MBNA PPI Award “Interpretative” Calculations?

[Miaspa 2010]

AMN, yes one can make a FOIA request but agree they will more than likely use an exemption to block same. However, if there is nothing to hide, why would the FOS wish to block the request?!

 

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/about/foi-making-a-request.htm

 

With regard to one of the FOS employees who appeared to be handling our Mass Complaint (her name was edited but we all know who she is as we all received holding letters from her) she left the FOS Service in June 2015. So, presumably must have handed her notice in one - three months prior - No wonder we did not hear from her further...

 

 

My main reason for naming was to see if all MBNA complaint were being handled by the same adjudicators, it would make sense for the FOS to apply staff that had a knowledge of MBNA methods. The edited posts have shown we all have different adjudicators so the FOS are just using any old member of staff.

 

 

I have been sitting in the queue for an ombudsman review after partial uphold of my complaint by the adjudicator for nearly six months. MBNA just refused to communicate with the adjudicator after his decision. Its all a game MBNA know they can use the FOS under staffing to hang out a complaint for years. It gives them more time to process further complaints using a suspect method, and save millions.

 

 

Like I said earlier on this thread I started my complaint with MBNA just after my youngest was born, this week my youngest started school.

[AfterMidnight]

My main reason for naming was to see if all MBNA complaint were being handled by the same adjudicators, it would make sense for the FOS to apply staff that had a knowledge of MBNA methods. The edited posts have shown we all have different adjudicators so the FOS are just using any old member of staff.

 

 

Will be interesting to find out, when (!) we variously reach Ombudsman stage, if these are then handled by a disparate set of issue-inexpert "completely new to the alleged problem" people too. I would suggest that when we are, we could perhaps use post initials as a form-acceptable way of determining.

 

 

Also not sure where FOS are without outsourcing at present, as something I believe that they have done in the past to a different (but within UK) service provider location, and if this is just (presumably) for lower-level initial complaints...

 

 

While I am happy to have my, say, o2 mobile account questions competently handled by Capita, some things are different...

 

 

AMN

[GRUMPY OLD GIT]

I have now responded to the FOS adjudicator's preliminary opinion. So, for now it is sit back and wait but don't hold you breath...

 

Due to the fact that I did not accept my FOS adjudicator's initial opinion, my case is being freshly reviewed;

I did supply further documentary information as well as requesting that my initial queries be properly answered.

 

So, we will see but don't hold your breath!

[GRUMPY OLD GIT]

An update on my position. As I thought my FOS adjudicator has not listened nor understood my protestations, as I have just received the following:-

 

"Dear Grumpy

 

I’m writing in response to your letter dated 21 September 2015, and the further information you’ve supplied, which I’ve added to your complaint. I’m sorry for the delay sending you my reply.

 

Following my email on 30 September below, I’ve looked at the letters you’ve sent me and the comments you’ve made in your letter of the 21 September. You’ve said that you feel I’ve been hasty in referring your complaint to an ombudsman.

 

I wanted to explain why I feel this is the most appropriate action on your complaint. I’ve looked at the information you’ve provided but it doesn’t change my opinion of your complaint. And so I feel an ombudsman would be best placed to address your concerns.

 

You’ve asked me to continue my investigation and answer the queries you’ve raised before you give me your final response to my opinion. But since you’ve told me that you disagree with my opinion, the next step you can take is to ask for an ombudsman to review the complaint if you want us to continue looking into the matter.

 

Should the ombudsman consider it necessary for additional responses before issuing his/her final decision, they may choose to make a provisional finding and invite you to give us further comment or information. However, that is down to the ombudsman reviewing the case and it would wrong for me to direct the ombudsman’s investigation.

 

I’ve attached a letter which explains what will happen next. Both yourself and MBNA have 21 days to provide any further information you would like to be considered by the ombudsman. If you think you will need more time, please let me know.

 

Should you have any further queries, please get back in touch with me.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

M H - adjudicator (redress)

Financial Ombudsman Service"

[Miaspa 2010]

Passing the buck then, you can sit in queue for the next 6 to 12 months.....Just like the rest of us! My own timeframe is according to my adjudicator is "soon" when I last enquired about how much long to await ombudsman review. Currently sitting at 5 months and counting.

