MBNA PPI Award “Interpretative” Calculations?

[angry cat]

Lets look at FOS current vacancies and the job description for an adjudicator.

 

 

So really no qualifications, no financial background, no wonder they don't get it.

 

£22,000 per year, that is the same salary as many debt collection firms pay!!!

In this day an age it is a pittance...

we know that many of these FOS Adjudicators are young and inexperienced and of course, if they cannot command a higher salary than 22K, it goes to prove;

"Pay peanuts, get Monkeys".

 

What an absolute scandal that individuals such as these are making important decisions that are affecting many general consumers lives.

[ken100464]

Survin

 

Miaspa 2010 has it. Your adjudicator is not up to it. Keep its simple keep it to the facts. These spreadsheets are PS10/12 minus the charges. if you can knock the enablers (M & F's) on the head the associated interest [problem] falls away. And if you have the statements use them. Perhaps anyone else who is with an adjudicator should be asking why MBNA is the only bank giving transaction logs out instead of statements.

 

Could it be that the mins would be obvious even to a FOS adjudicator. Because they would be on the statements and may not actually correspond to what MBNA are inputting to the spreadsheets.

 

How can FOS allow something that is fact be overturned by fiction.

[skinny rib]

Hi Guys, MBNA have finally given me the statement showing how they calculated the PPI refund. How do I check that they have calculated it correctly?

 

Thanks in advance.

[ken100464]

SR

 

Just post it up without anything identifying you and anyone on this thread will be able to tell you if they have changed the method or if you are in the long line with us

[Miaspa 2010]

SR

 

Just post it up without anything identifying you and anyone on this thread will be able to tell you if they have changed the method or if you are in the long line with us

 

 

 

The response from my adjudicator:

MBNA has responded to me with its comments on the points you raised in your email of 15 October 2014.

minimum repayments

The first question related to a minimum payment being assumed of £10. You made the point that under the terms and conditions of the card, minimum payments of less than £10 would only be accepted if it was clearing a balance. MBNA has said that its calculation method makes some assumptions based on information that is available to it about the various minimum payment schedules it has had over the past 20 years in its entire portfolio. They have said that if you have evidence of the terms and conditions in place at the time of each payment like this they will re-calculate the redress to reflect this.

full repayments

The second question related to May 2001 and a payment of £1,600 being restated as a payment in full when in fact it wasn’t. MBNA have said that their analysis shows that its customers do not generally pay their account into credit. When you made a payment of £1,600 in May 2001 it would not have been a full repayment of the actual statement balance. However, the reconstructed balance was showing as £1,468.17 so MBNA has treated the £1600 as a payment in full because it has assumed that if you had a balance of £1,468.17 without the PPI, you would not have paid over this amount. As such, the surplus amount of £131.83 is added to the surplus redress balance and accrues 8% simple interest. This applies to the other times that you have pointed out that a full payment has been assumed when based on what actually happened it perhaps wouldn’t have repaid the full balance.

I note that you have previously mentioned September 1999 when you paid £1,750 to clear the previous month’s balance. Though I did not ask MBNA about this I will attempt to answer you point based on my understanding.

You questioned why the reconstructed payment was £1,665.94 and not 1,643.97 (the reconstructed balance of the previous month). From what I can see, the reason for this is because the difference between August 1999’s outstanding balance and the reconstructed balance is £84.06. Essentially this means that you would have needed to pay £84.06 less to clear August 1999’s balance if the PPI policy had not existed. However, you actually paid £1,750 which is still £21.97 more than you needed to pay to clear the actual balance. The reason the figures look off is because of the £1,750 figure. If you had only paid £1,728.03 the figures would not look like a discrepancy. The point is that without PPI you would have had to pay £84.06 less than you needed to, to clear the balance but the extra £21.97 that you actually paid was not an extra payment due to the PPI policy.

late fees

The final question referred to MBNA was in relation to a late fee incurred in August 2002 when a reconstructed balance for July 2002 was £0. MBNA have said that there are many reasons why a customer may not make a payment on time and PPI is unlikely to have caused a payment to be missed in its entirety. MBNA also said that its analysis shows that there is a lack of any causal link between fees and PPI. I note that in your email of 17 October 2014 you have also questioned a number of late payment fees and their fairness. All we can consider under this complaint is whether the fees were incurred specifically as a result of the PPI policy.

