MBNA PPI Award “Interpretative” Calculations?

[dipsylewis]

thank you, I know it is long

 

I am just struggling to work it all out, my brain doesn't function so well after my accident and the ton of paperwork they sent doesn't make any sense

 

thanks

[Miaspa 2010]

Whoop Whoop!

 

My complaint has been upheld by the fos. Just waiting for MBNA offer on my account. Doesn't help with the current issues but at least I will get my own build sheet to argue.

 

Can't believe it 18 months and 22 pages on here since I last looked at this thread. Hopefully with my own calculation to look at and compare to all my statements I should have some fun.

[AfterMidnight]

Hi Miaspa 2010

 

 

Good news for you, will be interesting to see what they come up with. If you want any opinions on what you receive, do post up as usual minus any identifiable stuff irrevocably blanked out, and see what those people who have now been looking at these for a long time reckon.

 

 

Well done again.

[whatisdue]

Hi Miaspa 2010

 

 

Good news for you, will be interesting to see what they come up with. If you want any opinions on what you receive, do post up as usual minus any identifiable stuff irrevocably blanked out, and see what those people who have now been looking at these for a long time reckon.

 

 

Well done again.

 

Hi all

I have not been on the thread for a while as i wait for a response from the FOS on MBNA PPI calculations.

 

I am still following events on the thread and even though things seem a bit quite at present.

 

I am really getting quitely confident that an explosion of a scandal is about to happen.

 

I asked last week for an update on my case and the response i have had is from the casework manager

and interestingly not my adjudicator.

 

There may well be a reason why my adjudicator did not reply though

it is still something to hear from their manager.

 

Please read on the reply i had, as usual any comments welcome,

or maybe we should not speculate though its hard not to...

...Thank you for your email.

 

Please accept my apologies for the delay in our response. I can see that my colleague,

 

Vicki McAusland, sent you a letter on 10 March 2014

to explain we are looking into MBNA’s calculations on a wider basis.

 

Since Vicki last wrote to you we have been looking closely at the way MBNA carries out its calculations.

 

We have asked MBNA for more information about its calculations and when we’ve had response

s to all our enquiries we should be in a position to respond to your concerns.

 

This is taking longer than we had hoped so thank you for your patience while we look into it.

 

As soon as we’ve finished this work,

 

we’ll be in touch with you again.

[AfterMidnight]

Thanks for the update whatisdue, as you say we should not speculate probably, but FOS "kind of" reporting back that they are asking questions, and still awaiting feasible answers... can't really be a bad sign....

[AfterMidnight]

Had in the post today a letter saying very much same as whatisdue's recent letter, in my case coming from Vicki McAusland.

[angry cat]

Ditto!

[ken100464]

ditto twice as one for me and one for OH

[GRUMPY OLD GIT]

Good Evening,

 

I have also received a letter from Ms. Vicki McAusland - FOS Lead Adjudicator.

 

Ms. McAusland, apologises for her delay in resonding about MBNA and its credit card payment protection insurance redress...

 

"Since last I wrote to you we have been looking closely at the way MBNA carries out its calculations. We have asked MBNA for more information about its calculations and when we've had responses to ALL our enquiries we should be in a position to respond to your concerns.

 

Its taking longer than we had hoped so thank you for your patience while we look into it...."

 

I do hope that the Financial Ombudsman Service is really 'looking closely', as it would appear that there has been a rather large blunder made recently...!

 

I will leave the matter there for now and continue to wait, patiently.

[angry cat]

The following may well be of benefit:-

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27679311

 

Will they ever change...!?

[citizenB]

The following may well be of benefit:-

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27679311

 

Will they ever change...!?

 

Very unlikely.. whilst they think they can get away with it.. they will!

[whatisdue]

Ken / A/C everyone could you comment on what MBNA claim that the PPI is the last item on the statement charged and could not possibily affect any charges / overlimit fees when quite clearly on the statement PPI is one of the first charges ? Also as the PPI remains in the account each month and is quantifiable how can it possibily not affect charges. MBNA say they are quite confident on their methodology so who has given them this independant advise that they claim of to be correct in their redress ways when clearly it is not ?

