MBNA PPI Award “Interpretative” Calculations?

[angry cat]

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

 

My two letters will also be winging their way tomorrow!

 

Anyone else or, are you ALL going to let MBNA get away with this!?

 

AC

X

[whatisdue]

No problem at all totally indebted to this thread and help received.

 

 

printing off letters now and will send recorded delivery tomorrow.

 

 

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

[whatisdue]

Hello A.M.

 

 

I can not open the file to print off the letters message reads can not open in pdf as not supported file or file has been damaged.

 

 

could you tell me what to do ? or post again in way I can print off to send.?

 

 

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

[AfterMidnight]

Hello A.M.

 

 

I can not open the file to print off the letters message reads can not open in pdf as not supported file or file has been damaged.

 

 

could you tell me what to do ? or post again in way I can print off to send.?

 

 

I will repost as plain text files shortly, previous files were "early-version-Word ones", hopefully plain text files as attachments should be OK, but let me know if not. You are probably on a PC/Device that does not have MS Office installed or something that can open those files. If I posted as PDF most folks could not edit that to add own details unless adding in handwriting. Plain text files will need you to add your details separately, as opposed to having "name" to be replaced, etc.

 

 

Also - THANKS TO EVERYONE SO FAR.

[AfterMidnight]

Plain text file versions attached (unformatted). If this is also problematic for anyone I have posted PDF files on next post, but these would need your details added in handwriting after printing.

[AfterMidnight]

PDF versions attached for good measure. First ones posted earlier (Word) allow typing your details, these will not - but adding those could be done afterwards.

[angry cat]

Yes AfterMidnight, PDF file working A Okay!

 

Hopefully, the peeps who have been affected will get those letters printed off and in the post/mailed tomorrow; second class post is fine if one cannot afford a first class stamp. X

[ken100464]

Done twice once by me and once by OH.

 

This needs to be done everybody. Not next week or next month but now

[dx100uk]

that letter could/should be paragraphed properly

 

they are far too long.

 

 

dx

[angry cat]

PDF versions attached for good measure. First ones posted earlier (Word) allow typing your details, these will not - but adding those could be done afterwards.

 

Done and mailed today by Royal Mail 1st Class service!

[whatisdue]

Hello A.M. & everyone.

 

 

Just to let you know I got there in the end and the letters are being sent today first class / recorded delivery.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hello A.M.

 

 

I can not open the file to print off the letters message reads can not open in pdf as not supported file or file has been damaged.

 

 

could you tell me what to do ? or post again in way I can print off to send.?

[gettingsorted]

Hello posted first class this am. Did a set for oh as well for good measure

Gs

[AfterMidnight]

Thanks everyone. A number of people then were able to send so far, including a couple of people who pm'd me to that effect. The idea is a top-down approach, hopefully meeting at some points with case-level arguments that each perhaps go into various levels of detail and specifics. The aim is to hopefully motivate people at those organisations (who may be in a position to do so) to request that someone there looks at this issue properly - in addition to individual complaint-level investigation. Provided sufficient "weight" is added to the suggestion that this is not just an issue that affects individuals, this could potentially happen; or as an absolute minimum, is rather more likely to happen than otherwise.

 

 

For those that haven't yet, but have an interest in calling the bank to account - if you can send your own copies at some point this week that would be appreciated. Only if not done yet: I have attached the Word versions again, which have the paragraphs split as per dx100uk's suggestion, but are otherwise same. Apologies this is costing people stamps and/or recorded delivery, but I reckon it is too easy, for emails, to be overlooked/ignored, or syphoned off. I think it is fantastic that we can have this forum to allow this to be possible. So ..cheers ... and for any anyone involved, affected or sympathetic who has still to send - thanks in advance.

[AfterMidnight]

If anyone hasn't posted off the letters, but intended to or would like to - an email of the content would though be better perhaps than not being able to send at all. The relevant emails I believe are:

 

 

[email protected]

[email protected]

 

 

These will be filtered by co-workers there, but getting close to the right place...

 

 

Thanks

 

 

AfterMidnight

[ken100464]

FOS have responded.

 

Holding letter.

[AfterMidnight]

Thanks ken

 

 

I'll have same to go home to perhaps then. Good to know that "Hurdle 1A" (completely ignored without answer) has been crossed then, on FOS front anyway. Well done mate. More letter or mails = more chance of deeper attention though I still reckon,...so anyone now joining in is very much appreciated...

[whatisdue]

Ken & everyone.

 

 

Please read the attached response from the FOS to me after invoking the 3.9.4.

 

 

To be honest I am quite dumfounded and horrified at what I have read. Though yourself and others who are more knowledgeable and experienced than myself probably are not so surprised.

