MBNA PPI Award “Interpretative” Calculations?

[AfterMidnight]

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

 

 

GS - remind me, when you say calculation above, do you mean a completed FOSRunningPPI spreadsheet? I ask because although that is a good piece of work to use for general PPI claims, MBNA themselves reconstruct the account (albeit it dodgily) using interest rates as were in effect and varying historically over time. MBNA (broadly speaking) apportion the interest for the PPI based on that being a % of the account balance, hence in reconstruction having same proportion of the interest for that month as per the premium/to/balance ratio. The FOSRunningPPI sheet has limits (or needs workarounds) in terms of handling variable known rates over time, but it is also possible to use an alternative method which apportions according to PPI premiums and account balances (i.e. something that can be done using only the information MBNA supply in their own calculation) and which may produce a more direct comparison for some people.

[gettingsorted]

Hi AM - the calculation spreadsheet is MBNA's own version can't remember precisely which build but a pretty current one and the offer letter is from 2011.

 

I have been trying to upload a file for you AM & Ken to have a look at but am having some issues ! Any ideas ? I can select and then try to upload and it comes up with a red exclamation mark / stop sign.

 

GS

[AfterMidnight]

Hi AM - the calculation spreadsheet is MBNA's own version can't remember precisely which build but a pretty current one and the offer letter is from 2011.

 

I have been trying to upload a file for you AM & Ken to have a look at but am having some issues ! Any ideas ? I can select and then try to upload and it comes up with a red exclamation mark / stop sign.

 

GS

 

Ok, thanks GS, wasn't sure if you meant MBNA's own, or your version of same. Files-wise not sure sorry - try pm'ing it perhaps to me only.

[gettingsorted]

Ok - will try again later from my other computer ........if not will PM it too you.

GS

[whatisdue]

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AMN / Ken / A/C / GOG everyone.

 

 

I have received a reply from the casework manager on the FOS doing there own compliant redress calculations. Read on , my understanding was they could carry out their calculations on redress .

 

 

The Financial Ombudsman Service was set up by parliament to resolve disputes informally between consumers and financial businesses. We do not carry out calculations in regards to redress or financial compensation because that is not part of our role. The ombudsman service can tell a business how to calculate redress (for example when we upheld your complaint about the mis-sale of the policy we asked MBNA to put you back into the position you would have been in had the policy not been taken out) and we can check to see if we feel the offer made by the business is fair and reasonable in the circumstances. If we do not feel the redress is fair, we can tell the business to do what we feel is fair.

As normal all comments on this is welcome.

[ken100464]

WID

 

Think what they are saying is they aint going to sit there and number crunch for you,

 

But if you bring up something like you have done then they will happily tell the firm in question to number crunch on their behalf. Not really surprising this.

 

I cant recall if you ever got a SAR off MBNA? If you havnt and do not have all your statements I would suggest for you to really get to the bottom of all this you will need to pay the tenner and get it. Without it you wont be able to check what now they cant use mins in your case what they do come up with is any better. And seeing as your adjudicator actually seems on your side I would insist whatever claculation spreadsheet MBNA do use should be part of the revised offer and that you should be given time to check it before making a decision to accept or reject.

 

Must say your doing very well and dont think the adjudicator is against you. I think they being pretty fair tbh.

[whatisdue]

Ken & everyone.

 

 

Good to hear from you again ken.

 

 

I would like some clarity on this, excuse my ignorance. I have been fortunate to get all my statements of MBNA without paying the tenner, is there any difference between getting my statements or the information that i would get doing a SAR ?

 

 

I am sure I have got all the information I could possibly get from MBNA having got all my statements. Though if there is any other information that doing a SAR would bring I would not hesitate for a second in paying the tenner to get it.

 

 

your comments on this please.

 

 

 

 

 

 

WID

 

Think what they are saying is they aint going to sit there and number crunch for you,

 

But if you bring up something like you have done then they will happily tell the firm in question to number crunch on their behalf. Not really surprising this.

 

I cant recall if you ever got a SAR off MBNA? If you havnt and do not have all your statements I would suggest for you to really get to the bottom of all this you will need to pay the tenner and get it. Without it you wont be able to check what now they cant use mins in your case what they do come up with is any better. And seeing as your adjudicator actually seems on your side I would insist whatever claculation spreadsheet MBNA do use should be part of the revised offer and that you should be given time to check it before making a decision to accept or reject.

 

Must say your doing very well and dont think the adjudicator is against you. I think they being pretty fair tbh.

[ken100464]

WID

 

No you done grand. If you have got the statements you have more than most of us as we got transaction logs mostly.

 

The interest rates will be on your statements as will things like PPI, balances, individual rates. The only thing that sometimes reveals interesting information is the comms logs from these firms.

 

To calculate what your are due (lol I had to get that in oneday) I think you have it all.

 

I think now its a matter of waiting for what MBNA do??? See if they wish to argue these minimums. If they dont I would be very interested to see their recalculation spreadsheet.

 

We can I am sure help you with that when they come back to you.

 

Well done your really doing well.