The following may well be of benefit:-

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27679311

 

Will they ever change...!?

[AfterMidnight]

Questions as per above raised by whatisdue are good ones, although there may not really be any sensible answers...

 

 

The arguments (first payment is PPI, so this is cleared and therefor does not attract interest) are old ones,

and the counterargument is that even if that was indeed taken first, and disappeared from the account

- well then the exact same value was left in.

 

Meaning this "left in" value was an effect of PPI premiums, so must be consequently corrected for the value and interest

then accrued if correcting for PPI mis-sale and putting someone back in the position that they would have been in if it was not for the PPI premiums.

 

As for who has given them this independent onceover "all fine" methodology advice?

 

Dunno, but I sincerely hope for their sake they have hugely extensive professional indemnity insurance for the quotable if anonymous advice they gave..

.. I suspect they gave MBNA a small piece of OK of part of the jigsaw..

. and that has been taken as something of a licence to overextend that claim...

 

Unfortunately for MBNA, the days of people, advisers, and hopefully industry regulators tending to automatically believe the bank's bluff

"we are the experts, trust us" when making such judgement calls...are well and truly over.

[ken100464]

Totally agree with AMN here.

 

The MBNA response is one of we know best so dont bother us little plebs.

 

Sadly for them I suspect the powers that be are now starting to work out they have been had by them aswell. The more that is uncovered then the less the FCA will believe them about anything. The point raised in the article is separate from the issue raised within this thread.

 

But FCA guidance explicitly states these charges should be returned.

An overlimit that was even a few hundred over the limit at the end of the account

(when normally most people were suffering financial meltdown) cannot possibly be correct

if the reconstructed balance is below the limit at the time.

 

To let such a penalty stand doesnt put the consumer back to where they would have been if the PPI wasnt there.

 

Indeed I am sure many late fees towards the end of these accounts are also wrong.

 

If the new reconstructed balance goes into credit how an earth can a late fee have occurred.

 

The card was in credit MBNA. No wonder we had a banking crisis if you cannot work out that a penalty charge cannot be levied against a credit balance.

 

This thread started nearly 2 years ago.

 

We know exactly what they are up to.

 

Hopefully a great big fine and an ordering of them to look at one and every claim they have ever admitted too should now be on the regulators mind.

 

This isnt chicken feed they have once again [problem]med the consumer of this is millions.

 

To [problem] once is bad enough but then to [problem] many more times after you have been caught shows the real face of banking.

 

And interestingly everyone of those named and shamed is on my personnal list of under paying banks. No surprise there.

 

Keep the faith everyone. Think even the powers that regulate this crooked industry are waking up to dont trust them on anything.

[suvin50]

This is the reply I received to my second complaint about unlawful charges. All the charges were applied before 2006 so their argument doesn't hold water.

[dx100uk]

your details are showing thru the pen

 

att removed

 

**you can post up images/letters by this method immediately..you don't need 10 posts**

.

set your default scan page size to A4 less than 300DPI [150 will do]

scan the required letters/agreements/sheets - as a picture[jpg] file

don't forget you can use a mobile phone or a digital camera too!!

'

BUT......

ENSURE: remove all pers info inc. barcodes etc

but leave all monetary figures and dates.

.

************************* ************************* *******

{DO NOT USE A BIRO OR PEN OR USE SEE THRU TAPE OR LABELS]

************************* ************************* ***********

.