 

 

I posted the e-mails between MBNA and the FOS adjudicator to show what I think I is standard practise for an adjudicator to do when trying to find out the truth and to get to the bottom of weather redress calculations have been correctly done inline with FCA/FOS guidelines.

 

 

The e-mail dated 17/8/13 asks MBNA 'can you confirm that the offer proposed was in line with our guidelines'

 

 

Is it of little surprise the MBNA response 'We can confirm that the settlement issued to_______ was in accordance with guidelines set out by the financial ombudsman service.

 

 

Is that it for the adjudicator ? case closed ?

The many questions I have posed such as the transfer of money out of the high contractual interest on the one side of my calculation sheet to the right hand side that pays only 8% why is this ? or The customer says that the reconstructed balance remains high due to the surplus redress amounts not being removed ?

Please show me with examples if this is not the case so I can show the customer.

 

 

The kind of line of questioning I would expect from the FOS to MBNA on such an important issues is lacking. Though being as frustrated and despondent with what is happening with the FOS I am more than determined than ever to work with the FOS along with your tremendous help to reveal the truth to the FOS.

 

 

I would like your comments on the following. This may be nothing though the e-mail dated 7/8/13 'please note that the total redress figure on the attached breakdown calculator shows a difference of £0.01 due to a system error.'

 

 

I can not find this on my calculation sheet (page 18 on the thread) is this of any significance to the calculations ? I have become very cynical and questioning everything.

 

 

Lastly I mentioned to you that I can prove the minimum payments used to calculate my reconstructed payments were in fact overpayments. I have spoken to MBNA and they have agreed to do my SAR which will have the proof that I did. I am about to contact the adjudicator and ask them to do the same SAR direct to MBNA and then compare the minimum payments on the build V20_B037 that they have to my statements when sent to them to prove that MBNA have basically lied to them about my minimum payments . Am I right to do this ? or shall I wait until my case is about to be reviewed by an ombudsman for a final decision when MBNA would have no more to say on the matter and then produce this hopefully recalculation winning evidence ?

 

 

your comments please

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 -

 

 

The correspondence does not surprise me in any way, as you may have suspected. It is not really the fault of either the adjudicator, or the responding person at MBNA really - both (in all likelihood) reckon they actually are doing a decent and reasonable job and are being straightforward. The fault is the FOS system which allows what ken calls "positive affirmation" to be the end of the story regarding a question. I reckon the inundated FOS previously decided not to go into unnecessary detail on calculated directions - i.e. should they support a consumer complaint they then direct "sort this bank" and not "give Mr/s X a sum of £Wonga."

 

 

Not that the "honest-as-we-believe-it" reply situation outlined above is forgivable. Its a bit like the procedure manual for traffic policemen being: Officer: "Well Sir, its been reported and photographed that your wife was driving this car yesterday at 60mph in the pedestrian precinct, and we have been offered shedloads of other evidence too - is this possible?" Driver: "No, she would never do a thing like that, she's nice, and I'm sure she would have mentioned it". Officer: "Ok then, fair-do, that covers it, and sorry to have bothered you".

 

 

There are several levels of decisions at FOS, and if I understand correctly you are at the stage waiting for ombudsman review, but still corresponding with your adjudicator? I ask this because - it is less clear, I understand (than the average person might assume) for a "decision" to be preliminary and subject to seeing what people reply back. Can you confirm the adjudicator route is formally exhausted?

 

 

I suspect your work in the next short period is making your case something that an Ombudsman picks up on - as opposed to trying to convince a now-closed-ears-as-referred adjudicator to revise an opinion, but I'll await your advice re. above. Idea being: with additional info shortly supplied they (ombudsman?/adjudicator?) will have no choice but to approach differently this exact bit about trusting MBNA.

 

 

I think we can collectively though most certainly help with the message that is going to hit anyone reviewing the case - encouraging people that is, gently but very-thoroughly, to see things in a potentially very different light.

 

 

Don't worry about the rounding error 1p bit.

 

 

To help prepare for above "additional information" that you are likely to be sending into your case:

 

 

1) Have you entered your figures yourself on a spreadsheet of your own?

2) You have statements which shows monthly minimum, and these are evidentially different enough from when a sum is declared a minimum on your MBNA spreadsheet? You can point at very specific and £value examples, with backup, even though you do not have your SAR info yet?

3) Have a think about you preparing the info for FOS to show your "minimum wasn't minimum argument". FOS can't/won't/shouldn't have all your personal data necessarily, and you are rather more driven to looking at unsorted and unhighlighted evidence than they are. Which you can then point out.

4) I would personally avoid using the word "overpayment" for meaning a sum above monthly minimum, but can't think of a snappy alternative yet - maybe later in the day!

5) Perhaps check your mailbox settings to ensure you can send and receive a pm in case there could be info and argument on your specifics and response to MBNA that may be better done that way at this stage.

