MBNA PPI Award “Interpretative” Calculations?

[ken100464]

WID.

 

They are drawing the reconstruction method from those guidelines just posted before to GS.

 

IN LINE WITH SERVICE GUIDELINES. Means in line with FOS guidlines. Financial Ombudsman SERVICE

 

You have got that the notional balance is too high because of the reconstruction. But your getting confused and then not coming across clearly.

 

You dont need to explain why or how all you have to do is rubbish it. Get the adjudicator to rule which he has that he wants it recalculating. Then we will look at what MBNA come up with.

 

So to your questions.

 

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.

This is because the Adjudicator doesnt understand MBNA have departed from the normal way of calculating.

 

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.

From the FOS guidelines link posted 4/5 posts ago to GS.

 

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.

A very complicated thing to describe. I know what your trying to say but its quite hard to understand. An adjudicator wont. IMO dont push to hard here. The adjudicator has ruled on a recalculation. IMO I would see what they come back with but demand the calculation before you make a decision. But over doing it now could lead to you losing the adjudicators goodwill. You got what most of us are dreaming of. A recalculation.

[AfterMidnight]

IMHO the main point to grasp for anyone following the thread, or arriving here, to understand really: is realising that not only are MBNA's post-summer-2012 calculations questionable, but they are also specifically designed to be difficult to follow on presented information, AND designed to look as though the bank is following (albeit their own version of) accepted FOS principles. It is not surprising that people of all sorts (adjudicators included) find it difficult to follow, and as WID is finding, putting it across when you know MBNA are manipulating values but you can't quite emulate that calculation yourself to show it - is part of the problem too. AS WID has shown, sticking to the easily-understandable bits (at this stage) in any argument will help win more in explaining why the redress calculations are not fair ones, than could be the risk of "losing" your adjudicator through overly initially expanding on the "mechanism" and chapter and verse. In other words, stick to the basics at first to best get what you want - this is the whole calculation is flawed owing to flawed initial inputs/assumptions - something both provable and easily understandable.

 

 

The calculations were designed to be sent to the populace as a whole, a huge percentage of whom said "thanks, spent" as opposed to questioning it. If MBNA are forced to recalculate in anyone's case (this should be the goal of everyone affected) then that recalculation itself is going to be subjected to a level of scrutiny orders of magnitude above the average initial one ever was in most cases. There is a very reasonable chance that if any individual has a recalculation ordered by their adjudicator, then the bank will think better to play straight here than risk too many more questions...and, supposing if they do try any more tricks - well the spotlight will be on that - and there may be a fair amount of interest at FOS - and here!

[AfterMidnight]

GS - what was your actual and reconstructed balances as at Jan 12? It can be read just from your info recently posted alone that MBNA may have been awarding you 8% on values overpaid as you didn't actually (even under their own reconstructions) owe them any money after that point. This (well this small part of things) is fair enough, even if classing Fs from that point is a strange way of achieving that.

[whatisdue]

Ken / AMN & everyone.

 

 

Ken,

Thanks for your advise you have reminded me of the need to keep it simple. I think the statements and the use of the information on calculation method that I posted to the adjudicator is hopefully sufficient to make the recalculation based on PS10/12 app 2 ex 6 ; the fairest outcome. I think it more a case now of seeing what MBNA come up with in response to what my adjudicator puts to them. I will of course let you know.

 

 

AMN

I was thinking along the same lines of when they are told to recalculate rather than try another tactic to cut redress. They throw in the towel and concede on that particular case and follow guidelines. I too feel that it would be better to hold your hands up when found out and settle rather than still trying to worm a way out. Letting the odd case go means the lid can be kept on the majority of redresses wrongly done and less likely bring attention to that majority of wrongful redress.

 

 

Hopefully your summary on this is right.

 

 

Lets see what MBNA actually do.....

