MBNA PPI Award “Interpretative” Calculations?

[gettingsorted]

Will check my letter against the others as soon as I can .............

 

GS

[angry cat]

Do NOT worry we have our Maths Geek on the job and in conversation with individuals who are higher up...!

[gettingsorted]

that's a bit cryptic

[angry cat]

For all MBNA victims the following is our Group Holding Letter, just add your own reference number and address details, thank you:

 

 

Your Reference: XXXXX XXXXXXX

 

Ms. Vicki McAusland

Lead Adjudicator

Financial Ombudsman Service

Exchange Tower

London

E14 9SR

 

Dear Ms McAusland

 

OUR ‘GROUP’ COMPLAINT ABOUT MBNA LIMITED

 

I am in receipt of your template letter dated 26 September 2014 and thank you for the same.

 

It should be noted that the above referenced template letter was sent out to all individuals who engaged in sending our ‘Group’ open letter of complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) to your previous Chief Ombudsman: Mr. Tony Boorman. But that Mr. Boorman has now been replaced by Ms Caroline Wayman. Our Group leader also submitted a substantial file of papers to Mr. Boorman as well as to the Chief Executive Office of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA): Mr. Martin Wheatley.

 

Please be advised that we did receive a response from Mr. Martin Wheatley’s office and that our serious complaint was looked into by Mr. Chris Preston of the FCA. We were then advised that the FCA had requested that the FOS investigate our most serious concerns but to report back to the FCA with their findings.

 

Frankly, I must say that I find it not only astonishing but also extremely very worrying that you have not investigated as to why MBNA Limited have been incorrectly calculating PPI redress claims correctly. It has taken you over eight (8) long months to provide a response which completely misses the point!

 

Furthermore, your response appears to be addressing “a forum” of which you have read the thread on MBNA and the way it calculates credit card redress when a PPI policy has been mis-sold. Please advise which “forum” you were referring to? It is also quite worrying that you make no mention of our substantial submission nor to the calculations contained therein? Why?

 

Unfortunately, I am unable to respond to your letter fully as you clearly have not investigated fully our concerns; you appear to be attempting to water down/sweep under the carpet our concerns, so to speak. Therefore, until you do investigate correctly and take the time to study our complete submission, I cannot comment further.

 

Turning to paragraph seven (7) of your response:

 

• “So while MBNA’s calculations may not be identical to the examples set out in PS 10/12, DISP App 3 or our own note on our own website. I don’t think this necessarily means their calculations may be unfair.”

 

In my view your above comment is absolutely ridiculous!

 

You refer to the FOS note on the FOS website, that note must be based upon PS 10/12.

MBNA Limited are required to follow PS 10/12 Appendix 2; Example 6 when calculating PPI redress on rolling account credit.

MBNA Limited is NOT following Appendix 2; Example 6 and as such is incorrectly calculating PPI redress.

 

One wonders, if one were to apply your logic to say; driving on the left hand side of the road, the FOS would think it fair for MBNA to drive in the middle of the road, as that would be near enough? Of course, they would reach their destination but that does not meet the Department of Transport rules.

 

I will deal with the final comment within your letter when you have completed your investigations, as that issue is just another one of the strategies that MBNA use to confuse the FOS.

 

Yours sincerely,

[Old Cogger]

amended and despatched to them

[gettingsorted]

Excellent will forward them via email

GS

[angry cat]

For all MBNA victims the following is our Group Holding Letter, just add your own reference number and address details, thank you:

 

 

Your Reference: XXXXX XXXXXXX

 

Ms. Vicki McAusland

Lead Adjudicator

Financial Ombudsman Service

Exchange Tower

London

E14 9SR

 

Dear Ms McAusland

 

OUR ‘GROUP’ COMPLAINT ABOUT MBNA LIMITED

 

I am in receipt of your template letter dated 26 September 2014 and thank you for the same.

 

It should be noted that the above referenced template letter was sent out to all individuals who engaged in sending our ‘Group’ open letter of complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) to your previous Chief Ombudsman: Mr. Tony Boorman. But that Mr. Boorman has now been replaced by Ms Caroline Wayman. Our Group leader also submitted a substantial file of papers to Mr. Boorman as well as to the Chief Executive Office of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA): Mr. Martin Wheatley.