As explained before, we are discussing MBNA’s approach to fees and charges on a wider scale with MBNA and our discussions are still on-going.

moving forward

It appears as though MBNA is willing to carry out a further calculation upon evidence being provided to suggest that what it has done is unfair in your case. You have provided me with a number of reasons why you believe errors have been made or parts of the offer are unfair. If you could provide the statements, any relevant terms and conditions and any other documentation that would evidence your position please let me know. .

I apologise for the length of this update but I hope that it has been helpful to you. As explained above we are still discussing MBNA’s position regarding the fees and charges and as such I am not yet in a position to issue my opinion of your complaint. If you do have any further evidence or documentation to send to me and MBNA please let me know.

MY response.

MBNA failed to provide copy statements when I did a SAR request at the outset of this enquiry.

Perhaps you could ask them to supply copy statements, all I have is a long transaction history. MBNA are the only credit card company that do not supply copy statements.

MBNA have the correct details to hand which prove by last emails are correct they are unwilling to provide these details as it shows how obviously incorrect the calculation is.

In response to you answer of £1,750 paid in September 1999 is your assumption, perhaps you can refer to your relevant financial experience and qualifications which support this opinion and the FCA guideline?

MBNA replies are rather suspect, they state customers do not pay their account into credit. Looking at the calculation supplied by MBNA, it can be seen I paid the account into credit on two occasions. September 2002 and September 1999.

The final point re late fees is nonsense if the restated balance is zero how can I occur late payment fees?

I think going forward it should be MBNA to disprove my own summary rather than me prove with limited information as MBNA have failed to supply all relevant information in the SAR report.

[Miaspa 2010]

Just one further email to my adjudicator:

 

 

Futher to your email of 19.12.14 I have now noticed MBNA has have assumed in their reply three times.

In twenty one year experience in the financial sector, I recognised that assumptions prove nothing, historical fact proves everything.

Your comments

 

 

 

 

The response from my adjudicator:

MBNA has responded to me with its comments on the points you raised in your email of 15 October 2014.

 

minimum repayments

 

The first question related to a minimum payment being assumed of £10. You made the point that under the terms and conditions of the card, minimum payments of less than £10 would only be accepted if it was clearing a balance. MBNA has said that its calculation method makes some assumptions based on information that is available to it about the various minimum payment schedules it has had over the past 20 years in its entire portfolio. They have said that if you have evidence of the terms and conditions in place at the time of each payment like this they will re-calculate the redress to reflect this.

 

full repayments

 

The second question related to May 2001 and a payment of £1,600 being restated as a payment in full when in fact it wasn’t. MBNA have said that their analysis shows that its customers do not generally pay their account into credit. When you made a payment of £1,600 in May 2001 it would not have been a full repayment of the actual statement balance. However, the reconstructed balance was showing as £1,468.17 so MBNA has treated the £1600 as a payment in full because it has assumed that if you had a balance of £1,468.17 without the PPI, you would not have paid over this amount. As such, the surplus amount of £131.83 is added to the surplus redress balance and accrues 8% simple interest. This applies to the other times that you have pointed out that a full payment has been assumed when based on what actually happened it perhaps wouldn’t have repaid the full balance.

 

I note that you have previously mentioned September 1999 when you paid £1,750 to clear the previous month’s balance. Though I did not ask MBNA about this I will attempt to answer you point based on my understanding.

 

You questioned why the reconstructed payment was £1,665.94 and not 1,643.97 (the reconstructed balance of the previous month). From what I can see, the reason for this is because the difference between August 1999’s outstanding balance and the reconstructed balance is £84.06. Essentially this means that you would have needed to pay £84.06 less to clear August 1999’s balance if the PPI policy had not existed. However, you actually paid £1,750 which is still £21.97 more than you needed to pay to clear the actual balance. The reason the figures look off is because of the £1,750 figure. If you had only paid £1,728.03 the figures would not look like a discrepancy. The point is that without PPI you would have had to pay £84.06 less than you needed to, to clear the balance but the extra £21.97 that you actually paid was not an extra payment due to the PPI policy.