 

 

 

IMHO the main point to grasp for anyone following the thread, or arriving here, to understand really: is realising that not only are MBNA's post-summer-2012 calculations questionable, but they are also specifically designed to be difficult to follow on presented information, AND designed to look as though the bank is following (albeit their own version of) accepted FOS principles. It is not surprising that people of all sorts (adjudicators included) find it difficult to follow, and as WID is finding, putting it across when you know MBNA are manipulating values but you can't quite emulate that calculation yourself to show it - is part of the problem too. AS WID has shown, sticking to the easily-understandable bits (at this stage) in any argument will help win more in explaining why the redress calculations are not fair ones, than could be the risk of "losing" your adjudicator through overly initially expanding on the "mechanism" and chapter and verse. In other words, stick to the basics at first to best get what you want - this is the whole calculation is flawed owing to flawed initial inputs/assumptions - something both provable and easily understandable.

 

 

The calculations were designed to be sent to the populace as a whole, a huge percentage of whom said "thanks, spent" as opposed to questioning it. If MBNA are forced to recalculate in anyone's case (this should be the goal of everyone affected) then that recalculation itself is going to be subjected to a level of scrutiny orders of magnitude above the average initial one ever was in most cases. There is a very reasonable chance that if any individual has a recalculation ordered by their adjudicator, then the bank will think better to play straight here than risk too many more questions...and, supposing if they do try any more tricks - well the spotlight will be on that - and there may be a fair amount of interest at FOS - and here!

[whatisdue]

Stop Press !!

 

 

Ken / AMN / Everyone.

 

 

I hope i am not the only one (could never be !) and that you have received a letter from Lead Adjudicator to advise that people at the FOS are looking closely at MBNA PPI redress and how they calculate in response to concerns raised.

 

 

Once again I think this is encouraging to see. Though in the new position that I found myself in since last week when my adjudicator who up to then had considered my MBNA PPI redress fair and reasonable and would not even consider a request for recalculation. I feel that I should do more not only to my benefit but to all the people who have contributed to this thread and to the many who I am sure have been quietly watching and reading events from the different contributors, taking in the advise and guidance as they pursue their own claim for correct redress.

 

 

What I propose is quite simply this and please comment and feel free to say if I am right or wrong to do this.

 

 

The letter is something standard in response to the people who raised their concerns. I suspect that this lead adjudicator is unaware of cases in progress where MBNA have purposely calculated redress using a very complex method to save money. My case is the typical example of an adjudicator being convinced that MBNA have abide by FCA/FOS rules and procedure and I with your expert advise and guidance have managed to convince them and make them see that MBNA are not doing what they told them. If my case (and it may have already i am guessing along the lines here) is brought to the lead adjudicator it may well realise a few truths to the FOS to get what everybody on this thread wants.

 

 

I can easily email the lead adjudicator with my case details and events to date.

 

 

Your comments on this please as I never sure on what I am doing just this thing inside me keeps burning for justice.

 

 

Ken / AMN & everyone.

 

 

Ken,

Thanks for your advise you have reminded me of the need to keep it simple. I think the statements and the use of the information on calculation method that I posted to the adjudicator is hopefully sufficient to make the recalculation based on PS10/12 app 2 ex 6 ; the fairest outcome. I think it more a case now of seeing what MBNA come up with in response to what my adjudicator puts to them. I will of course let you know.

 

 

AMN

I was thinking along the same lines of when they are told to recalculate rather than try another tactic to cut redress. They throw in the towel and concede on that particular case and follow guidelines. I too feel that it would be better to hold your hands up when found out and settle rather than still trying to worm a way out. Letting the odd case go means the lid can be kept on the majority of redresses wrongly done and less likely bring attention to that majority of wrongful redress.

 

 

Hopefully your summary on this is right.

 

 

Lets see what MBNA actually do.....

[AfterMidnight]

 

 

Stop Press !! Ken / AMN / Everyone.

... a letter from Lead Adjudicator to advise that people at the FOS are looking closely at MBNA PPI redress and how they calculate in response to concerns raised....propose is quite simply this...

I can easily email the lead adjudicator with my case details and events to date...burning for justice.

