a few payments from February 10 to January 13 the vast majority were overpayments of the minimum amount.

 

 

Also I must point out that the card was frozen from about when I started overpaying on the card from about February 10 to January 13.

 

 

The Answer the adjudicator is on page 18 for the explanation of the produce of 8% on a debt balance. The adjudicator said MBNA apply surplus balances as well as credit balances. In my case I had been given something extra with a surplus balance I.E paid £100 reconstructed payment £75.00 to give a surplus balance of £25 earning 8%. AMN commented that this was right but wrong in my case. I would like examples to prove this. I hope you can help me. I really do appreciate everything done for me on this thread

[ken100464]

Whatisdue.

 

Well all you have to get then is statements showing that you overpaid and therefore MBNA have no right to call these minimums from July onwards. get them and then the whole thing starts to unravel.

 

Ask FOS if they can get them for you as MBNA are reluctant to hand them out just giving a transaction log. You can work out a consumer forum spreadsheet with the data from that but I was not really thinking. The statements would show these minimum payment requirements so the consumer would twig that actually you aint paying a minimum at all. Good for you another avenue to attack. Who gave MBNA the right to call these as minimums?????? When if your memory is correct you were actually paying more? An actual payment FOS says they should be using or a mythical figure they made up because it suits them?

 

The fact the card was frozen is ok. Just means you have less figures to play with which in the web thats been weaved is no bad thing.

 

After you had digested my post earlier I was going to point out these payments and minimums looked pretty steep and therefore not right.

[ken100464]

" MBNA apply 8% to credit and surplus balances. Surplus balance is the difference between the actual payment made and the reconstructed payments . I.E. paid £100 reconstructed payment £75 so £25 goes to surplus and earns 8% on a surplus balance rather than a credit balance.

 

 

This one Whatisdue?

 

Well yes that would be true if your account followed the FOS online guidance? Did it? Did you consistantly pay minimums? Did you pay minimum at all?

 

Can you see where we are going? MBNA have assumed figures when you actually did something else. FOS says you should have actual payments used. So why havnt MBNA done that? To reduce your redress maybe? I dont know maybe its a good idea to ask FOS what right MBNA have to use assumed payments when there is nothing in the rulebook or guidance that permits this?

[angry cat]

" MBNA apply 8% to credit and surplus balances. Surplus balance is the difference between the actual payment made and the reconstructed payments . I.E. paid £100 reconstructed payment £75 so £25 goes to surplus and earns 8% on a surplus balance rather than a credit balance.

 

 

This one Whatisdue?

 

Well yes that would be true if your account followed the FOS online guidance? Did it? Did you consistantly pay minimums? Did you pay minimum at all?

 

Can you see where we are going? MBNA have assumed figures when you actually did something else. FOS says you should have actual payments used. So why havnt MBNA done that? To reduce your redress maybe? I dont know maybe its a good idea to ask FOS what right MBNA have to use assumed payments when there is nothing in the rulebook or guidance that permits this?

 

Agree, Ken!

 

Also, IMO FOS should order MBNA to prove that you consistently only paid the minimum payments each month if, that is what MBNA are claiming!

 

In an ideal world whatisdue, you should have made a FULL SAR to MBNA prior to reclaiming your mis-sold PPI. However, it is not too late to request that information from MBNA at a cost of £10.

But perhaps, as a gesture of goodwill, MBNA will provide this information free of charge? As they appear to be so sure about their assumed calculations, they will no doubt provide the documentary evidence to you and the FOS in order to provide proof and eventual statistics for the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) to add to their files on MBNA Limited!

[whatisdue]

Ken,

 

 

I think I am starting to get my head round this.I have noted the following,

1. The 'M' payments on the reconstructed payment on my calculation sheet are WRONG from August 10 to January 13. As they were all overpayments once I get the statements with the minimum amounts I will prove this. ( I already have a record of min payments during 2011 and 2012 so they wont get away with this one) and I did mention this to the adjudicator but was never given an explaination for the 'M' payments. This also means also means making the payment minimum allows calculation on a minimum and not an overpayment which would cut redress on interest charges and not reduce the account balance.keeping the reconstructed balance high and me in debt.