[gettingsorted]

Hello all - what a relevant post from you Ken about minimums

 

I have analysed what statements I have ( most of them) and easily managed to calculate the minimum from the other statements as a %age of the balance. Using the statements I had as a check.

 

Attached are spreadsheets I have done - as the minimum calculation is part of my complaint. Perhaps you could cast your eyes over them please and comment.

 

What I am not sure about is how I phrase the letter to the adjucicator (one day I can spell that right ! ) perhaps you could also give me some suggestions. I have explained to them in my complaint that MBNA were not consistent in their analysis of M and F payments and some payments were not classified at all.

Thanks -

having a few issues with an upload - its saying that I have exceeed my allowance

Does anyone know how to increase the allowance or delete some uploads ?

GS

[whatisdue]

Ken / AMN & everyone.Thanks for putting me straight on the SAR matter.I hope that MBNA after my findings and proof on the minimum payments being wrong and also the proof that ken supplied me on the calculation method used by MBNA, of which my adjudicator has advised me will be put to MBNA will leave them no option but to throw in the towel on my case, and accept to do a recalculation as per PS/10/12 App 2 Ex 6Though i wouldn,t be surprised if they have a few more tricks up their sleeve as i advised my adjudicator. By the way Ken, i forgot to mention that the method that you showed me for MBNA calculations on the V20_B037 build includes the use of the reconstruction payments columns to reconstruct the balance which is the information given to the FOS by MBNA on how the calculation sheet works. The method of calculation given to me by the FOS (see page 18/19 of this thread) showed a method of calculation that did not include the reconstructed payments column and the surplus redress. The explaination of the surplus redress was that it was used to calculate the 8%, though nothing was ever given by the FOS on how and where the reconstructed payment columns fitted in with their calculation method. The simple answer to that is that it was not.Many Thanks for your help to date and of course i will keep you posted on developments.l

WID

 

No you done grand. If you have got the statements you have more than most of us as we got transaction logs mostly.

 

The interest rates will be on your statements as will things like PPI, balances, individual rates. The only thing that sometimes reveals interesting information is the comms logs from these firms.

 

To calculate what your are due (lol I had to get that in oneday) I think you have it all.

 

I think now its a matter of waiting for what MBNA do??? See if they wish to argue these minimums. If they dont I would be very interested to see their recalculation spreadsheet.

 

We can I am sure help you with that when they come back to you.

 

Well done your really doing well.

[ken100464]

Wid.

 

This quote?

 

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.

 

I would very closely look at your 8%. I think the only column this 8% is being applied to is your surplus column. Notional balance where it should actually be being applied to is a red herring. Card redress is the combination of PPI and associated so isnt a column they would attempt to work 8% from.

 

More to the point if there are no M's because you can prove you paid more than, then there should be no surplus. If there is no surplus then there will be no 8%. But on the upside the money remains in the card redress attracting contractual. You win.

 

Keep pushing for the PS10/12 exp 6 redress solution. Your really doing well.

[ken100464]

GS.

 

Quote this at your adjudicator as its from his own online guidance the very guidance MBNA seem to be using

 

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.

 

Labour the last line and show that you paid more. If you did then they have to use actual amounts not assumed as per that guidance.

 

As for any Fulls.

 

consumers who clear their credit card balance in full each month

 

Some consumers always repay their credit card balance in full each month. If PPI had not been added to their account, their credit card balance would have been lower each month. So it seems unlikely that they would have made the same payment as they actually paid – because they would have paid more than was necessary to repay the balance.

 

Again from the guidance. Notice its says ALWAYS. Not occasionally once in while or irregularly but ALWAYS.

 

If you then say PS10/12 exp 6 actually shows an occasional full payment and what the company is supposed to do when there is such an event.

 

Pop them in your complaint and then demand a PS10/12 exp 6 recalculation. Hopefully that will set things in motion for you.

[gettingsorted]

Thanks Ken that's great ..............

- any chance you could flag my upload issue to a mod - I don't know how !

GS

[ken100464]

GS.

 

I am not a mod. I think dx and IMS are monitoring the thread maybe they know what the problem is.

[ken100464]

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

 

GS just incase you want to quote exactly where this all comes from. The bits you are interested in are towards the end. Customers who pay in full and customers who consistently paid minimums.

[gettingsorted]

thanks ken - i'll send them a message.....

 

would like someone to have a look at the calcs before i send them over to fos.

 

speak to you soon

 

GS

[whatisdue]

Ken,It was the following that i got from FOS on how the calculation sheet works that did not include the reconstructed payments columns, to reconstruct the balance.The method you showed me clearly did. Though many thanks for pointing out how the classing of minimum payments ties with made up surplus balances and surplus redress. MBNA has confirmed that the 'reconstructed payment' columns (in linewith the service guidelines), if the customer paid in full MBNA wouldreconstruct the equivalent of a full payment to the reconstructedbalance. The same applies for any minimum payments.Any comments welcome

Wid.

 

This quote?

 

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.

 

I would very closely look at your 8%. I think the only column this 8% is being applied to is your surplus column. Notional balance where it should actually be being applied to is a red herring. Card redress is the combination of PPI and associated so isnt a column they would attempt to work 8% from.