 

 

Hi whatisdue, firstly, yes: if MBNA are indeed asked searching questions both for individual cases, and perhaps a on a more collective "class action" basis, it will have been through efforts of those with have felt passionately about it - and were able to get something of that sentiment (and logic) across to people who should be ideally placed to know about it. You can count yourself within that description, and there are most certainly a few others here too. I think though that you should hold off at present mailing, IMHO, the lead adjudicator who sent the letter. As ken has said a number of times, it really just needs one or two people to "get it" at FOS and that should have a significant affect on all, as that realisation spreads.

 

Best people to "get it" are those towards the top. The letter is a sign of the first of that process beginning to happen, and it looks like some thinking caps are being decidedly looked out to put on, and magnifying glasses readied to be put in to action. While you can of course email if you want to, I would certainly suggest letting this "top down" percolation brew for a bit and let it happen. Your own case will likely have been earmarked as part of something that looks bigger than any individual case.

 

All-in, this is good progress, and I think a number of things, including cases like your own being contested in the right way at the right time... are likely to contribute to the domino effect...

 

 

AMN

Edited March 13, 2014 by citizenB

[citizenB]

As ken has said a number of times, it really just needs one or two people to "get it" at FOS and that should have a significant affect on all, as that realisation spreads.

 

Unfortunately, turnover of staff at the FOS is so great, that when you finally get it through to one person.. they up and leave !

[Old Cogger]

Unfortunately, turnover of staff at the FOS is so great, that when you finally get it through to one person.. they up and leave !

 

sounds tome likje:- buy 24 get rid 25 for free!

[angry cat]

Stop Press !!

 

 

Ken / AMN / Everyone.

 

 

I hope i am not the only one (could never be !) and that you have received a letter from Lead Adjudicator to advise that people at the FOS are looking closely at MBNA PPI redress and how they calculate in response to concerns raised.

 

 

Once again I think this is encouraging to see. Though in the new position that I found myself in since last week when my adjudicator who up to then had considered my MBNA PPI redress fair and reasonable and would not even consider a request for recalculation. I feel that I should do more not only to my benefit but to all the people who have contributed to this thread and to the many who I am sure have been quietly watching and reading events from the different contributors, taking in the advise and guidance as they pursue their own claim for correct redress.

 

 

What I propose is quite simply this and please comment and feel free to say if I am right or wrong to do this.

 

 

The letter is something standard in response to the people who raised their concerns. I suspect that this lead adjudicator is unaware of cases in progress where MBNA have purposely calculated redress using a very complex method to save money. My case is the typical example of an adjudicator being convinced that MBNA have abide by FCA/FOS rules and procedure and I with your expert advise and guidance have managed to convince them and make them see that MBNA are not doing what they told them. If my case (and it may have already i am guessing along the lines here) is brought to the lead adjudicator it may well realise a few truths to the FOS to get what everybody on this thread wants.

 

 

I can easily email the lead adjudicator with my case details and events to date.

 

 

Your comments on this please as I never sure on what I am doing just this thing inside me keeps burning for justice.

 

I have also received a letter from Vicki McAusland - FOS Lead Adjudicator dated 10 March 2014!

[AfterMidnight]

I had same letter arrive this morning too, as presumably everyone who sent the same letter to Mr T Boorman did too.

 

 

While I think that those of us (like me) with unopened complaints mouldering in "still to be allocated a case-worker" piles do generally need (through little other choice) to be patient - I have been thinking further re. people with "active discussion" complaints - e.g. gettingsorted and whatisdue, and those in much same situation. While whatisdue has reached a degree of recognition of "ain't right" with allocated adjudicator, and GS is attempting to make that realisation happen - perhaps it may be worth considering a version of what WID has thought about as a course of action, for those with "live" complaints. Replying simply and nicely to Ms M offering your case reference number, and suggesting there is some information within the file that she may wish to cast an eye over, may be useful to the common good. As well, of course, making it less likely that your adjudicator may make an unfortunately ill-timed decision based on their current understanding only. While that could be fixed mucho-later at Round Two (Ombudsman after Adjudicator), if that can perhaps be avoided by current action, maybe it should be. Perhaps including the gist of your argument based on facts could be part of that, but IMHO, in the same boat, I would mostly reference the complaint, not reproduce it in it's entirety.