 

Please be advised that we did receive a response from Mr. Martin Wheatley’s office and that our serious complaint was looked into by Mr. Chris Preston of the FCA. We were then advised that the FCA had requested that the FOS investigate our most serious concerns but to report back to the FCA with their findings.

 

Frankly, I must say that I find it not only astonishing but also extremely very worrying that you have not investigated as to why MBNA Limited have been incorrectly calculating PPI redress claims correctly. It has taken you over eight (8) long months to provide a response which completely misses the point!

 

Furthermore, your response appears to be addressing “a forum” of which you have read the thread on MBNA and the way it calculates credit card redress when a PPI policy has been mis-sold. Please advise which “forum” you were referring to? It is also quite worrying that you make no mention of our substantial submission nor to the calculations contained therein? Why?

 

Unfortunately, I am unable to respond to your letter fully as you clearly have not investigated fully our concerns; you appear to be attempting to water down/sweep under the carpet our concerns, so to speak. Therefore, until you do investigate correctly and take the time to study our complete submission, I cannot comment further.

 

Turning to paragraph seven (7) of your response:

 

• “So while MBNA’s calculations may not be identical to the examples set out in PS 10/12, DISP App 3 or our own note on our own website. I don’t think this necessarily means their calculations may be unfair.”

 

In my view your above comment is absolutely ridiculous!

 

You refer to the FOS note on the FOS website, that note must be based upon PS 10/12.

MBNA Limited are required to follow PS 10/12 Appendix 2; Example 6 when calculating PPI redress on rolling account credit.

MBNA Limited is NOT following Appendix 2; Example 6 and as such is incorrectly calculating PPI redress.

 

One wonders, if one were to apply your logic to say; driving on the left hand side of the road, the FOS would think it fair for MBNA to drive in the middle of the road, as that would be near enough? Of course, they would reach their destination but that does not meet the Department of Transport rules.

 

I will deal with the final comment within your letter when you have completed your investigations, as that issue is just another one of the strategies that MBNA use to confuse the FOS.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

 

copies to:

Ms Caroline Wayman, Chief Ombudsman FOS and;

Mr Martin Wheatley, CEO FCA

 

Of course, members can send the Group letter via email if they wish but please also forward the copies to Ms Caroline Wayman and Mr Martin Wheatley.

 

Many thanks to all who previously participated in the Group Complaint about MBNA and to those who will be following up that missive with this 'Hissive'!

Edited October 16, 2014 by angry cat
typo

[angry cat]

just received by email the following response to the Group 'Holding' letter:

 

"Thank you for your letter dated 20 October 2014 regarding your payment protection insurance (PPI) complaint about MBNA Limited.

 

I am writing to confirm receipt of your letter addressed to Ms Vicki McAusland, Lead Adjudicator. I acknowledge the details of the letter you have sent to us and confirm that someone will contact you shortly to respond to the points that you have raised.

 

In the meantime, should you have any further queries please contact me.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Michael Hayward | adjudicator (redress)

Financial Ombudsman Service

 

( 020 7093 7372 (Fax: 020 3487 4133)

+ Exchange Tower | London | E14 9SR

* [email protected]"

 

So, why is this individual responding to the letter addressed to Ms McAusland?

Just goes to prove that they are just all working in a call centre where there is no continuity and Complaints just go along the FOS PC's conveyor belt;

the first free operator just picks the Complaint up...

 

How pathetic, as he didn't even bother to read our Group Complaint Holding letter, due to his reference to a single individuals complaint!

 

They really are a shambolic shower and not fit for purpose!

[gettingsorted]

I didn't even receive I received the generic "do not reply" email as soon as I had sent it. Nothing afterwards. No that I am home from holiday I shall send it again via snail mail and forward copies as detailed previously.

Disgusting service from FOS - mind you what's new.

GS

[gettingsorted]

Received just now ¬

 

Thank you for your email dated 16 October 2014 and the comments you have made in relation to Vicki McAusland’s letter dated 26 September 2014.

I can confirm that someone will contact you shortly with a response to the issues you have raised.