[GRUMPY OLD GIT]

Passing the buck then, you can sit in queue for the next 6 to 12 months.....Just like the rest of us! My own timeframe is according to my adjudicator is "soon" when I last enquired about how much long to await ombudsman review. Currently sitting at 5 months and counting.

 

Quite so, Miaspa 2010!

Clearly MH did not even re-review my case, as promised, as it only took him 6 working days to fire off his 'my position remains the same' fob off routine email. And then firing off the following letter by snail mail, which has been delivered today. But dated Friday 09 October 2015; the same date as the email.

 

"Dear Grumpy,

 

An ombudsman will review your complaint.

 

Because you did not agree, and ombudsman will review your complaint and make a final decision. If the ombudsman's conclusions are different to mine, they will explain why and let you reply before they give you their decision.

 

We should already have the information the ombudsman needs to reach a decision. But if we need anything more from you, we will let you know.

 

If you have any further points or information you want the ombudsman to consider, please send these to me by 30 October 2015 blah, blah, blah.

 

MH - adjudicator."

 

MH, actually promised to send a more detailed response but now insists that despite my further submissions, he will not change his opinion. Now that to my mind that is closing his ears/eyes to any further argument. And as such is not in keeping with his remit as an FOS adjudicator, which must surely demand that he listens to all arguments and make his judgement after having done so - this is not fair and reasonable impartiality that the FOS professes to exercise...

 

An utter disgrace!

[Baz1994]

Quite so, Miaspa 2010!

Clearly MH did not even re-review my case, as promised, as it only took him 6 working days to fire off his 'my position remains the same' fob off routine email. And then firing off the following letter by snail mail, which has been delivered today. But dated Friday 09 October 2015; the same date as the email.

 

"Dear Grumpy,

 

An ombudsman will review your complaint.

 

Because you did not agree, and ombudsman will review your complaint and make a final decision. If the ombudsman's conclusions are different to mine, they will explain why and let you reply before they give you their decision.

 

We should already have the information the ombudsman needs to reach a decision. But if we need anything more from you, we will let you know.

 

If you have any further points or information you want the ombudsman to consider, please send these to me by 30 October 2015 blah, blah, blah.

 

MH - adjudicator."

 

MH, actually promised to send a more detailed response but now insists that despite my further submissions, he will not change his opinion. Now that to my mind that is closing his ears/eyes to any further argument. And as such is not in keeping with his remit as an FOS adjudicator, which must surely demand that he listens to all arguments and make his judgement after having done so - this is not fair and reasonable impartiality that the FOS professes to exercise...

 

An utter disgrace!

 

..........and no doubt the ombudsman will agree with the adjudicator

 

As I have been continuously told with my recent complaints that I have the option to refer to the ombudsman but it's unlikely that the outcome will be different - unless there's any important info that I haven't already provided (but I have and has been totally ignored)

[angry cat]

..........and no doubt the ombudsman will agree with the adjudicator

 

As I have been continuously told with my recent complaints that I have the option to refer to the ombudsman but it's unlikely that the outcome will be different - unless there's any important info that I haven't already provided (but I have and has been totally ignored)

 

Oh dear, what on earth is going on at the FOS re: MBNA complaints?!

 

It appears that some FOS adjudicators may not be treating some MBNA complainants as fairly as they should be treated...

[Baz1994]

Oh dear, what on earth is going on at the FOS re: MBNA complaints?!

 

It appears that some FOS adjudicators may not be treating some MBNA complainants as fairly as they should be treated...

 

and not just MBNA complaints angry cat but others too !

 

It seems that complaints are not being investigated properly or any notice taken of evidence provided. I am finding it rather frustrating and a waste of time and effort at the moment.

[angry cat]

and not just MBNA complaints angry cat but others too !

 

It seems that complaints are not being investigated properly or any notice taken of evidence provided. I am finding it rather frustrating and a waste of time and effort at the moment.

 

Yes, it is most frustrating Baz. But we have to keep soldiering on - keep the faith!

[Baz1994]

Yes, it is most frustrating Baz. But we have to keep soldiering on - keep the faith!