 

 

OK, from our perspectives what we have received can look a bit like an enhanced holding letter, but chances are FOS (if they have a degree of co-ordination), having had such an issue suggested for their attention, may insert a pause for reflection in all the relevant cases, but in my book, some "time out" even if lengthening the process a little, but making a first decision result potentially more palatable...would be a good thing...

[whatisdue]

AMN / Ken / GS / A/C everyone

 

 

I thought you might come round to my way of thinking !

 

 

I really do believe that my case and events with G/S should be brought to the attention of the lead adjudicator. They can see for themselves what we are on about and what has been going on with adjudicators handling of MBNA PPI redress.

 

 

The lead adjudicator needs concrete information and proof on what MBNA have been up to and still doing to act on. Through the letters to the FCA and FOS this thread has started to stir things up and make questions be asked in amongst people in both organisations on what are MBNA doing with PPI redress also why if there is a problem adjudicators / ombudsman have not been seen or dealt with it.

 

 

I believe 100% that if cases like mine and G/S are not mentioned to her to look at. We may miss an opportunity to not only provide information and proof on MBNA cutting redress tactics. Though we also fail to ' hit the nail on the head' and' hammer home' all the things we have talked about and mentioned on this thread that has brought us together to fight an injustice.

 

 

We must make the most of any opportunity that comes our way.

 

 

I will email the lead adjudicator with my case reference number and a few bullet points on what has happened on case to date.

 

 

G/S I believe that you should do the same.

 

 

If anyone else has a live case with the FOS in relation to MBNA PPI where the adjudicator has been satisfied with their redress offer though you know it is wrong. I strongly believe that you should contact Lead Adjudicator Vicki McAusland at the FOS quote your reference number and a few points on what has happened on your case.

 

 

Lets us help this lead adjudicator and ourselves by providing her with the ammunition and proof that she needs to investigate our concerns and hopefully help win our case for us.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I had same letter arrive this morning too, as presumably everyone who sent the same letter to Mr T Boorman did too.

 

 

While I think that those of us (like me) with unopened complaints mouldering in "still to be allocated a case-worker" piles do generally need (through little other choice) to be patient - I have been thinking further re. people with "active discussion" complaints - e.g. gettingsorted and whatisdue, and those in much same situation. While whatisdue has reached a degree of recognition of "ain't right" with allocated adjudicator, and GS is attempting to make that realisation happen - perhaps it may be worth considering a version of what WID has thought about as a course of action, for those with "live" complaints. Replying simply and nicely to Ms M offering your case reference number, and suggesting there is some information within the file that she may wish to cast an eye over, may be useful to the common good. As well, of course, making it less likely that your adjudicator may make an unfortunately ill-timed decision based on their current understanding only. While that could be fixed mucho-later at Round Two (Ombudsman after Adjudicator), if that can perhaps be avoided by current action, maybe it should be. Perhaps including the gist of your argument based on facts could be part of that, but IMHO, in the same boat, I would mostly reference the complaint, not reproduce it in it's entirety.

 

 

OK, from our perspectives what we have received can look a bit like an enhanced holding letter, but chances are FOS (if they have a degree of co-ordination), having had such an issue suggested for their attention, may insert a pause for reflection in all the relevant cases, but in my book, some "time out" even if lengthening the process a little, but making a first decision result potentially more palatable...would be a good thing...

[matttaylor3331]

Guys, not MBNA but got this from the Halifax via the FOS can anyone have a digest and see if you can figure out how the figures are worked out?

[dx100uk]

pers info showing atts removed

 

dx

[ken100464]

Hiya Matt.

 

Without seeing their spreadsheet calculation it is very hard to see what they have done.

 

But a sneaky feeling is they have not followed PS10/12 exp 6 as they should have done if its a credit card.

 

Why?

 

OK in PS10/12 exp 6 8% is payable on credit balances only.