 

late fees

 

The final question referred to MBNA was in relation to a late fee incurred in August 2002 when a reconstructed balance for July 2002 was £0. MBNA have said that there are many reasons why a customer may not make a payment on time and PPI is unlikely to have caused a payment to be missed in its entirety. MBNA also said that its analysis shows that there is a lack of any causal link between fees and PPI. I note that in your email of 17 October 2014 you have also questioned a number of late payment fees and their fairness. All we can consider under this complaint is whether the fees were incurred specifically as a result of the PPI policy.

 

As explained before, we are discussing MBNA’s approach to fees and charges on a wider scale with MBNA and our discussions are still on-going.

 

moving forward

 

It appears as though MBNA is willing to carry out a further calculation upon evidence being provided to suggest that what it has done is unfair in your case. You have provided me with a number of reasons why you believe errors have been made or parts of the offer are unfair. If you could provide the statements, any relevant terms and conditions and any other documentation that would evidence your position please let me know. .

 

I apologise for the length of this update but I hope that it has been helpful to you. As explained above we are still discussing MBNA’s position regarding the fees and charges and as such I am not yet in a position to issue my opinion of your complaint. If you do have any further evidence or documentation to send to me and MBNA please let me know.

MY response.

MBNA failed to provide copy statements when I did a SAR request at the outset of this enquiry.

 

Perhaps you could ask them to supply copy statements, all I have is a long transaction history. MBNA are the only credit card company that do not supply copy statements.

 

MBNA have the correct details to hand which prove by last emails are correct they are unwilling to provide these details as it shows how obviously incorrect the calculation is.

 

In response to you answer of £1,750 paid in September 1999 is your assumption, perhaps you can refer to your relevant financial experience and qualifications which support this opinion and the FCA guideline?

 

MBNA replies are rather suspect, they state customers do not pay their account into credit. Looking at the calculation supplied by MBNA, it can be seen I paid the account into credit on two occasions. September 2002 and September 1999.

 

The final point re late fees is nonsense if the restated balance is zero how can I occur late payment fees?

 

I think going forward it should be MBNA to disprove my own summary rather than me prove with limited information as MBNA have failed to supply all relevant information in the SAR report.

[gettingsorted]

Patience is a Virtue!

Sorry - I wasn't being naggy - I just wondered out of interest

 

Now is it a virtue where the FOS is concerned - no replies received to my letters to Vicki and the Chief Exec; no contact from an adjudicator about my complaint although looking ........now I am tempted to get naggy with them. Mind you - having looked the job description and at miaspa' exchanges with his - there's not too much hope of them getting it is there...............

 

Lets look at fos current vacancies and the job description for an adjudicator.

 

 

So really no qualifications, no financial background, no wonder they don't get it.

That's unbelieveable - how can these people make financial decisions I wonder what the job descriptions for the ombudsmen are ?

 

Happy Christmas to all of you and lets hope we have good New Year

GS

[angry cat]

Sorry - I wasn't being naggy - I just wondered out of interest

 

Now is it a virtue where the FOS is concerned - no replies received to my letters to Vicki and the Chief Exec; no contact from an adjudicator about my complaint although looking ........now I am tempted to get naggy with them. Mind you - having looked the job description and at miaspa' exchanges with his - there's not too much hope of them getting it is there...............

 

That's unbelieveable - how can these people make financial decisions I wonder what the job descriptions for the ombudsmen are ?

 

Happy Christmas to all of you and lets hope we have good New Year

GS

 

I know that you weren't!

Sometimes though, it is extremely hard to be patient when the, so called, Regulators are clearly not Regulating;

bet they received lovely Hampers with Iberico Ham/Bolli and free tickets on the MBNA Clipper...

 

Further, we are ALL still waiting for our replies from Vicki & the Chief Executive;

maybe, they think that we are going to give up and go away?

Well, we are not.

 

Lastly, the Banker bonuses have not gone unnoticed. either.

