MBNA PPI Award “Interpretative” Calculations?

[Miaspa 2010]

Can you scan those Terms and conditions and post them up here?

 

 

I can't find anything earlier than 2005 that's easily legible. Those don't refer to how payments are allocated.

 

 

There current policy is the amount subject to the highest interest rate is paid off first. I'm pretty sure it used to be the amounts subject to the lowest interest rate were paid off first but can't find any evidence of this.

 

 

Doh! What an idiot back of statements and confirmed lowest interest rate paid off first.

 

 

That point argues that the use of a weighted average interest rate is inappropriate. Could also argue going for the highest rate is more appropriate.

 

 

Looking at my statements the change in terms of paying off amounts at the higher rate first was September 2010.

[angry cat]

For your information:

 

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/01/30/britain-banks-ppi-idUKL6N0V90SZ20150130

[angry cat]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/30/britain-banks-ppi-idUSL6N0V91TM20150130

[suvin50]

T&Cs from 1995

[angry cat]

T&Cs from 1995

 

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/MBNA_Corp.aspx

[angry cat]

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/MBNA_Corp.aspx

 

Another piece of background reading that you may find of benefit:

http://web.uct.ac.za/staff/jbeneke/justin/p39.pdf

 

MBNA arrived here in the UK in 1993 thinking that the streets of London are paved in Gold...

[angry cat]

T&Cs from 1995

 

No mention of 'minimum payment' (M) on those conditions suvin 50?

just under under 4. Repayments and Interest calculation:

(i) You must pay us whichever is the greater of 3% of the total balance outstanding as shown on the statement or £5 within 25 days of your monthly statement date.

 

But by 2000 the Terms had altered to these:

Terms and Conditions 12/00: T&C - 7750-1.9/14.9-06-01

 

1.4

the minimum payment shown on the statement will be:

(a) the lesser of:

(i) 2.25% of the Account balance as shown on the statement (subject to a minimum of £5); or

(ii) the total sum of all of the following: charges for Payment Protection Cover, interest charged on the statement, Fees, plus £5 or

(b) the Account balance as shown on the statement if less than £5;

except as mentioned in conditions 2.4, 3.5, and 3.6...

Edited February 1, 2015 by angry cat
addition

[angry cat]

No mention of 'minimum payment' (M) on those conditions suvin 50?

just under under 4. Repayments and Interest calculation:

(i) You must pay us whichever is the greater of 3% of the total balance outstanding as shown on the statement or £5 within 25 days of your monthly statement date.

 

But by 2000 the Terms had altered to these:

Terms and Conditions 12/00: T&C - 7750-1.9/14.9-06-01

 

1.4

the minimum payment shown on the statement will be:

(a) the lesser of:

(i) 2.25% of the Account balance as shown on the statement (subject to a minimum of £5); or

(ii) the total sum of all of the following: charges for Payment Protection Cover, interest charged on the statement, Fees, plus £5 or

(b) the Account balance as shown on the statement if less than £5;

except as mentioned in conditions 2.4, 3.5, and 3.6...

 

Armed with the above information it wouldn't be difficult for peeps to work out their minimum payments that were due 'M's!

 

Also, please take the time to open the following link:

http://www.fca.org.uk/news/fca-to-gather-evidence-on-how-the-ppi-complaints-process-is-working

[Miaspa 2010]

Armed with the above information it wouldn't be difficult for peeps to work out their minimum payments that were due 'M's!

 

Also, please take the time to open the following link:

http://www.fca.org.uk/news/fca-to-gather-evidence-on-how-the-ppi-complaints-process-is-working

 

 

 

That's been my argument with my adjudicator all along, all I get back from MBNA and the adjudicator is hypothesis and assumptions.

 

 

The last email with actual terms and conditions prescribed my MBNA, showing the restated minimums are incorrect plus copy statements where available showing the same hasn't been replied to as yet.

 

 

(Must thank other forum members for supplying T&C's plus finding a few more elsewhere.)

 

 

All I have is the enclosures are being considered. Much like MBNA's stance on fee's are we going to be sitting here in 8 months still waiting for an outcome. I think MBNA are holding out for a change in the FCA stance to PPI reclaims, hoping they can apply any method they want significantly reducing there liability to redress.

[AfterMidnight]

As a perspective: Even so far: In the time taken by FOS - to get around to opening up, and/or woefully underappreciating, and/or even thinking about actually checking these claims - two or three human beings could have been considered, created and launched - from scratch. AMN

[Miaspa 2010]

As a perspective: Even so far: In the time taken by FOS - to get around to opening up, and/or woefully underappreciating, and/or even thinking about actually checking these claims - two or three human beings could have been considered, created and launched - from scratch. AMN

 

 

Shocking really, I started my complaint with MBNA when my youngest was a couple of months old, he starts school in September.

[angry cat]

Shocking really, I started my complaint with MBNA when my youngest was a couple of months old, he starts school in September.

 

Disgraceful and yous is not an isolated case...!

 

Also, one asks Mr Wheatley why di he not know about the following?:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/hsbc-tax-leaks-fca-was-not-formally-told-about-the-scandal-says-martin-wheatley-10036458.html

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31359962

 

Because, the FCA is asleep on the job!

 

He is doing the same as he did in Hong Kong; scandalous.

 

"On Tuesday, MPs criticised the City watchdog, the Financial Conduct Authority, for not knowing about the claims until media reports emerged.

 

One MP said the FCA could not operate effectively without knowing the facts."