 

So look at your balances. No credits there until Apr 13 with your settlement in Jul 13, 3 months later. Not alot of time to build up the 8%

 

Ok but if the account was reconstructed properly its when your notional balance goes into credit thats when you get 8%.

 

So look at your total claim and subtract that off your balance. But the bigger sums will be towards the end as the premiums and interest rate builds.

 

So when you balance was in the £14k level even with the redress included you cant have been in credit because your full redress at the account end doesnt cover that.

 

Finally I have seen accounts running the same length as yours with much less PPI where the associated interest was much higher than that. Seems very low. So unless this is a mega low contractual interest card that associated dont look right. But your never gonna know without their figures to look at.

 

So if it was me I would challenge your adjudicator to challenge Halifax for the computer spreadsheet that made up those figures. And perhaps tell your adjudicator consumers are just starting to rumble the banks are at it again.

[whatisdue]

Ken / G/S / AMN / A/C & everyone.

 

 

I have the following response from the led adjudicator after offering to put my live case forward to show MBNA PPI redress calculation tactics. Read on......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you for your email received on 13 March.

I have added your response to your file. I have updated our records accordingly and we will use our case reference -------- when contacting you in future.

Once we have looked into the matter further, I will be in contact.

Yours sincerely,

Vicki McAusland

Vicki McAusland | lead adjudicator | Financial Ombudsman Service | South Quay Plaza, 183 Marsh Wall, London, E14 9SR | vicki.mcausland@financial-ombudsman.org.uk

I really do believe that it worth making contact with your case ref, no, and a few bullet points on what has happened or not on your case. If the FOS are making enquiries on MBNA PPI calculations we as victims must support the FOS in ay way we can to expose MBNA and get what we want.

Please email Vicki with your case ref, no, and a few pointers as I have done and lets hope it makes what we want happen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hiya Matt.

 

Without seeing their spreadsheet calculation it is very hard to see what they have done.

 

But a sneaky feeling is they have not followed PS10/12 exp 6 as they should have done if its a credit card.

 

Why?

 

OK in PS10/12 exp 6 8% is payable on credit balances only.

 

So look at your balances. No credits there until Apr 13 with your settlement in Jul 13, 3 months later. Not alot of time to build up the 8%

 

Ok but if the account was reconstructed properly its when your notional balance goes into credit thats when you get 8%.

 

So look at your total claim and subtract that off your balance. But the bigger sums will be towards the end as the premiums and interest rate builds.

 

So when you balance was in the £14k level even with the redress included you cant have been in credit because your full redress at the account end doesnt cover that.

 

Finally I have seen accounts running the same length as yours with much less PPI where the associated interest was much higher than that. Seems very low. So unless this is a mega low contractual interest card that associated dont look right. But your never gonna know without their figures to look at.

 

So if it was me I would challenge your adjudicator to challenge Halifax for the computer spreadsheet that made up those figures. And perhaps tell your adjudicator consumers are just starting to rumble the banks are at it again.

[gettingsorted]

Hello all ;

 

Still not getting notifications !! have been very busy at work so this is my first chance in a few days to look through the latest posts and review what I was planning to sent to FOS - Thanks all for your comments; have amended both the spreadsheet and have added a further sheet to explain.

 

In the meantime I had received an email from my adjudicator which said

 

"We are currently reviewing MBNA’s approach and are liaising with it at a senior level. Therefore, I will contact you once I am able to provide you with a more detailed update."

 

which sounds interesting so I thought I thought to remind them in the email about the para in my letter (suggested by my fellow posters here) which said

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

To which they promptly replied

"The correspondence between ourselves and MBNA is being done on a senior level and therefore, I do not have a copy of any such correspondence. Please note that due to the Data Protection Act, we would not be able to send non-redacted correspondence from businesses to consumers in any event.

Please be assured that we are trying to resolve this issue as it also effects a number of other complaints. Therefore, once this issue has been resolved, I will be in a position to provide you with an update on how we will be proceeding."

 

Interesting - do you not think.