DO IT IN MSPAINT.EXE or any photo editing program

goto one of the many free online pdf converter websites ...

http://freejpgtopdf.com/

http://www.convert-jpg-to-pdf.net/

..

if you have multiple scans/pics

put them in a word doc FIRST and convert that to PDF

or http://www.freepdfconvert.com/

or

use www.pdfmerge.com

 

convert existing PC files to PDF [office has an installable print to PDF option]

..

it would be better to upload a multipage pdf if

you have many images too rather than many single pdfs

.

or if you have PDF as an installed printer drive use that

or use word and save as pdf

try and logically name your file so people know what it is.

though DONT USE BANK NAMES or CAG in the title

i'e Default notice DD-mm-yyyy

.

open a new msg box here

hit go advanced below the msg box

hit manage attachments below that box

hit the add files button on the top right

hit select files, navigate to your file on your pc

hit upload files

...

YOU DONT have to put a link to the attachment in the msg box..just upload it ..job done

you can click on your links to check them too!

.

dx

[dx100uk]

FYI under sec 32 c ' a 'mistake' you can reclaim them

 

dx

[gettingsorted]

Hello all

 

Just posting as I don't seem to get notifications so thought I would post to see if I would get them now.

 

Like the rest of you - I am just now waiting !

 

GS

[AfterMidnight]

Hi GS

 

 

Yup...tick, tick, tick, tick...wait....tick, tick

 

 

I did say around January to my other half that I reckoned it would all be mostly over at some point during 2014. I still think that that is likely, but the wheels of FOS (and FCA) move s-l-o-w-l-y. Hopefully at some point over the summer FOS will one day realise that they will never actually never be receiving more than the (in all probability) story of "of-course-it's-fine" posturing, flannel and "completely-understandable-postponements" from our friends in Chester ...

 

 

The authorities and regulators have the evidence, have asked some questions apparently and will, at some point, have to make their minds up if MBNA's creative ppi'-ing is within acceptable allowable remit...

 

 

I would wonder if this one (being one of many issues now bubbling up to awareness with other institutions' methods) would actually be some nice low-hanging-fruit for FOS to make a first hard stand on...

 

 

AMN

[gettingsorted]

Hi AM

 

Hurrah I got a notification - totally agree with your thoughts; I rang the FCA chap and told him I had given the FOS permission to let him have details of my case if he wanted to review in view of their investigation - couldn't be bothered to print and sort everything again ! He seemed very nice;

 

Just finished writing to Barclays - have finally decided to go after them for the overdraft protection ! Here I go again on the PPI merry go round ! Must be mad!

 

Have also claimed on a couple of mortgage care policies - don't know where I'll get with thos but its worth a try....

 

GS

[whatisdue]

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

 

 

While I am waiting like most people on this thread for the FOS to reveal the findings of their investigations into MBNA. I have been looking further into the BBC report on shortchange of consumers PPI redress by lenders notably MBNA by not including O/L fees and charges in redress.

 

 

On the V20 B037 build there is a 'Other Trans' column that was not fully explained to me. The £12 charge for O/L or Late fees are straight forward. Though there also large amounts of £1,133 and £205 which always come up when the balance is over the limit (page18 of thread). I looked at Nathan 003 who has the same V20 B037 build on page 6 of this thread. I noticed the same thing of £12 charges against O/L monthly balances and also some large amounts of money against O/L balances. I suspect this would also be on the V20 B031 build.

 

 

My point is are these amounts in the 'Other Trans' column charges along with the obvious £12 charges that should be returned to the consumer including interest. Knowing PPI charges caused the balance to go O/L ?. I can not find any record of the large 'Other Trans' on my statements just the £12 O/L & Late fees so this does puzzle me. Also I notice there is a very large amount of money in the very first entry of 'Other Trans' which I can not account for. I also noticed this on Nathan 003 build. It is not on my statements to cross check.

 

 

your comments on this please.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totally agree with AMN here.

 

The MBNA response is one of we know best so dont bother us little plebs.

 

Sadly for them I suspect the powers that be are now starting to work out they have been had by them aswell. The more that is uncovered then the less the FCA will believe them about anything. The point raised in the article is separate from the issue raised within this thread.

 

But FCA guidance explicitly states these charges should be returned.

An overlimit that was even a few hundred over the limit at the end of the account

(when normally most people were suffering financial meltdown) cannot possibly be correct

if the reconstructed balance is below the limit at the time.