[angry cat]

Disgraceful and yous is not an isolated case...!

 

Also, one asks Mr Wheatley why di he not know about the following?:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/hsbc-tax-leaks-fca-was-not-formally-told-about-the-scandal-says-martin-wheatley-10036458.html

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31359962

 

Because, the FCA is asleep on the job!

 

He is doing the same as he did in Hong Kong; scandalous.

 

"On Tuesday, MPs criticised the City watchdog, the Financial Conduct Authority, for not knowing about the claims until media reports emerged.

 

One MP said the FCA could not operate effectively without knowing the facts."

 

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/hsbc-swiss-leaks-fca-chief-did-not-know-about-tax-allegations-before-publication-1487379

[angry cat]

Looks like the, so called, Regulator is watering down the mis-selling of interest rate swaps as well:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31375272

 

"In a heated Treasury Committee hearing, Mr Garnier said that the Financial Conduct Authority chief executive Martin Wheatley and chairman John Griffiths-Jones had changed the compensation scheme after meeting the banks in January 2013 to make it "fundamentally unjust".

 

Andrew Tyrie, chairman of the Treasury Select Committee, said the small businesses were at risk of "being done over a second time", after having already been "ripped-off" by mis-sold "swaps contracts"

[gettingsorted]

Sent to FOS in January 2014List of items in bundle:

1. Extracts from FSA – Financial Services Authority Policy Statement 10/12 please take particular note of items highlighted in red.

2. Extracts from FCA – TR 13/7 Payment Protection Insurance Complaints please take particular note of items highlighted in red.

 

3. Extracts from FCA Handbook detailing approaches to redress please take particular note of items highlighted in red

4. Example of Calculation and Spreadsheet from FCA

5. FOS – Online resource; How does the Ombudsman approach redress where a PPI policy has been mis-sold. please take particular note of items highlighted in red

6. Copy of news article from Daily Telegraph please take particular note of items highlighted in red

7. Copies of incidental evidence that MBNA is not calculating the redress correctly.

8. Copies of correspondence to / from my husband and MBNA –

a) Offer letter dated May 2011

b) Copy of his request asking for detailed calculations together with an explanation of how the redress was calculated.

b) Reply to his request.

9. Copy Statements from MBNA together with schedule showing where overlimit fees where charged; this also details where a partial refund was received.

10. Retyped copy of MBNA spreadsheet calculating redress with some highlighted items.

[gettingsorted]

These items were sent to FOs in January 2014 as evidence to my complaint about MBNA. Together with lots of written notes. I included my husband's offer letter and calculations as they did not tally, they had actually offered him more than was calculated on the spreadsheet; in my opinion further proof that they were adjusting their calculations to their advantage; nor was his calculation in the same as mine.

I have nearly all of my statements since the start and showed the FOS where the MBNA F and M's did not agree.

I have not heard anything since the reply we all had last year and prior to that I was told that it was on hold.

There are copies of my spreadsheets and MBNA's calculation (incl. my husband's) in this thread

Really not sure what to do whether to chase them or not ? In view of the responses that the FOS are giving folks here - is it worth it ?

Its a bit less busy at work now so if anyone wants any info off my statements or similar - just give me a shout.

GS

[AfterMidnight]

And ... after my (serial) submissions ... mine now joins a queue for an Ombudsman level decision instead, as adjudicator have probably had enough. I still have a few developed points to make! Can take up to two years for this bit, for PPI cases, according to their factsheet... and they have also passed on my info to MBNA for their perusal pleasure.

 

 

[gettingsorted]

Hi AM

Had you been in correspondence with them at all ? I haven't even had a holding letter !

I am in for the long haul - am not expecting an instant decision; knew this when I started....

GS

[AfterMidnight]

Hi AM

Had you been in correspondence with them at all ? I haven't even had a holding letter !

I am in for the long haul - am not expecting an instant decision; knew this when I started....

GS

 

 

I was allocated an adjudicator a few months back, who called me for my overall view, then later came up with a glib letter of "the service's view, as per Vicki M is ...". So I sent more info (well, covering some new, but mainly reiterating) by email to adjudicator and Vicki cc'd in. Then heard (by email) asking Ombudsman -probably as I didn't just roll-over ...

[gettingsorted]

Thanks for getting back to me - I think I will give them a ring and ask for an update; as I do not plan to take any of the reasons and assumptions they have given other members as mentioned here the quicker I get in the queue for an ombudsman the better.

GS

[angry cat]

Trouble is that once an FOS Adjudicator has made his/her decision, it is nigh on impossible for that view to change;

an FOS Ombudsman view often remains the same.

 

And there is no appeal; it's take it or leave it.

 

Of course, one could leave it and take the court route via a 'Class Action'!

 

We will see how this all pans out...?

[gettingsorted]

We have to try and use the systems that are in place. The possibility of court is there afterwards if need be ?

Is there any news on teh media side ?

GS

[AfterMidnight]

We had some media-approach forays with some connections of connections, but never really did a "press release" as such - not that a release, yawn, would get much attention. I will have a shot at sometime writing something hopefully better and simple yet attention-getting with which to approach interesting journalists with - which may also serve as a "nutshell" document for case use at FOS.

[gettingsorted]

Oh sorry I misunderstood I thought we had issued a release.

GS

[AfterMidnight]

Release: We had in a limited way, but I think we could do better. Better timing when there are some FCA-issues around generally, and something more "catchy" perhaps, with something between being to directed-known-parties, and more wide distribution.