 

MERRY CHRISTMAS to all MBNA victims. XXX

Edited December 22, 2014 by angry cat
typo

[gettingsorted]

Thanks angry cat - I would happily send all my friends here on CAG (and especially this forum) a hamper to show my appreciation of all the support. This year my friends are getting in their goodie hampers ........mince pies, two lots of marmalade, martini olives, spiced nuts and pop corn (lets hope I don't burn the work top this year ) and a small bottle of spiced canberry vodka; I have had a great time making it all. I wish I could send you lot some too.

Enjoy the holidays !

GS

[angry cat]

Just one further email to my adjudicator:

 

 

Futher to your email of 19.12.14 I have now noticed MBNA has have assumed in their reply three times.

In twenty one year experience in the financial sector, I recognised that assumptions prove nothing, historical fact proves everything.

Your comments

 

Of course, one must really query as to why MBNA have not retained all proper and correct information regarding your account?

They are obligated to do so by HMRC under the Money Laundering Regs...!

And it will not be the first time that HMRC have had cause to chastise them.

 

MBNA, historically manage to find individuals financial information when faced with COURT.

 

It is blatantly clear that there is no need for MBNA to reconstruct account history(s), when they have the information at hand in order not to do so.

 

In my own case they claim to have reconstructed my own account history in line with PS10/12 Example 6 Appendix 2, when factually that reconstruction would have been impossible as PS10/12 had not even come into being!!!

IMHO, they reconstruct in order to cheat people and have been doing so to thousands of Consumers;

very nice if, you can get it along with the apparent blessing of the FCA.

[angry cat]

Just for the record, I have been going through my original MBNA statements and can confirm that only 2 out of the 12 MBNA alleged Minimum (M) payments are correct.

Meaning: 10 out of the 12 were NOT minimum payments...!

 

HAPPY NEW YEAR to ALL MBNA Victims X

[citizenB]

It looks to me as though the adjudicator has been to MBNA's school of obfuscation !!

[angry cat]

It looks to me as though the adjudicator has been to MBNA's school of obfuscation !!

 

 

Quite So, CB!

 

And just in case anyone does not know the meaning of obfuscation:

 

"Obfuscation (or beclouding) is the hiding of intended meaning in communication, making communication confusing, willfully ambiguous, and harder to interpret. [citation needed] The word comes from Latin obfuscatio, from obfuscāre ("to darken"), from ob ("over") and fuscāre ("to make dark"), from fuscus ("dark")."

[whatisdue]

Congrats angry cat you now stand in much the same position as I did early last year .As ken rightly said if the statements show a different minimum payment amount to the ones on the redress calculation you have blown the type M out of the water and provided indisputable evidence.It can only be a recalculation recommend in response to your evidence. My adjudicator (not anymore at present) sent me an email to advise that my statements were in my file for the ombudsman when my case finally got there.I guess they were embarrassed having vigorously stood by MBNA redress calculations telling me it was correct that looking at indisputable evidence made them try to get out of having to deal with this evidence.I remember getting a call from their manager having invoked the letter copied to me by my MP that the adjudicator would deal with my case right up to the time of ombudsman and in response to that their manager advised adjudicator would have to deal and if required change their decision. Which brings me to where I am now still waiting on the recalculate offer I just received another email from my new adjudicator to advise they are still in talks with MBNA and to apologies for the delay.

 

 

Lets hope the new year brings at last the right things to all on this thread !

 

 

 

 

QUOTE=angry cat;4669667]Just for the record, I have been going through my original MBNA statements and can confirm that only 2 out of the 12 MBNA alleged Minimum (M) payments are correct.

Meaning: 10 out of the 12 were NOT minimum payments...!

 

HAPPY NEW YEAR to ALL MBNA Victims X

[angry cat]

Congrats angry cat you now stand in much the same position as I did early last year .As ken rightly said if the statements show a different minimum payment amount to the ones on the redress calculation you have blown the type M out of the water and provided indisputable evidence.It can only be a recalculation recommend in response to your evidence. My adjudicator (not anymore at present) sent me an email to advise that my statements were in my file for the ombudsman when my case finally got there.I guess they were embarrassed having vigorously stood by MBNA redress calculations telling me it was correct that looking at indisputable evidence made them try to get out of having to deal with this evidence.I remember getting a call from their manager having invoked the letter copied to me by my MP that the adjudicator would deal with my case right up to the time of ombudsman and in response to that their manager advised adjudicator would have to deal and if required change their decision. Which brings me to where I am now still waiting on the recalculate offer I just received another email from my new adjudicator to advise they are still in talks with MBNA and to apologies for the delay.