2. Why are many 'M' payments missing on the spreadsheet ? This was never given an answer to me by the adjudicator.

3. I have Three different reasons given why 8% simple was paid to my account MBNA state 8% simple will only be paid if account in credit (see posted letter from MBNA) The FOS adjudicator says firstly surplus redress is used to calculate 8% (letter dated 23/8/13) and at the same time admits my account never went into credit to get the 8%. Then they say after getting back to MBNA on why 8% is produced on a debt balance, that I have been given a surplus balance as opposed to a credit balance. Three different explainations of the produce of 8% simple on a debt balance surely must mean this method of calculation can not be accepted.

 

 

Please read the following ; this is reponse from the adjudicator to me sent on e-mail of the query of 8% simple produce and the 'M' under the reconstructed payments column. (note no answer on the missing 'M' payments on the spreadsheet and now have a different take on the 8% produce)

As usual any comments welcome. in particular on the' if the customer paid in full MBNA would reconstruct the equivalent of a full payment to the reconstructed balance' . I don't understand that one.I hope I am starting to get the tricks of MBNA .

 

 

Following from adjudicator

 

 

I have received a response from MBNA regarding the number of queries we raised on your case.

MBNA has confirmed that the 'reconstructed payment' columns (in line with the service guidelines), if the customer paid in full MBNA would reconstruct the equivalent of a full payment to the reconstructed balance. The same applies for any minimum payments.

The 'M' refers to under 'type in this column' indicates that the customer has made minimum payments in that month.

MBNA has confirmed why it has paid you 8% simple interest when it does not look like you went into credit without the PPI policy on the reconstructed balance. The 8% interest is applied to credit and surplus balances. Surplus balance is the difference between the actual payments made and the reconstructed payments i.e. Actual = £100, Reconstructed = £75 therefore £25 goes into surplus and earns 8% interest. In your case, you have accrued 8% interest on a surplus balance, rather than a credit balance.

With regard to the application of over limit fees to your account, MBNA has confirmed that over limit fees totalling £132.00 have been applied to your account. MBNA are prepared to offer to refund all of these as a gesture of goodwill. Settlement will be completed upon receipt of signed acceptance from you.

Please can you confirm if you are happy with the above explanation provided by MBNA. If you are not happy with the explanation the case can then be progressed for an ombudsman to review for a final decision to be issued on your case.

I look forward to your response.

 

 

 

 

" MBNA apply 8% to credit and surplus balances. Surplus balance is the difference between the actual payment made and the reconstructed payments . I.E. paid £100 reconstructed payment £75 so £25 goes to surplus and earns 8% on a surplus balance rather than a credit balance.

 

 

This one Whatisdue?

 

Well yes that would be true if your account followed the FOS online guidance? Did it? Did you consistantly pay minimums? Did you pay minimum at all?

 

Can you see where we are going? MBNA have assumed figures when you actually did something else. FOS says you should have actual payments used. So why havnt MBNA done that? To reduce your redress maybe? I dont know maybe its a good idea to ask FOS what right MBNA have to use assumed payments when there is nothing in the rulebook or guidance that permits this?

[ken100464]

1) If you can get hold of those statements they will have what your actual minimums where for those months. If they are less than what you paid then IMO you have blown all this M rubbish out of the water. Correct by removng the difference from your account then this affects your recon balance. Your redress award needs this figure. By suppressing this your award is cut.

2) This is where you need to read that bit in the FOS guidance and start thinking consumer CONSISTANTLY makes minimum payments. What does CONSISTANTLY mean to you? I know what it means to me and it doesnt mean gaps where some months you did something else. The gaps are actually where they say you paid more than a minimum therefore they cant apply this FOS guidance. The guidance that says you must CONSISTANTLY have paid minimums. Make of that what you wish but your wording is in the guidance.