6) Can you give a view on how much detail you have taken on board as of yet, in terms of what they then do when they declare a minimum. It is kinda complex.

 

 

The point, imho, is what you do next is to generate some doubts as to if what I would call case-level "assumptive" permission, is a fair and good stance to take at both organisations you are dealing with. At FOS that management assumption is "a firm will tell the truth if asked" and at MBNA that management assumption is "we can in all probability get away with doing this cunning-stuff, and telling no-one, including our own lower ranks who answer questions".

 

 

What you need, in summary, is a good solid argument to give to FOS. If may involve a bit of toing-and-froing before sending that, and its upto you how much you want to do that yourself or have planned submissions critiqued or not; but the folks here can help for the simple reasons that it both helps you and helps with people's own cases too - if and when FOS become more aware that they themselves having been conned.

 

 

 

 

AMN

[whatisdue]

AMN / Ken everyone

 

 

Thanks so much for your comments.

 

 

Just to clarify my case is still with the adjudicator who I am still talking to on my case . Though I was told by my MP that my case is in the queue to be reviewed by an ombudsman and until then to continue to deal with the adjudicator, so this route very much remains open.

 

 

In my last communication with the adjudicator prior to the invoke of 3.9.4 the adjudicator advised that were looking to do a 'provisional decision ' on my case. This as far as I understand is an ombudsman decision on what they think the outcome should be also giving me and MBNA an opportunity to send in any further thoughts or information before a final decision is made. The adjudicator advised me that they were looking at doing this as I had been waiting a very long time and they were consciousness of this.

 

 

Thinking about this it would probably be best if I save this crucial evidence and request that they do a provisional decision and use it then because;

1. The adjudicator is unlikely to change the decision of not recommending a recalculation even with overwhelming proof that they have not calculated as FCA/FOS guidelines.

2.At this point MBNA would have and I believe that they are already at this point. Have given all the information and evidence they have to say that they have followed FCA/FOS guidelines and that my redress calculation as per there V20_B037 build is correct.

 

 

The question I am thinking hear is that if I get a provisional decision as the ombudsman is reviewing my case' who is going to pop up with something out the bag' that blows everything out the water leaving the ombudsman no choice but to say I must agree with the consumer or must agree with MBNA. This is what I am hoping to do with my evidence on minimum payments.

For as ken pointed out to me I not only prove the minimums are incorrect, but I also prove that I did not consistently make minimum payments as shown on their calculation sheet. That the assumptions made on the minimum payments to work out what they classed as surplus payments can not be right.Which also means the reconstructed payments can not be right and also the reconstructed balance can not be right.

 

 

TBH AMN I have no idea what they do when they declare a minimum payment. Through ken / yourself and others brilliant advise I have begun to understand their methods but the assumptions as they have done with the minimum payments to work out surplus is beyond me. The reconstructed payments without the 'M' are overpayments yet they seem to have applied the same method as the minimum for reconstructed payments. I would like some advise on what they are doing with the reconstructed payments with no 'M' against them any comments welcome.

 

 

The 6 points you have made AMN is a great start. Instead of using the word overpayments. I was thinking of just saying my payments which were consistently not the minimum amount.

 

 

I also like and welcome the one of FOS checking the figures themselves on their own spreadsheet. Surely they should be doing this ? How can I get them to do their own calculation on my redress which would reveal the truth.

 

 

As usual I welcome and appreciate all your comments and help on the above-mentioned for my and I hope others reading case.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

whatisdue -

 

 

The correspondence does not surprise me in any way, as you may have suspected. It is not really the fault of either the adjudicator, or the responding person at MBNA really - both (in all likelihood) reckon they actually are doing a decent and reasonable job and are being straightforward. The fault is the FOS system which allows what ken calls "positive affirmation" to be the end of the story regarding a question. I reckon the inundated FOS previously decided not to go into unnecessary detail on calculated directions - i.e. should they support a consumer complaint they then direct "sort this bank" and not "give Mr/s X a sum of £Wonga."

 

 

Not that the "honest-as-we-believe-it" reply situation outlined above is forgivable. Its a bit like the procedure manual for traffic policemen being: Officer: "Well Sir, its been reported and photographed that your wife was driving this car yesterday at 60mph in the pedestrian precinct, and we have been offered shedloads of other evidence too - is this possible?" Driver: "No, she would never do a thing like that, she's nice, and I'm sure she would have mentioned it". Officer: "Ok then, fair-do, that covers it, and sorry to have bothered you".

 

 

There are several levels of decisions at FOS, and if I understand correctly you are at the stage waiting for ombudsman review, but still corresponding with your adjudicator? I ask this because - it is less clear, I understand (than the average person might assume) for a "decision" to be preliminary and subject to seeing what people reply back. Can you confirm the adjudicator route is formally exhausted?