If you have any queries or concerns in the meantime however, please feel free to contact us.

Thank you once again for your continued patience whilst your complaint has been with us.

Yours sincerely

Nathan Lawson | adjudicator

Financial Ombudsman Service

[AfterMidnight]

Something of an understatement, I think, to suggest that there are no signs as of yet that anyone at FOS has considered what might even be the first step in to checking the validity of anyone's complaint (group or individual) re. MBNA redress methods/calculations. Something lacking perhaps in even the basics of the attention/interest/desire cycle. As the industry appropriate "home" for consumers with an issue regarding a firm, FOS should be first call (after firm complaints process exhausted) for complainants; and people should really as a minimum deserve and expect to be taken seriously.

 

 

This is not as of yet the case, despite vast time and considerable considered assistance in the way of "starter" material ... to at least identify that there may be an issue. Such lack of curiosity in to what they are supposed to be responsible for - suggests by now perhaps some form of semi-deliberate ignorance, or priority disorganisation, or inability to think outside the box of "chances are consumers just don't understand the rules". This is developing in to a sad case where an industry adjudicator, despite being handheld in terms of being offered an understanding, has proved to be at least four steps behind both MBNA and an interested group of self-taught public forum members. Taking years to fail to appreciate the nature of the problem, let alone understand it, makes a good and very obvious wide-interest public story ...unless you were interested in appearing as a competent ombudsman organisation.

 

 

"[problem]" aside, the story is becoming a newsworthy one of an outdated organisation unable to move beyond the old two-stools days of only individual complaints, when the complainant was easily perhaps less informed than the relevant industry ombudsman, and when under-investigated brush-offs could, without consequence, be notified to individuals.

 

 

While some individuals may be currently going through the process of their claims now eventually being just about started to be looked at, I wouldn't have much faith (judging from the sub-10% appreciation FOS responses) that the problem has been identified ... even as something worth checking, and even understood at any level, and that the decision has simply been made to deal with all complaint cases individually, as that is "their way".

 

 

Internet Killed The Ombudsman's Credibility?

[gettingsorted]

I agree;

 

It also makes me wonder about the attitude of FOS in general - the assumption that we members of the public don't quite get it - that the calculations are just too complex for us !

GS

[suvin50]

Iv'e Just had a reply from FOS about my efforts to get MBNA to send the breakdown of their offers. It seems that they are still trying to wriggle off the hook.

 

This the email from the adjudicator.

 

Thank you for your email. I can confirm MBNA have now responded to my email. They have offered a full explanation as to the discrepancy in the offers and provided breakdowns.

 

I requested that the breakdowns are in a format that can be sent to you directly. MBNA unfortunately have not confirmed I can do this and due to data protection issues I need to get their explicit consent to do so. The MBNA case handler is away till next week. I have already sent an email to them asking permission to send you the figures. If you can bear with me till next week I will hopefully be able to send you the existing figures with a full explanation. If they do not allow me to send the figures in the form I have been sent, I have asked for equivalent documents that can be sent.

[gettingsorted]

I requested that the breakdowns are in a format that can be sent to you directly. MBNA unfortunately have not confirmed I can do this and due to data protection issues I need to get their explicit consent to do so. The MBNA case handler is away till next week. I have already sent an email to them asking permission to send you the figures. If you can bear with me till next week I will hopefully be able to send you the existing figures with a full explanation. If they do not allow me to send the figures in the form I have been sent, I have asked for equivalent documents that can be sent.

 

For crying out loud !!!! Lie down FOS and let MBNA walk right over you.............

 

GS

[ken100464]

Sadly FOS are showing themselves up to be totally incompetent.

 

As everyone is now starting to say this is becoming a very newsworthy story.

 

After spoon feeding both the regulator and the ombudsman they just do not understand what the bank is doing. Basically short changing everyone who had the misfortune to be miss sold something the the regulator has said should be paid back. This bank has form. It was caught doing something similar a couple of years before. There appears to be evidence on here.

 

We are only applying what both the regulator and the ombudsman is publicly stating the bank should be doing. If the bank is not doing what it is being told it should be doing by the regulator then it isnt just us the poor consumer being done over.