 

More to the point if there are no M's because you can prove you paid more than, then there should be no surplus. If there is no surplus then there will be no 8%. But on the upside the money remains in the card redress attracting contractual. You win.

 

Keep pushing for the PS10/12 exp 6 redress solution. Your really doing well.

[ims21]

@ gettingsorted

 

I have sent you a PM

 

[ken100464]

WID

 

Yes they are quoting the link I just posted to GS. Scroll down towards the end of the link and find the two sections classed as paid in Full and minimum payments.

 

Read them and this is what these reconstructed columns are. However the two guidance notes are for very specific consumer payment behaviours.

 

Now in your case you believe you paid more than the minimum amount and can prove it. FOS is explicitly clear on this. The company should use as figures what you actually did not what the company assumes you did UNLESS they can claim the two behaviours listed in that link towards the end.

 

So as I read it they have to use actual figures if you can prove you paid more than the minimum (it also says consistently paid the minimum which I understand to be something different to MBNA's understanding)

 

With the Fulls it says ALWAYS paid full. Thats quite simple. Always means always. And more helpful than that in PS10/12 exp 6 the example actually

shows what the regulator deems should happen if a full occurs. So other than an account that was paid off in full every month (and I understand why FOS have done this) then it is quite clear what they should be doing.

 

So. and forgive me I cant remember have seen so many now ,if you only have the odd full then that isnt ALWAYS plus the regulator has helpfully shown what they should do to occasional fulls.

[ken100464]

WID

 

Reading what your FOS person sent you then they have missed actually what MBNA were saying. They are not following FOS guidance at all. They are twisting FOS guidance.

[ims21]

Thanks for your response getiingsorted.

 

Here is the PDF which was causing problems.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]49676[/ATTACH]

[gettingsorted]

Thank you very much for posting it up for me IMS - have been cheeky and have just sent another one - hope that was OK.

 

Ken and AM - can you have a look at the docs for me please - the second one is all the payments for the period of the card; I have marked by estimates in peach; the first one is the information I have extracted to send to FOS.

GS

[ken100464]

Maybe 3 things to comment on GS as an outsider (your adjudicator)

 

First section clear as day. They have assumed something that didnt happen and you have proof.

 

Second section not so clear. Yes if they are same amounts but remember as the account changes (payments, transactions etc) so will the minimum. So IMO a min one month might pay the account above min for next month. If you paid exactly the same amount every month and your balance was declining then one would have to suspect only one minimum is possible. The moment(month) it transited from you paying the arrangement below the minimum to the moment where you were now paying over minimum.

 

But the problem on your spreadsheet is there is no balance to see that and you are paying different amounts therefore it is difficult to see.

 

This is not clear to me at all.

 

Finally your string of Fulls. Think about this. Did you pay your account off? Every month? Or is there a balance remaining here? As you continue to pay down the account?

 

Then rationally think how an earth can I have a Full payment declared when a balance remains?

 

Without seeing the balance I have to guess that your recon balance (MBNA spreadsheet) right hand side goes to zero. Hence why declared at Full. But again think along the lines they have to use actual figures not assumed. FCA/FOS rules not just it suits us. They are using the notional assumed recon balance when the actual real life balance did nothing of the sort.

 

So if you want my opinion section one is good to go. Section 2 I would think you need to either show what the mins on your statements were, like section one to show there is a difference or you need to show balances very similar being declared differently. Section 3 think you need to show the actual balance. ie if you had a balance of £1000 and paid £200 for 5 months. The first 4 cant be Fulls as you would have a balance of 1000, then 800 then 600 etc etc.

 

Dont forget the guidance. Always paid your balance in full. How can you have paid it in full when there is a balance remaining?

[ims21]

Thank you very much for posting it up for me IMS - have been cheeky and have just sent another one - hope that was OK.

 

Ken and AM - can you have a look at the docs for me please - the second one is all the payments for the period of the card; I have marked by estimates in peach; the first one is the information I have extracted to send to FOS.

GS

 

No probs....here is the second one....

 

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]49677[/ATTACH]

[whatisdue]

Ken,

 

 

This is the point I am trying to make.

 

 

MBNA clearly say that the reconstructed payment columns are used to reconstruct the balance. The method of calculation you showed me does this. Though the method calculation shown to me by the FOS (page 18/19 on the thread letter dated 21st August 2013) does not include any reference to the reconstructed payments column and how it fits in with their method of calculation.

 

 

The statement from MBNA also says this use of the reconstructed payments column is in line with service guidelines. I have seen nothing on this so I do not know where this comes from.

 

 

In addition to the false minimum payments MBNA made I have asked the adjudicator to get MBNA to answer the method of calculation that you showed me keeping the reconstructed balance high by not removing any surplus balances or redress.(as well as the fact that surplus not part of FCA/FOS guidelines should not be used in the first place) The very fact that they advised the reconstructed payment columns are used to reconstruct the balance shows surplus assumptions are not removed and enable the recon-balance to remain very high.