 

I am just about angry cat but its just so frustrating that even when consumer law etc is stated and evidence provided, they just totally ignore what is said and receive the usual the bank has dealt with you fairly blah blah.

 

One complaint adjudicator was even giving me advice on contacting various debt charities in which I found quite condescending

[suvin50]

This is the latest email from my adjudicator regarding my complaint about unlawful charges:

 

I am speaking to my colleague who deals directly with MBNAabout how they refund fees and charges. It is possible that MBNA don’t take a cumulativeview of the charges. They may only be refunding a fee each month if the PPIthat month, and that month only, pushes your account over the credit limit.However I await confirmation of this.

This is despite the fact that my reconstructed account shows that I never exceeded my credit limit.

[Miaspa 2010]

Just had a revised offer from MBNA, I have asked for a calculation.

 

 

PPI premiums: £2,038.38

Associated interest: £3,361.85

8% simple interest: £863.86

Fees: £25

Total: £6,289.06

My initial thoughts to my adjudicator.

I’d like to see the calculation of the offer just as a point of interest, but I would prefer to await for an ombudsman decision.

The offer is not significantly different from the previous offer.

Only one refund of charges, still seems incorrect. The offer does not quantify if associated interest or statutory interest has been applied to the refunded charge.

Even based on the previous offer 16 months ago, we should have an increase on the offer of 8% simple interest. The previous off had £905.20 gross or £724.16 net, this offer has £863 as you state this we are unsure if gross or net, but the previous offer was calculated 16 months ago so we would expect an increase on the gross of (9.07x16) £145.12. Indicating the offer is indeed net.

The associated interest has increased by £706.87 my expectation is that the restated balance at 27 April 2011 will be £302.86.

I expect MBNA have offered no simple interest increase after the debt was sold to Max Recovery in May 2011.

There still appears to be a number of payments being restated as both full and minimum, when at the time they were applied to the account they were neither.

It would be interesting to see if MBNA have taken into account any of your decision that you upheld.

The details above are only my expectations based on how MBNA’s incorrect method of redress works, but with the calculation I can confirm my thoughts.

So in summary can we have a copy of the calculation, but still await an ombudsman decision.

 

[Miaspa 2010]

One final thought of the day.

 

 

From an MBNA press release dated 5th June 2014.

 

 

"For example, our system operates so that the cost of PPI is only applied after the customer has gone over limit and after the over limit fee has been applied. As such, PPI could never cause our customers to be over limit or cause the fee to be applied.”

From my own records I was wondering why a £25 refund.

Credit Limit £4,300

 

March 2005 Balance £4,356.29

Remove the PPI £31.18, balance £4325.29.

Remove the £25 over the limit fee, £4,300.29

Remove the Interest on charged on PPI £0.48 (that's the interest charged on the previous months PPI).

Oh the balance is £4,299.79.

Never say never MBNA !!!!!

 

 

 

[angry cat]

One final thought of the day.

 

 

From an MBNA press release dated 5th June 2014.

 

 

"For example, our system operates so that the cost of PPI is only applied after the customer has gone over limit and after the over limit fee has been applied. As such, PPI could never cause our customers to be over limit or cause the fee to be applied.”

From my own records I was wondering why a £25 refund.

Credit Limit £4,300

 

March 2005 Balance £4,356.29

Remove the PPI £31.18, balance £4325.29.

Remove the £25 over the limit fee, £4,300.29

Remove the Interest on charged on PPI £0.48 (that's the interest charged on the previous months PPI).

Oh the balance is £4,299.79.

Never say never MBNA !!!!!

 

 

 

 

"From an MBNA press release dated 5th June 2014.

 

 

"For example, our system operates so that the cost of PPI is only applied after the customer has gone over limit and after the over limit fee has been applied. As such, PPI could never cause our customers to be over limit or cause the fee to be applied.

 

That is absolute rubbish:

That may have been the case post June 2014?

But definately not prior...

[Miaspa 2010]

"From an MBNA press release dated 5th June 2014.

 

 

"For example, our system operates so that the cost of PPI is only applied after the customer has gone over limit and after the over limit fee has been applied. As such, PPI could never cause our customers to be over limit or cause the fee to be applied.