 

After reading your discussion about the Lead Adjudicator I shall email her with my case reference and also see how I can get my OH's story in to her. Will keep you posted ........

 

I think I ought to do something about the letter received from the FSA as well - Ken / AM any suggestions please ?

 

 

I apologise for the untidiness of the font sizes - its cause I have copied and pasted ........

 

 

Thanks all

 

GS

[ken100464]

GS

 

I would do as WID has said and you have alluded to if that is what you wish to do.

 

It would seem the letter may have had an effect and maybe we will all get swept up in a general calculation

 

Fingers crossed eh. Keep fighting but would suspect you may have to wait if all claims have now been stayed.

[AfterMidnight]

Hi GS

 

 

Yes, interesting stuff. I would certainly write to Vicki if you wished too. Probably no need to reply to FCA at this stage. A potential "hold" on MBNA redress-complaint issues is/was always expected if they took "our issue" seriously as a group issue at FOS.

 

 

While early days, the first prerequisite... of actually "looking at it" ...seems to be in place.

[gettingsorted]

Morning all....

will write to FOS lead adjucitor with a note of my case number and leave the FCA for now; I will probably just sending them a polite reply back saying that my case is currently at the FOS - just cause I feel its impolite to ignore their letter - thats just me personally.

 

It doesn't worry me that there may be a stay on the case - mine was only sent to FOS in july and I was very surprised to hear from them so quicly - I had expected about 18 months especially as ken and AM had sent theirs a lot before me and hadn't heard anything.

 

Speak soon

 

Thanks

 

GS

[AfterMidnight]

I was doing a little filing yesterday and noticed for the first time that the letter from lead adjudicator Vicki had my earlier allocated case reference number in the letter's "ref" field, top left. So - she/they had unpromptedly connected my general letter to Tony B @ FOS - to my original MBNA complaint, although I don't know how far the joining the dots has taken place.

[angry cat]

Looks like the Lloyds Group/Halifax, may have been doing similar...!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26715982

[angry cat]

I was doing a little filing yesterday and noticed for the first time that the letter from lead adjudicator Vicki had my earlier allocated case reference number in the letter's "ref" field, top left. So - she/they had unpromptedly connected my general letter to Tony B @ FOS - to my original MBNA complaint, although I don't know how far the joining the dots has taken place.

 

Yes, they will link up if, one has a complaint already logged with the FOS; names will automatically come up on their system!

[angry cat]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03yqp8d

[dipsylewis]

Please be gentle I have been directed to here from another link

 

so these are notes I had made whilst on that forum.

 

ENTRY 1

 

I had an accident in May 2013, which resulted in my having to cease payments for some time with MBNA,

they put me on 0% for the time, I then started to make payments as agreed and remain on 0% due to ill health

 

I noted that they sent me a letter stating PPC had been cancelled dated after my accident, I didn't even know I had it,

but started asking for further information, they initially said they could't tell me the date it was cancelled.

 

months and months of going backwards and forwards,

they have sent me all the communications associated with my account. they say the the PPC was cancelled on the 30/12/04

 

last payment for PPC was taken 22/12/04

 

I have looked at the system sheets for that date, no mention of a cancellation

 

there are no more PPC payments taken though after 22/12/04

 

Surely they can't just cancel it and have no evidence?

 

also the forms you sign to say you agree to T&C when taking out the Credit Card, (2003),

is it a tick box to say I decline or a tick box to say I accept PPC?

 

Does anyone have a form for this year and could tell me it would be helpful.

 

Can MBNA just cancel this with no proof, why would they write to me after my accident in May 2013 to say it was cancelled if it was cancelled in December 2004?

 

I am so confused

 

did I even sign up for PPC, the wording on the T& C is all blurred, I have asked them the question, but they have not answered that particular question ([NOW SEEMS I DIDN'T EVEN SIGN FOR IT, BUT AWAITING THEIR RESPONSE)

 

 

ENTRY 2

 

I am trying to work out if I had said "yes" on the application form - they took payments.