 

 

Lets hope the new year brings at last the right things to all on this thread !

 

 

 

 

QUOTE=angry cat;4669667]Just for the record, I have been going through my original MBNA statements and can confirm that only 2 out of the 12 MBNA alleged Minimum (M) payments are correct.

Meaning: 10 out of the 12 were NOT minimum payments...!

 

HAPPY NEW YEAR to ALL MBNA Victims X

 

Yes Whatisdue, and I am not alone either...!

 

May I suggest to any member who has not done so prior.

Please, check your original MBNA statements against the MNBA spreadsheets that were sent to you by MBNA;

check that the payments marked 'M' (minimum payments) do actually tally with the minimum payments as shown on your original MBNA monthly statements.

 

The battle continues and we continue to watch you MBNA:

https://www.gov.uk/money-laundering-regulations-your-responsibilities

Edited January 2, 2015 by angry cat
addition

[angry cat]

Unbelievable!!!

 

http://financial-ombudsman.org.uk/news/updates/plans-and-budget-2015-16.html

[AfterMidnight]

Very briefly ... as expected ... my adjudicator is (despite having much previous proof, and step-by-step argument) - just not getting it; and has written and quoted some MBNA lines that sound surface-plausible but mean nothing and don't answer any point whatsoever, and .. the adjudicator is ... inclined to believe MBNA. In other words they have (vaguely, and only in concept) asked MBNA about a consumers concerns, and MBNA have expressed the opinion it is all of-course fine, and FOS are copying and pasting without pause for thought.

 

 

While I appreciate that an adjudicators first attempt at anything is naturally "lets see if we can get away with not understanding this too deeply" and merely relays opinions to each other as a method of hopeful resolve, with a credence weighting to the established "expert" bank - it is of course woefully inadequate. It is doubly damning that FOS have all the proof they need from many people here but don't actually even wish to read anything that may make them consider if the firm is undertaking bad practice, owing to a FOS reticence to actually get to grips with the points.

 

 

It is pretty clear that nothing much was actually read, let alone considered, beyond perhaps two minutes or less of lobbing off a content-less unspecific complaint summary to MBNA to answer with their answering-the-wrong-questions-platitudes.

 

 

Unsurprised, I will of course be replying ... with some useful suggestions. Anyone else noticed an even heavier leaning towards consumer "onus of proof" at FOS, as evidenced in recent posts ...

[Miaspa 2010]

I can't find anything about onus of proof in the calculation only in deciding if miss sale had taken place but after reading CP10.6. This may be of help.

 

 

from DISP App 3.8 Other appropriate redress

 

 

When applying a remedy other than those set out in DISP App 3.7, the firm should satisfy itself that the remedy is appropriate to the matter complained of and is appropriate and fair in the individual circumstances.

 

 

But from PS10/12 3.22 page 46

 

 

We consider that it is unlikely to be fair to customers to take such an approach where a

complaint involves multiple breaches or failings or where it is clear that the failing was

particularly significant for that customer. Consequently, we anticipate that such different

approaches are unlikely to be appropriate in the majority of cases and will be the “exception

not the rule” for firms when dealing with a complaint satisfactorily.

[skinny rib]

SR

 

Just post it up without anything identifying you and anyone on this thread will be able to tell you if they have changed the method or if you are in the long line with us

 

Hi I have finally managed to scan my calculations.

 

Does it look like I am one of the lucky ones that they calculated correctly?

 

TIA

[AfterMidnight]

If I recall correctly from earlier posts,

this was a calculation undertaken in late 2011, S'Rib.

 

 

MBNA have, according to anecdotal evidence, been doing "funny" things twice

- once were originally caught and prevented a few years back, then towed line for a while,

then had a go at a Mark II more devious bespoke version a couple of years back,

which is the latter one that most posts here refer to.

 

 

Can't speak for original "variation" but your calculation does not feature any of the later shenanigans,

and at first appearance looks like it would have little to obviously complain around in terms of obvious known MBNA "methods".