 

 

I suspect your work in the next short period is making your case something that an Ombudsman picks up on - as opposed to trying to convince a now-closed-ears-as-referred adjudicator to revise an opinion, but I'll await your advice re. above. Idea being: with additional info shortly supplied they (ombudsman?/adjudicator?) will have no choice but to approach differently this exact bit about trusting MBNA.

 

 

I think we can collectively though most certainly help with the message that is going to hit anyone reviewing the case - encouraging people that is, gently but very-thoroughly, to see things in a potentially very different light.

 

 

Don't worry about the rounding error 1p bit.

 

 

To help prepare for above "additional information" that you are likely to be sending into your case:

 

 

1) Have you entered your figures yourself on a spreadsheet of your own?

2) You have statements which shows monthly minimum, and these are evidentially different enough from when a sum is declared a minimum on your MBNA spreadsheet? You can point at very specific and £value examples, with backup, even though you do not have your SAR info yet?

3) Have a think about you preparing the info for FOS to show your "minimum wasn't minimum argument". FOS can't/won't/shouldn't have all your personal data necessarily, and you are rather more driven to looking at unsorted and unhighlighted evidence than they are. Which you can then point out.

4) I would personally avoid using the word "overpayment" for meaning a sum above monthly minimum, but can't think of a snappy alternative yet - maybe later in the day!

5) Perhaps check your mailbox settings to ensure you can send and receive a pm in case there could be info and argument on your specifics and response to MBNA that may be better done that way at this stage.

6) Can you give a view on how much detail you have taken on board as of yet, in terms of what they then do when they declare a minimum. It is kinda complex.

 

 

The point, imho, is what you do next is to generate some doubts as to if what I would call case-level "assumptive" permission, is a fair and good stance to take at both organisations you are dealing with. At FOS that management assumption is "a firm will tell the truth if asked" and at MBNA that management assumption is "we can in all probability get away with doing this cunning-stuff, and telling no-one, including our own lower ranks who answer questions".

 

 

What you need, in summary, is a good solid argument to give to FOS. If may involve a bit of toing-and-froing before sending that, and its upto you how much you want to do that yourself or have planned submissions critiqued or not; but the folks here can help for the simple reasons that it both helps you and helps with people's own cases too - if and when FOS become more aware that they themselves having been conned.

 

 

 

 

AMN

[angry cat]

Perhaps, it may be an idea to remind the adjudicator of the meaning of: consistently!

[ken100464]

I am not sure leaving the proof out that you did not pay minimums, because the statements you have show what were the minimums at the time, is the best course.

 

Personally if you have proof that on xxxx date your minimum was £xxx as per this statement you have and you paid £xxx plus £yyy and this figure is used on the spreadsheet MBNA have sent me. But then they have declared this as a minimum so it cannnot be true because you have a statement showing what was the minimum for that month.

 

I dont think its a good idea to leave this evidence hoping for an ambush the next level up.

 

The adjudicator is being lazy. You cannot change that or they havnt understood that the complaint is that the sums are wrong and the only way to get the correct sums is to stick the figures through a compliant computer model.

 

The FOS system is at fault here. Its allowing the bank to positively affirm it is calculating correctly. Once an adjudicator gets that then the idea the bank is not doing what it says is beyond the realms of the adjudicator. He just wouldnt believe a bank would do that.

 

So to recap I would send proof if you have it, that dispels one or more of these minimums. So MBNA is assuming something that didnt happen.

 

Then as AC suggests explain what consistently pays means. Does that cover your account conduct. Finally I would point out this has been brought to the attention of the FOS top dog. So perhaps he might want to have a real close look at this one because his name could be on a decision that could come back to haunt him. Maybe not those words but something like.

[angry cat]

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, have you made your DPA Data Subject Information Request to MBNA Limited yet?

 

If you have not yet requested the SAR information. Please make it now and get the request off in the post today!!!

[gettingsorted]

Replies received from FOS - just a holding letter; nothing from FCA yet.

GS

[ken100464]

Good.

 

Quite a few come back now.

 

Well we have warned them something is wrong. Lets see what they do now.

[AfterMidnight]

Hi GS

 

 

Re. "Replies received from fos - just a holding letter; nothing from FCA yet."

 

 

That's good you have a reply or two from FOS from the letter. Tbh we may not receive replies from FCA, but notification there reinforcing the "big picture" message to FOS is the main purpose really and with weight of numbers there may be some form of communication between them so some attention should be given to the issue. If you hear anything from your case-level submission to FOS, or the high-level letter, it would also be good to know - we now have a collective good picture of what is being done, and are in a good position to explain some considered detail of the issue to FOS staff at any level...