MBNA PPI Award “Interpretative” Calculations?

[gettingsorted]

Hi AM

Had an email yesterday from my case worker - when I saw the heading my stomach started churning !!! but she was only telling that she was on leave...

In the meantime I think I shall do a spreadsheet from my statements showing the minimum payments and what I paid to send to her !!

Will keep you all posted

GS

[ken100464]

GS

 

Reading you post are you saying you have statements that show the minimum payment required and these minimums don't tie up with declared minimums on the spreadsheet?

 

I hope I understood that right. If you got that then even the dimest caseworker should be able to get the assumption is incorrect and therefore should not be used.

[gettingsorted]

Hi ken yes i do ....in some its only a couple of pounds but in others more in one case theg have declared a paymeng of 3600 as a minimum. I always used to round it the nearest 10 or 5 . The only time i actually paid the the minimum was when they were taking it as a ddr. I do nog have all the ststements but do have quite a, llot didnt thi k oc doing a spreadsheeg until i read the post earlier this week

Goodnight

Gs

[AfterMidnight]

Hi ken yes i do ....in some its only a couple of pounds but in others more in one case theg have declared a paymeng of 3600 as a minimum. I always used to round it the nearest 10 or 5 . The only time i actually paid the the minimum was when they were taking it as a ddr. I do nog have all the ststements but do have quite a, llot didnt thi k oc doing a spreadsheeg until i read the post earlier this week

Goodnight

Gs

 

 

I would watch GS, as the MBNA definition of M-for-minimum may relate to the previous month - i.e. you were "billed" one month, but the payment for that features in the next month's calculations, which could explain some of the more really bizarre ones, if not exactly entirely justifying all.

[gettingsorted]

Thanks Ken - I will;

 

I thought the first thing I would do would basically list the balances and the minimum payments and ould from there : I hope I can work out what the minimum should be from dividing the minimum by the balance - I think they were charging 2 or 2 and half per cent. Will then go to my spreadsheet of the mbna figures and put those down .......will keep in touch

GS

[ken100464]

As AMN said the payments will probably be the month after what your statements say.

 

Not sure by what you mean by working out the minimum? As the minimum as in the real minimum should be displayed on your statement. Otherwise we wouldnt know what was the least we could pay when the account was actually running.

 

But again as AMN says the Min on say April's statement will relate to what you paid in May. So what you need to compare on your own spreadsheet is the M's on your MBNA spreadsheet against what you paid the same month as the MBNA spreadsheet. Then you will need the previous months Min from your statement. If you paid more than the previous months Min then IMO they have used an assumed payment figure over an actual payment.

 

Therefore the adjudicator should be able to see they have not used correct figures before they even start with the rest of the calculations. If indeed that is what they have done.

[gettingsorted]

Hi Ken

I meant the minimum on the month's I do not have a statement for.

 

on the statements I have there is box which says mimimum payment due so that is the minimum I have to pay by the due date which will then appear on the next months payment. So if I have paid more than the minimum then even by a couple of punds then it is not the minimum. or that is the way I see it.

 

Thank you

GS

[ken100464]

Aha

 

Yes thats how I would see it also. If you have T&C's for your account that will show what you minimum should be. But as you say a rough calculation should reveal what is it is.

 

Good luck hope it gives you more ammunition and hopefully its clear and simple for the adjudicator. How can the bank assume something which didnt happen over something that did happen. If indeed that is what you find out.

[gettingsorted]

Sorry Ken didn't explain it very clearly the first time.

 

Hope you and AM are keeping warm and dry in this awful weather ! We haven't had floods but suffered winds over 100 mph on weds; our little town had its share of stardom as we were one of the places the bbc broadcast from all through weds - and now the lights are flickering again !

Keep safe

GS

[whatisdue]

Ken, AMN & everyone.

 

 

After repeatedly asking for my statements from MBNA I have been advised that they are on the way to me. I have not been on the thread for this reason. I have looked at the record of minimums that I do have and I have noticed that the surplus balance in the reconstructed is the overpayment that I have made in that month for the credit card.

 

 

If you look at my redress calculation sheet on page 18 of the thread and look at the month of May 2012. The payment I made on a balance of £4,534.58 was £160.26. The minimum amount for that month was £105.76. MBNA has £108.99 as the minimum amount and then £51.27 as the surplus amount. (please confirm to me that surplus under the reconstructed payments columns is the amount you would have paid without PPI ?)

 

 

Now using the method you showed me if you take the balance for May 2012 of £4,534.58 take away the card redress month prior of £1,470.69 and then minus the assoc interest of £19.87 ad the PPI premium for the month of £36.60. The notional balance is £3007.42 but the MBNA reconstructed balance is £3,058.69. If you subtract the proper notional balance from the MBNA reconstructed balance the difference is £51.27.