 

Its the regulator still not getting that these banks are still at it and without proper sanction nothing will ever change in the public's view of the modern day money lenders. Someone with a beard and a sack cloth many years ago had the right idea.

 

Mr Wheatley wants us to trust the banks again. Not when you have this behaviour still ongoing Mr Wheatley.

[suvin50]

If you look at the figures in post #306 there is no way that they can justify the revised offer without a lot of jiggerypokery. If they refuse to disclose how they arrived at these figures then the media need to be involved. If I ever get their calculations I will post them. i have only been waiting 2 years.

[angry cat]

Both the FOS and the, so called, Regulator: FCA now have 14 days to reflect and do what they are paid to do!

After that time frame our missile will be fired off to the media.

 

If, the FOS and the FCA do nothing regarding our most serious concerns, they will end up with extremely RED faces.

[gettingsorted]

Yes !

[suvin50]

Have just had an update from FOS regarding my complaint. I hope that FOS are not swallowing this:

 

You have requested the calculations for your offer from MBNA and I have included below the attachments. MBNA have explained their workings to me and I will offer some explanation as to the figures.

 

You received a final response letter from MBNA on 10 April 2012 for the payment protection insurance (PPI) policy attached to the card ending 0323. The offer made was £7,644.95. This included £2,763.07 for the premiums, £2,620.70 associated interest and £2,261.18 8% simple interest. You were unhappy with this offer because it had not included the period

November 1995 to August 1999. I have included below a copy of the calculations for the April 2012 offer supplied by MBNA.

MBNA then made an updated offer of £7,879.64 on 23 July 2013 which included the missing period from November 1995 to August 1999. This offer was made up of £3,266,71 for the premiums charged, £3,617.21 for the associated interest and £995.72 8% simple interest. You were unhappy with the figures as you said the figures did not add up.

MBNA have looked at the two calculations to see why when they recalculated the offer to include the missing four years, the final figure did not increase significantly. They have said when the original calculation in April 2012 was completed it showed that your account defaulted in 2006 with an outstanding debt of £13,833.86. The calculator used in 2012 to create the offer contained a fault. This meant that the sold debt transaction was treated by the calculator as a customer payment. This caused the reconstructed balance to go into credit and 8% simple interest accrued on this amount when none was due. They have said that if the calculator had been correct then the redress due in April 2012 should have been £5,383.77, and not £7,644.95. I have included a copy of the calculations showing the correct figures for April 2012. The calculation in July 2013 was worked using a new calculator that fixed the original fault. Therefore while it appeared the offer had only increased by a small amount, because the original figure was wrong it had actually increased by a significant amount.

 

Thoughts please

 

Calculations to follow

[citizenB]

Sorry, are they now saying that they are going to offer less ??

 

How very convenient that there was a fault in their calculator..

[suvin50]

No....the offer increased by £200+ for the 4 years missing payments. If the calculator was wrong in April 2012 then there must be 1000's of complaints calculated wrongly. MBNA have had over two years to come up with this excuse.

[suvin50]

calcs

[suvin50]

Of the 3 docs I received from FOS only one will open so I don't know how the revised offer was calculated

[suvin50]

Managed to open the other 2 docs which are PDF not XLS.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]54042[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]54043[/ATTACH]Cannot make head or tail of how they have been calculated, especially the 3rd pdf when there is no statutory interest. Any thgoughts?

[Miaspa 2010]

I can only see two PDF attachments.

 

 

First one is the lastest offer, has the surplus redress column but no breakdown of how they got that figure,

they have missed off the F & M columns.

 

I would be asking how was the surplus redress column made up on the newer offer,

they have missed off the F&M because they would show the obivious change in calculation methods.

 

Edit

 

Another point is why doesn't the £5,361 get any 8% interest after the card is paid off in Jan 07.

That omission on its own short changes you by £3,400.

 

Was the card paid off or did something else happen?

 

Second one has no 8% interest as reconstructed balance was never in credit,

but I guess the the 8% they offered was £5383.77 @ 8% for five years roughly £2153.

 

MBNA once again limiting what they give the FOS,

because it will show the change in method and how they are ripping off the consumer yet again.