3) My guess is MBNA dont want to really tell you what they are doing. Not in writing as that could come back to haunt them. The FOS plainly dont have a clue. Sad but true they are quoting what they are supposed to be upholding but then saying MBNA is allowed to do something else.

Nowhere except this vague FOS guidance which says if the consumer CONSISTANTLY paid minimum is there any reference to any 8% being paid on any account that is in debit.

Yours was in debit on your spreadsheet so FOS need to tell you where they get this gem from that 8% on a debit balance is possible. It certainly isnt within the regulators handbook. Ask them point blank to point you to the reference within the regulators handbook or in their guidance that allows this.

 

Ok now your email response. Forget Full payments. You didnt do this and you dont need to worry about it. (Its another way of moving money out of the account. Much more damaging than minimums but you have none so forget it)

 

Finally [naughty word] dont accept and ask for an ombudsman. That response is what we have wanted all along. They have put it in writing. We understand the method now (actually we have worked it out already). Keep at them and just keep coming back here when you hit a brick wall we can advise you.

 

IMO get those statements. Refuse to settle. Ask the FOS to show you exactly where in either the regulators handbook or the FOS guidance it says the bank can pay you 8% when your account is in debit? Not what MBNA tell them but where in the rules does it say.

 

Well done whatisdue you have done really well.

 

I see you got your overlimits thats great news for me as still waiting for mine.

[AfterMidnight]

Whatisdue

 

 

Thanks for posting your scans, it does help in checking what problem exists for you, confirms a few things as applying to your account, and the state of play with your adjudicator.

 

 

Your adjudicator is not too much personally at fault really, in the grand scheme of things, s/he has just assumed too much. That assumption really: is that MBNA can be trusted. if they say it is all OK. Most of what they say has been pasted from MBNA replies, where some clever-in-what-the-don't-say-wordsmiths subsequently masked and diverted for the mathsmiths and the original imaginationsmiths that created this method of redress. Don't worry if you don't get how it is all done at first, keep at it and you will get there. Took me a while to suss what an M was on those sheets (and I'd been already looking at them for ages). It means "MBNA will think of this as a Minimum Payment then" but the trick does come with what they then do. And they couch it all in such brazen guff: "surplus redress" explanations are said with such a straight face that people don't seem to question it, even if they are an adjudicator.

 

 

Anyway, what you need is good solid argument and I think once you "get" the trick you will be in a good place to put exactly that forward and some of the folks here can help. Logic flow is : MBNA identifying (whenever possible through very stretchy criteria) monthly payments being Minimums (M) -> and...Ms actually only exist to allow card redress -> and... card redress only exists to allow the column shuffle -> and...the column shuffle only exists to keep what would otherwise be your money in the coffers at MBNA.

 

 

The point about consistently full or minimum is that the rules allow perhaps for people who do (exactly) that - to be treated a bit differently for redress. Sure we will talk more on that, and ken has been steering you well.

 

 

The problem is not so much MBNA inventing surplus redress. In proper theory this is for "potential-use-only" should the account be reconstructed into credit: to determine 8% redress. ....As your adjudicator has been lead to believe. The problem is that someone with more, eh, helicopter-view-business-acumen-than-ethics at MBNA has had this run past them. Hmmm, says they, so this column gets 20+% APR cumulative and this other column gets 8% simple. Well boys, just get some of that column... into that one. "We're not really allowed" say the minions. Well, can you think of any ways we could just possibly by a long stretch if ever caught-out pretend we understood that we could. "That" say the minions "is a different question". Queue MBNA redress problem.

 

 

See how you get on with the methods they use, and shout if need help.

[AfterMidnight]

CALL FOR ACTION:

 

 

Hi everyone – your help is needed at this point.

 

There is a step I would like everyone interested in this topic and thread to take. So far…this thread, that I started in 2012, either describes individual experiences upon receiving post-summer 2012 PPI miss-sold redress calculations from MBNA, which we suspected to be questionable; or has contained related debate, analysis and advice from many people who have provided valuable input. If you have posted anything at all, then you have my thanks. However … I now need your help to move an aspect forward for us all, in a way that will help us all. I am therefor asking for two stamps and ten minutes of your time – right now.