 

 

So MBNA have

1. wrongly calculated my minimum amount for that month.

2. They have made an assumption of what I would have paid if PPI had not been applied to my account using my overpayment.

3.They have kept my overpayment in the reconstructed balance and not removed it classing the overpayment as surplus redress.

4.They have given me back 8% simple on this overpayment when it had attracted the monthly contractual interest and the difference between the monthly contractual interest and the 8% is what should have been paid back to me.

 

 

This is after the FOS had sent me a letter (see page 18 on thread) saying if I had paid more than the minimum amount for the month. This overpayment would have been distributed amongst the remainder of my credit card balance.

 

 

Please give me feedback and your comments on if I have got this right. I knew my overpayments of the minimum amount on my CC even though the card was frozen would play a big part in my PPI redress.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As AMN said the payments will probably be the month after what your statements say.

 

Not sure by what you mean by working out the minimum? As the minimum as in the real minimum should be displayed on your statement. Otherwise we wouldnt know what was the least we could pay when the account was actually running.

 

But again as AMN says the Min on say April's statement will relate to what you paid in May. So what you need to compare on your own spreadsheet is the M's on your MBNA spreadsheet against what you paid the same month as the MBNA spreadsheet. Then you will need the previous months Min from your statement. If you paid more than the previous months Min then IMO they have used an assumed payment figure over an actual payment.

 

Therefore the adjudicator should be able to see they have not used correct figures before they even start with the rest of the calculations. If indeed that is what they have done.

[gettingsorted]

Reply received from FCA to my husband - from someone called the Manager of the PPI redress team basically send us the evidence and we will investigate but won't tell you we are invetigating. I will scan and put it up later.

 

AM & Ken perhaps we can discuss via pm what I send to them as you know what has gone to FOS in my case.

 

Thank you

GS

[angry cat]

I too have today received a reply form the FCA;

Chris Preston - Manager - PPI Redress Team, Retail Banking Department.

 

The fourth para is indeed most positive:

 

"Although we cannot deal with your complaint on your behalf, we still take seriously individual complaints against the firms we regulate. Information that we receive is used to develop a picture of where firms may be failing to meet our standards and this helps us to determine what appropriate action to take against any regulated firm. In light of this, we would be happy to receive the information you mention in your letter in this context.

However, please note, that we are unable to let you know about the action we take following our consideration of the information you provide as we are bound by certain confidentiality restrictions that prohibit us from disclosing if we are investigating your concerns or not...."

 

Of course, one has to realise that the FCA operate in a similar manner to that of The OFT; they do not deal with individual complaints.

But, they do take notice if enough consumers complain and;

clearly, sufficient consumers complained to them about MBNA in this particular case.

 

So, a BIG Thank You to all those who sent in their letters; the show is not over yet!

 

Next step will be to send them the information as described within the Open Letter.

I will now confer with Ken, AMN and others...

Edited February 15, 2014 by angry cat
addition

[ken100464]

Got mine too

[dx100uk]

can any of you lot give ideas/help on this please?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?417801-PPI-Redress-offer-received-advise-required&p=4471888#post4471888

 

dx

[whatisdue]

Ken, AMN, A/C everyone.

 

 

I received the same letter to from Chris Preston. This is encouraging to see.

Though I feel that I must mention the fact that I and others already bought this to the attention of the FCA via Kate Tuckley.

I sent all the corresponded letters including the MBNA calculation between myself and the FOS and also copied her in on e-mails between myself and the adjudicator. Kate Tuckley advised me that she would pass my details onto the relevant section and I received an e-mail from a Bradley Green at the FCA who advised me that due to legal reasons I couldn't be advised of an impending investigation into MBNA redress but my comments had been noted. I was also given an reference number .

apologises for repeating something you no doubt are aware of though I felt this should be mentioned.

 

 

Ken,

 

 

I have not received any comment on my post yet done earlier this morning. I always welcome comments on if I right in my thinking and what they are doing as I learn about the tactics of MBNA to cut redress.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Got mine too

[ken100464]

Whatisdue.

I think you will find the difference this time was via Kate we were a few over a length of time. Not saying its right but the way FCA operates. Plus we didnt really grasp what they were up to fully. So yes frustrating but please dont be disheartened. If the FCA finally get it then none of us will be worrying about adjudicators or ombudsmen. So keep the faith your doing well.

 

Sorry about the previous post. The replies from the FCA has diverted my attention. I will read it now and come back to you

[ken100464]

Looking at the post we missed.