 

 

I would guess your calculation was in the intervening period where they were calculating far more in line with known normal expectations...

[skinny rib]

Thank you so much for having a look.

 

Fortunately I was one of the lucky ones.

 

I wish you all the best in the pursuit of what is rightfully yours and will keep an eye on this threads progress.

[Miaspa 2010]

Well the latest email from my adjudicator. Beggars Belief.

 

 

Thank you for your email received earlier today. I am also writing to provide you with a full response to your emails received on 22 December 2014 as well as your email of today.

First, when considering complaints, what we look into as a service is whether the business has acted in a fair and reasonable way based on the information that is provided to us by both sides of the complaint.

Regarding your email from today, different businesses may use different calculators and sometimes slightly different methods to each other when calculating redress. The rules and guidelines are not a method so to speak and are not exhaustive. There is not a central calculator or one single method of calculating fair redress. When a business states that its offer has been made within this services guidelines we will look at the way that it has calculated the offer to determine whether or not we feel the method used broadly follows the guidelines and whether it is fair and reasonable in the circumstances. We have looked at the way MBNA calculates these types of offer and we do generally feel that the methodology, information and assumptions used are fair – aside from the on-going discussions regarding fees and charges.

Regarding your emails of 22 December 204, the reason I have asked for you to provide evidence is because broadly we are happy with the way in which MBNA calculates this type of redress, however if evidence is provided that suggests that in your case MBNA has not fairly calculated its offer we will consider this. The transaction history that you received from MBNA should be the same data that is included in statements.

Regarding my explanation of the September 1999 payment of £1,750, I came to this response having reviewed the calculations provided to me. I considered the actual account activity, the hypothetically reconstructed account and my understanding of the way in which these types of offers are calculated. As you acknowledged, you did pay slightly too much to clear the previous month’s outstanding balance in September 1999. However, this does not appear to be because of the PPI policy, therefore it makes sense that it is not included in the surplus redress figure because it wasn’t a direct consequence of the PPI policy.

You have said that MBNA’s explanation that its customers do not generally pay their account into credit is suspect as you paid your account into credit twice. I accept that on two occasions you did pay your account into credit. However, these were for relatively low amounts and on rare occasions. The assumptions that consumers do not generally pay their account into credit is in relation to month by month – continuing to pay when there is a credit balance thereby increasing the credit balance month by month.

Different assumptions need to be made about a number of things when hypothetically reconstructing an account. This is because it is very difficult to say exactly what would have happened had the PPI policy not been sold.

As explained above and previously, we are still in talks with MBNA about how it considers when the addition of the PPI policy may have caused a charge or fee to be incurred.

I hope that my response has been helpful to you. If you do have any more information to provide me please let me know.

[Miaspa 2010]

My response in absolute disgust.

 

 

Can you ask MBNA to supply copy statements for the duration of the card?

As has proved in detail to Ms Ausland with other customers, MBNA recalculation of minimums bare no relationship to what actual took place. I have shown to you in detail that minimums restated by MBNA, are clearly not so. Without statements I cannot prove this. MBNA purposely withhold this information to put the consumer at a disadvantage.

The detailed transactional history does not show the minimum payment required for the next month statement. These are shown on the actual statements, I have shown that restated payments are not at set percentages, or below MBNA’s minimum payment policy. I have also stated that I have paid more than the balance to give me a head start on the next month’s statement. I have shown that restated payments have not actual been made, due to MBNA trying to take direct debits on a weekend. The actual note on transactional log states reason for non-payment, ”no system”

We out copy statements I cannot find further evidence that shows this any clearer. As I have already stated, MBNA withhold copy statements to put the consumer at a disadvantage when trying to argue their PPI redress.

All MBNA have responded is assumptions and general comments nothing that actually relates to the questions asked.

I have read your most recent email, I have also read PS10/12 in detail, included the consultation notes to support this documentation. In respect of your 09 January I suggest you refresh your own understanding of PS10/12 and supporting documentation.

The purpose of PS10/12 was to give consumers fair redress, MBNA’s current method does not do so. In fact it departs so far from PS10/12 that if the FOS feel that it is acceptable the I would consider the FOS is not fit for purpose.