 

I think that we have been collectively relatively passive and uncoordinated for long enough - in letting this situation go unchecked. Acting together we can get action. And now we are well-ready, and there is something that needs doing, now. That is why we, as a group, need your printer and paper and two envelopes.

 

So far… we have shared information and given advice to each other with the aim of helping in thoughts and conversations, however increasingly these discussions now include FOS Adjudicators. In other words, you or someone you care about, will be (or are in the middle of) having conversations with people who will make a difference to your future satisfaction - or otherwise.

 

Within the UK, the financial industry is watched over on two fronts. For individual complaints we have the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), whose adjudicators and ombudsmen are charged with being available to judge if individual-case transgressions of rights or fairness have been made. We also have the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) who is charged with watching over what the financial institutions get up to - in the big picture of things – who will not look at individual cases. It would not be unusual for the FCA to be alerted to bad practice by FOS, with FOS having noticed a number of similar individual cases. At present this usual-route is not going to happen for what MBNA have been getting away with: for a very simple reason.

 

That particular reason is: that what is being conducted by MBNA is bespoke, subtle and complex, and the implications and hidden elements of the method used are not being picked up on so far by FOS adjudicators. (This is even when adjudicators are looking at the calculations themselves, albeit while they are being guided through these by MBNA). The bank is basically borrowing various inapplicable bits of FOS guidance, taking each out of context, and twisting these together in to a creation that works well for them and is complex to follow, and all the time pretending they can do this under FCA/FSA PS 10/12 rules. This process then masks the bank taking some steps that are morally (and in regulation) wrong, but are not remotely obvious – and all this is of very real danger for some people here now and maybe everybody soon: that is falling between the FOS (individuals only) and FCA (big picture) safeguards.

 

However…unfortunately for the bank, this is the second decade of this century - and we can actively do something about this. While people like ken100464, angry cat, and some others by now have a really good grasp of how this trick is done, and have considered and mapped-out counter-argument, we need to get attention to discuss or show this in-depth with someone who cares, or has a remit to spend some time “getting it” at the authorities. This is why I need your help. We each send something now on good old fashioned paper for attention-getting. We send these to both heads of FOS and FCA. You are helping yourself and helping other people - if all these arrive on the desks at the same time, so please do not put this off for another day. These go to the top brass - and all say the same thing – a high-level detail-free message that something is going on, and asks if they want to know more. I would strongly suggest if you get a reply that you bring it to the attention here of someone involved a lot on this thread, like myself, ken100464 or angry cat, to co-ordinate a suitable response.

 

Please help – letters are attached and just need your address, name and signature to then go directly to high-level FCA and FOS people. Ten minutes in total does it. The FCA will only pay any attention whatsoever if they get enough letters. The plan is to engage in conversation with someone allocated to dealing with these letters.

 

If everyone who can, please, physically posts these two letters away c. Monday, I would very much appreciate it. I also believe you would also have the eventual thanks of anyone with a dispute with MBNA on the topic.

 

While we await a response, I for one will be working further - on very prepared diplomacy and argument clarity for FOS/FCA, while also, of course, sharpening my sword.

 

Anyone with me – that is - able to pledge they will print and post on Monday or as close to then as possible?

 

AfterMidnight

[GRUMPY OLD GIT]

Good afternoon everybody!

Both letters have been printed and now in sealed envelopes ready for posting by Royal Mail Recorded Delivery at approximately 9 a.m. tomorrow morning.

Reason for sending by Recorded Delivery: I do not trust anyone within the financial industry.

 

Come on everybody, time to bring this shower to account:mad2:

[Old Cogger]

done

[angry cat]

done

 

Brilliant!

[gettingsorted]

Printing out as we speak - AM - you tried to get in touch with me earlier ..... my inbox is now sorted !

GS