 

If you have proof the minimum (on your statement) was £105.76 then as per FOS own guidance you can dispute this method.

 

From the PPI resource on the FOS guidance Consumers who CONSISTENTLY pay minimum

 

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 know

 

• you took out your credit card in January 2003 and took out the PPI policy at the same time;
  
• your credit card balance today is £5,832.91; and
  
• you have consistently paid the minimum contractual payment to your credit card and no extra payments.
  

what we have assumed

 

• credit card interest at the rate charged on normal purchases applied to the PPI premiums added to your account; and
  
• you would have paid the (slightly smaller) minimum contractual payment to your credit card without PPI.
  

If you do not think that these assumptions should be used in your circumstances, please let us know why not.

 

If it were me I wouldnt go into all the this was moved here and that was turned into this etc.

 

If you have proof that the minimum isnt what MBNA declared then that is sufficient to ask for a recalculation. They have lied on your redress calculation and with the statement you have proof. Keep it simple.

 

 

 

Now turning to the rest of your post. Your not a million miles off at all. But as you can see its confusing to put across. I know what they are doing. You have a good idea now. But the way you put it comes across is confusing. An adjudicator wont get it and will frustrate you.

 

So IMHO if you have black and white proof like this minimum on your statement then use FOS guidance against FOS. Quote it at them.

 

Say this is why MBNA should not be allowed to use this method because actually they are making it up. So you want the normal PS10/12 exp 6 calculation. Get a normal PS10/12 exp 6 calculation and your redress will increase.

 

But my advice keep it simple.

 

One final thing that AMN pointed out before is that the min payment for that month will be on the previous statement. Because you need to know what you had to at least pay the following month. So May's minimum payment would be on April's statement.

[whatisdue]

Thanks for your comments ken, its good to hear I am getting my head round the method of MBNA redress. I quite agree this is a very hard one to explain to an adjudicator. I have thought about this and how to put things in simple terms. Though I doubt if the adjudicator would be able to get some comprehension of MBNA methods of cutting redress and would find it easier to side with the lender case closed.

 

 

Though as you mentioned the monthly statements with the minimum payments is clear unshakeable evidence that the calculations can not be possibly be right and that is easily seen and understood. I will take your advise and keep things simple. I will of course keep you advised of events.

 

 

 

 

Looking at the post we missed.

 

If you have proof the minimum (on your statement) was £105.76 then as per FOS own guidance you can dispute this method.

 

From the PPI resource on the FOS guidance Consumers who CONSISTENTLY pay minimum

 

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 know

 

 

• you took out your credit card in January 2003 and took out the PPI policy at the same time;
  
• your credit card balance today is £5,832.91; and
  
• you have consistently paid the minimum contractual payment to your credit card and no extra payments.
  

what we have assumed

 

• credit card interest at the rate charged on normal purchases applied to the PPI premiums added to your account; and
  
• you would have paid the (slightly smaller) minimum contractual payment to your credit card without PPI.
  

If you do not think that these assumptions should be used in your circumstances, please let us know why not.

 

If it were me I wouldnt go into all the this was moved here and that was turned into this etc.

 

If you have proof that the minimum isnt what MBNA declared then that is sufficient to ask for a recalculation. They have lied on your redress calculation and with the statement you have proof. Keep it simple.

 

 

 

Now turning to the rest of your post. Your not a million miles off at all. But as you can see its confusing to put across. I know what they are doing. You have a good idea now. But the way you put it comes across is confusing. An adjudicator wont get it and will frustrate you.

 

So IMHO if you have black and white proof like this minimum on your statement then use FOS guidance against FOS. Quote it at them.

 

Say this is why MBNA should not be allowed to use this method because actually they are making it up. So you want the normal PS10/12 exp 6 calculation. Get a normal PS10/12 exp 6 calculation and your redress will increase.

 

But my advice keep it simple.

 

One final thing that AMN pointed out before is that the min payment for that month will be on the previous statement. Because you need to know what you had to at least pay the following month. So May's minimum payment would be on April's statement.

[AfterMidnight]

whatisdue - yes, for the moment saying that they are starting calculations based on false premise criteria, so that makes everything off - is a fair and universally easily-graspable point. Should someone then come back with a "yes, but" argument in response - well you have started them thinking about it - and then be in a better position to listen and comprehend next what happens after those bits... something a few people here can help with now.

[whatisdue]

whatisdue - yes, for the moment saying that they are starting calculations based on false premise criteria, so that makes everything off - is a fair and universally easily-graspable point. Should someone then come back with a "yes, but" argument in response - well you have started them thinking about it - and then be in a better position to listen and comprehend next what happens after those bits... something a few people here can help with now.