 

To let such a penalty stand doesnt put the consumer back to where they would have been if the PPI wasnt there.

 

Indeed I am sure many late fees towards the end of these accounts are also wrong.

 

If the new reconstructed balance goes into credit how an earth can a late fee have occurred.

 

The card was in credit MBNA. No wonder we had a banking crisis if you cannot work out that a penalty charge cannot be levied against a credit balance.

 

This thread started nearly 2 years ago.

 

We know exactly what they are up to.

 

Hopefully a great big fine and an ordering of them to look at one and every claim they have ever admitted too should now be on the regulators mind.

 

This isnt chicken feed they have once again [problem]med the consumer of this is millions.

 

To [problem] once is bad enough but then to [problem] many more times after you have been caught shows the real face of banking.

 

And interestingly everyone of those named and shamed is on my personnal list of under paying banks. No surprise there.

 

Keep the faith everyone. Think even the powers that regulate this crooked industry are waking up to dont trust them on anything.

[whatisdue]

Ken, AMN, everyone i suspect you have all been watching the world cup ! and missed my post on the 'Other Transaction column on the V20-B037 Build !

 

I really would welcome a response and advise on my post to understand if and how it should fit in with proper redress.

 

Also i forgot to mention that my statements prove beyound doubt that the PPI monthly charge is placed on the overlimit balance amount.

 

Making complete rubbish of the MBNA claim in the BBC investigation article that it is charged first

and that it could never affect O/L charges/feesAll comments are welcome.

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

 

 

While I am waiting like most people on this thread for the FOS to reveal the findings of their investigations into MBNA. I have been looking further into the BBC report on shortchange of consumers PPI redress by lenders notably MBNA by not including O/L fees and charges in redress.

 

 

On the V20 B037 build there is a 'Other Trans' column that was not fully explained to me. The £12 charge for O/L or Late fees are straight forward. Though there also large amounts of £1,133 and £205 which always come up when the balance is over the limit (page18 of thread). I looked at Nathan 003 who has the same V20 B037 build on page 6 of this thread. I noticed the same thing of £12 charges against O/L monthly balances and also some large amounts of money against O/L balances. I suspect this would also be on the V20 B031 build.

 

 

My point is are these amounts in the 'Other Trans' column charges along with the obvious £12 charges that should be returned to the consumer including interest. Knowing PPI charges caused the balance to go O/L ?. I can not find any record of the large 'Other Trans' on my statements just the £12 O/L & Late fees so this does puzzle me. Also I notice there is a very large amount of money in the very first entry of 'Other Trans' which I can not account for. I also noticed this on Nathan 003 build. It is not on my statements to cross check.

 

 

your comments on this please.

[Miaspa 2010]

MBNA are still working odd calculations just had my offer through, just requested a copy of the calculation. The refund is only marginally higher than if interest was worked out at 8% simple on the PPI.

[Miaspa 2010]

From memory comparing with my say printout the other transactions are the total of expenditure on the card. I would more inclined to ask why you are loaning 776.86 at 8% simple so MBNA can loan it back to you at 17% compound. Basically that is the effect of the surplus redress column.

 

Ken, AMN, everyone i suspect you have all been watching the world cup ! and missed my post on the 'Other Transaction column on the V20-B037 Build !

 

I really would welcome a response and advise on my post to understand if and how it should fit in with proper redress.

 

Also i forgot to mention that my statements prove beyound doubt that the PPI monthly charge is placed on the overlimit balance amount.

 

Making complete rubbish of the MBNA claim in the BBC investigation article that it is charged first

and that it could never affect O/L charges/feesAll comments are welcome.

[AfterMidnight]

Re: whatisdue's : "Ken, AMN, everyone i suspect you have all been watching the world cup ! and missed my post on the 'Other Transaction column on the V20-B037 Build !

 

I really would welcome a response and advise on my post to understand if and how it should fit in with proper redress."

 

 

I will try to take a look a bit later, being doing summer things.

 

 

AMN.