[AfterMidnight]

Miaspa and all

 

 

I think that Vicki McAusland's ill-judged (via under-efforts perhaps) misguided earlier "conclusion" ... has had a tumbling down effect to adjudicators with MBNA redress cases with people like ourselves. In that they (adjudicators) accept as conventional wisdom that Vicki's prior decision that "all is well at MBNA" ... is a well considered and weighed-up judgement. It is however clear from her own communications that Ms McAusland simply did not "get" what MBNA have been doing. It is as though she thinks that we are collectively complaining over an academic point over minor-minor variations in method, and are largely "chancers" looking for an angle on a technicality in the hope of getting a windfall. Is she did truly understand what is being done, it would be somewhat difficult to defend her conclusion that "MBNA do it different, MBNA tell us it is OK, complainants should live with it".

 

 

So - double-prong or triple-prong communications to Vicki and our own adjudicators I reckon, from those of us "lucky" enough to have an case-handler now allocated.

 

 

A quick straw poll: do folks here think that FOS (and FCA, we tried there too) are not appreciating that there is a problem ... mainly through :

 

 

a) Underperformance: Non-recognition that a worthy problem exists, through lack of FOS effort in understanding the nature of complaints.

b) Policy: Unwillingness to rock the boat through searching questions to MBNA, as trying to now be generally conciliatory (or too much in-tune) with firms "hit" by PPI claims.

c) Gullibility: Over-reliance on MBNA (trite, flannelling, non-answering) replies to consumer-alleged problems that FOS have relayed to MBNA - which FOS see as answering concerns because FOS don't comprehend the issues, but think MBNA sound confident.

d) Any other reason.

 

 

I am thinking we need a co-ordinated response to FOS apathy. Maybe in our own words this time, informing three different levels (Wayman as Head, McAusland as Lead, and also individual adjudicators level (if we have them yet) that they (particularly Vicki) would be well advised to think again ... and to give proper consideration ... while they have the opportunity to do so, as their actions are, and will be, subject to collective consumer-group scrutiny).

 

 

AMN

[Miaspa 2010]

To a certain extent I think its a bit of all three. Does Ms Wayman have an email address?

 

 

 

 

Miaspa and all

 

 

I think that Vicki McAusland's ill-judged (via under-efforts perhaps) misguided earlier "conclusion" ... has had a tumbling down effect to adjudicators with MBNA redress cases with people like ourselves. In that they (adjudicators) accept as conventional wisdom that Vicki's prior decision that "all is well at MBNA" ... is a well considered and weighed-up judgement. It is however clear from her own communications that Ms McAusland simply did not "get" what MBNA have been doing. It is as though she thinks that we are collectively complaining over an academic point over minor-minor variations in method, and are largely "chancers" looking for an angle on a technicality in the hope of getting a windfall. Is she did truly understand what is being done, it would be somewhat difficult to defend her conclusion that "MBNA do it different, MBNA tell us it is OK, complainants should live with it".

 

 

So - double-prong or triple-prong communications to Vicki and our own adjudicators I reckon, from those of us "lucky" enough to have an case-handler now allocated.

 

 

A quick straw poll: do folks here think that FOS (and FCA, we tried there too) are not appreciating that there is a problem ... mainly through :

 

 

a) Underperformance: Non-recognition that a worthy problem exists, through lack of FOS effort in understanding the nature of complaints.

b) Policy: Unwillingness to rock the boat through searching questions to MBNA, as trying to now be generally conciliatory (or too much in-tune) with firms "hit" by PPI claims.

c) Gullibility: Over-reliance on MBNA (trite, flannelling, non-answering) replies to consumer-alleged problems that FOS have relayed to MBNA - which FOS see as answering concerns because FOS don't comprehend the issues, but think MBNA sound confident.

d) Any other reason.

 

 

I am thinking we need a co-ordinated response to FOS apathy. Maybe in our own words this time, informing three different levels (Wayman as Head, McAusland as Lead, and also individual adjudicators level (if we have them yet) that they (particularly Vicki) would be well advised to think again ... and to give proper consideration ... while they have the opportunity to do so, as their actions are, and will be, subject to collective consumer-group scrutiny).

 

 

AMN