 

Ken, AMN, AC everyone.

 

Please read the following that i have had from my adjudicator today,

 

triumph at last but still work to be done

 

Further to my email below

I have confirmed that a new assessment will take place in light of the new evidence which you have provided.

 

You spoke to my manager today and he confirmed that this will not affect your position in line waiting for an ombudsman to review your complaint.

 

I can assure you I will be assessing this issue promptly and will inform you as soon as I have done so.

In light of your comments and new evidence you provided i.e. statements,

 

I can tell you that I do also have concerns over the minimum repayment assumptions that MBNA has made.

 

I will therefore be recommending MBNA should recalculate using the actual payments you made,

instead of assuming reduced amount you would have paid.

 

I note you raised several complaint points against MBNA.

 

In light of what I will be recommending above could you please confirm whether this would resolve your complaint?

 

Any comments welcome

[AfterMidnight]

Hi whatisdue - a quick-ish reply and I'll likely rejoin later once a few more thoughts are in, but yes - a good thing in getting through to your case worker your dodgy-assumption point. I wouldn't, as you indicate, expect that changing the values a little would transform the MBNA calc into something fair - so I would not confirm to your adjudicator that this would resolve your complaint (unless perhaps you added a rider of MBNA using a spreadsheet BO_22 redress calc version, before all the shenanigans were largely introduced). Even then... I wouldn't. You do still want that Ombudsman to see it, but letting MBNA do a recalc would be very interesting in its own right in the meantime - they are running out of corners to hide in - and the tottering calculation edifice is built on being able to declare what they like...

 

 

Your adjudicator doesn't as of yet get it all yet, and is really looking for a way-through-easy compromise course-of-action. Still a nice change in approach there; I recall you saying things were a little frosty previously at one point. What are your thoughts on doing next?

 

 

The most likely thing, IMHO, at Chester HQ, would be MBNA realising they cannot (under that particular FOS instruction) use any of their recent spreadsheets. While I am sure they keep a few "just in case" redress-method-builds in the far cupboard for just such eventualities...that instruction from your adjudicator may well have more implications and consequences for the reconstruction method than your adjudicator even remotely realises...

 

 

AMN

[AfterMidnight]

Hi Whatisdue

 

 

Ken is tied up in other interesting things but wanted you to know he agrees with above - and well done.

 

 

Ian.

[whatisdue]

AMN / Ken / AC / GOG & everyone.

 

 

I thank everyone for the help received so far. I did respond today on the adjudicator question of will this do. I mentioned and included extracts from ken,s analysis of my calculation sheet (page 18/19 of the thread) and of how the reconstructed payments column is being used to keep the reconstructed balance high by not removing the surplus balance . I also advised the adjudicator that I want to know the contractual rate of interest applied to my account, knowing I was ratejacked and classed a risk when I went through a period of being unable to make the minimum payments each month. I know the contractual rate would have been applied to the PPI also each month. I also mentioned that surplus redress and a return of 8% on a debt balance is not part of FCA/FOS redress guidelines and should not be accepted concluding that PS10/12 app 2 ex 6 can be the only fair solution to this dispute . I also asked why FOS can not do redress calculations themselves using a compliant spreadsheet. I was told by the adjudicator they do not do this. I put this to the manager and am still waiting a response.

 

 

Any comments welcome on this and my approach on the pending re-assessment. I will of course keep you posted on developments.

[AfterMidnight]

AMN / Ken / AC / GOG & everyone.

Any comments welcome on this and my approach on the pending re-assessment. I will of course keep you posted on developments.

 

 

You are, whatisdue, doing all the right things and well done again for getting the basic "they made stuff up" principle across and agreed to, and then covering the following-on manoeuvres - which are still to be "got" by your case worker and their manager. They will have realised by now though, that, for you, a simple "actually we asked MBNA and they said it is fine"... will not do. Given that your own case handling is ahead of the curve of other cases currently quietly gathering dust, and the "idea" of recent-ish MBNA redress being potentially "dodgy" is a new concept to your adjudicator - you have made good progress - and anyone in similar circumstances will have a bit more hope of a good resolution after your recent posts. So - good for you - and good for other people too - great progress.

 

 

AMN

[gettingsorted]

Hi whatisdue (and all)

 

Its very interesting to read what's going on with your case; mine is currently with an adjudjucator (sp); I worry about their understanding of the issues involved but still I very kindly gave them loads of publically information to read as well as pushing the fact - that they were wrong; hopefully the fact that a copy of my OH's calculation and offer letter which show vastly different figures will flag up some warning flags.

 

GS