 

B) why it stopped, and proof of how it was cancelled

 

reason for this is I have an accident in on 1/05/13 and then I received a letter dated 17/05/13 to say the PPC had been cancelled

 

Obviously if it had been wrongly cancelled and should have still been in force my payments would have been covered at time of my accident.

 

If I had never agreed to PPC then the payments should never have been taken

 

 

ENTRY 3

 

sorry if I am being confusing, the accident I had was a head injury and I know I am not clear at times so my apologies.

 

I don't know if I signed to say yes or no to PPC, I can't make out the wording on the box of the application.

 

They took the PPC but only for approx 15 months (2009/2010)

 

I only started questioning it when I got a letter in May 2013 as the letter said PPC was cancelled and the account frozen because I was off work and therefore unable to pay, 0% fees/interesticon.

 

They eventually told me after sending me all the statements, system data etc (FOCicon), that the PPC was cancelled on 30/12/10, however the system data doesn't show this.

 

I know I can claim for the 18 months PPC (I doubt this will be much), however, what I am trying to find out is,

a) did I actually apply for PPC (cant see the wording on the application - have asked them to clairfy)

b) if I didn't what can be done about them taking the money

c) if I did, surely they need to prove I made the request to cancel it

 

I am trying to find out if a proportion of my balance should be written off due to ill health/no salary if the PPC was not cancelled correctly.

 

I really don't know what I am doing, I did notice several £25 charges on my account also for late payments, about 9 I think, back to 2010/11, can I claim these ? are they worth chasing?

 

The PPC payments are not big, so I am guessing I wouldn't get much back from them

 

Any advise would be a great help

 

thank you in advance

 

 

ENTRY 4

 

update and even more confused

 

finally got a blank form off them, as I couldn't read the wording on my own form as it was all blurred.

 

Anyway as I haven't ticked the box that says "we strongly recommend.... blah blah blah", it would appear that PPC should never have been in force, yet there letters say it was for 21 months

 

March 03 to Dec 04

 

I really don't know where I am going with this, but it does seem that some less than honest things have been going on.... any ideas on what to do?

 

thanks in advance

 

 

RESPONSE FROM USER

 

you need to reclaim the PPC

 

you need to reclaim the PENALTY charges.

 

CISheet v101.xls

 

using the above spreadsheet [twice]

 

put their APR in cell d15

 

then ONE for PPC

 

and one for PENALTY charges

 

enter EVERY PPIicon payment individually on its date

 

and the same for the charges on the second copy

 

dx

 

ENTRY 5

 

I have done two form one for the PPC charges and have done the Late payments bit

 

I remember the 6.9% life of balance when I did a balance transfer, the seem to have then converted the interest to read Finance charge and not interest on the statements is that normal?

 

I will need to ask them the APR prior to this, but have put in 18% for now - I have no idea what the APR was prior to the 6.9% of balance in 2009

 

after the balance transfer there were no charges apart from the "finance charge"

 

If I didn't sign for PPC, which looks probably looking at the almost unreadable copy of my signature block they have sent, apart from the PPC charges + interest on this, should they be pay any compensation?

 

the amount of the PPC and late charges + interest comes out just short of £700

 

Should I claim now, I have a 0% no fee arrangement to pay with them currently, or should I leave well alone, don't want them removing the 0% etc.

 

A friend states that the rates fee charges etc were not published on the sign off sheets in 2003,

but it appears to be on the rear of my signature block,they think because of the poor quality of the copy they sent,

that my signature might have been scanned into the document

- does anyone know if in 2003 they did or didn't include rates/fees etc on this form.

 

Should they provide me with any more information?

 

It was an internet application - not sure if that makes any difference.

 

 

RESPONSE FROM USER WHICH LEAD ME TO NOW

 

they'd still need a signed agreement me thinks.

 

can I suggest you joint/read

 

(This link was to here)

 

 

sorry for all the questions.

[AfterMidnight]

Hi dipsy

 

 

It will take more time than I have at the moment to absorb your info, but wanted you to know it was not being ignored. If anyone can help in the meantime, please do.

 

 

.