 

That is absolute rubbish:

That may have been the case post June 2014?

But definately not prior...

 

 

Yep all a load of MBNA tosh.............I have to accept or reject the offer today.

 

 

I'm rejecting purely on the basis that I have not been provided with a copy of how the offer was calculated.

 

 

I played around with my MBNA spread sheet deleting only six of the "M's" and was only a few quid out. My adjudicator upheld that a least 18 should be reversed (from memory it was around that figure).

 

 

That's without going into all the other "M's"or the "F's".

 

 

I did have an interesting email conversation with JL a while back and she's allowed me to use her Paper to support my arguments.

Edited October 26, 2015 by Miaspa 2010
Spelling

[angry cat]

The following has just been brought to my attention:-

 

Not sure if anyone is interested?

But since January 2005 the FOS has received 116, 341 complaints against MBNA.

There are currently 11,444 open complaints against MBNA Limited. Of these, 159 are currently waiting to be reviewed by an ombudsman.

 

Since 1 April 2005, the FOS received 96,048 complaints against MBNA Limited. Of these 77% were upheld in favour of the consumer. The FOS adjudicators found in favour of the consumer 78% of the time and our ombudsman found in favour of the consumer 34% of the time.

 

The FOS will not share any further information due to an exemption under section 12 of the FOIA.

 

Bearing the above in mind, we all need to keep updating out FOS cases...

[angry cat]

The following has just been brought to my attention:-

 

Not sure if anyone is interested?

But since January 2005 the FOS has received 116, 341 complaints against MBNA.

There are currently 11,444 open complaints against MBNA Limited. Of these, 159 are currently waiting to be reviewed by an ombudsman.

 

Since 1 April 2005, the FOS received 96,048 complaints against MBNA Limited. Of these 77% were upheld in favour of the consumer. The FOS adjudicators found in favour of the consumer 78% of the time and our ombudsman found in favour of the consumer 34% of the time.

 

The FOS will not share any further information due to an exemption under section 12 of the FOIA.

 

Bearing the above in mind, we all need to keep updating out FOS cases...

 

And now this:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/public-could-have-to-pay-100-to-make-freedom-of-information-requests-under-right-to-know-crackdown-a6688581.html

 

"“Freedom of Information is a crucial tool for keeping our politicians honest and our Government on the right track. It should be available to everyone without cost.”

 

Lord Burns, the commission’s chair, said: “We want to hear the views of as many people as possible… The commission is an independent body, with no predetermined view, and is interested in gathering as much objective evidence as possible on the questions posed in the call for evidence.”

[angry cat]

Why don't they want us to have information; the right to know?!

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/09/freedom-of-information-commission-not-very-free-with-its-information

[angry cat]

Why don't they want us to have information; the right to know?!

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/09/freedom-of-information-commission-not-very-free-with-its-information

 

Ah, I see this has already be reported on CAG:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?453635-%A3100-charge-proposed-for-FOI-requests&p=4803351#post4803351

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/an-inside-job-the-committee-examining-how-to-reform-the-foi-act-looks-like-a-conservative-hit-squad-a6688531.html

 

You may well consider the above to be off topic. However, it is extremely important and valid...

[Miaspa 2010]

The following has just been brought to my attention:-

 

Not sure if anyone is interested?

But since January 2005 the FOS has received 116, 341 complaints against MBNA.

There are currently 11,444 open complaints against MBNA Limited. Of these, 159 are currently waiting to be reviewed by an ombudsman.

 

Since 1 April 2005, the FOS received 96,048 complaints against MBNA Limited. Of these 77% were upheld in favour of the consumer. The FOS adjudicators found in favour of the consumer 78% of the time and our ombudsman found in favour of the consumer 34% of the time.

 

The FOS will not share any further information due to an exemption under section 12 of the FOIA.

 

Bearing the above in mind, we all need to keep updating out FOS cases...

 

 

I'm not liking those odds of 34%.

 

 

Ho hum still no calculation but I am getting info piece meal.

 

 

One issue I felt I may have which I posted on this thread earlier was even with a partial uphold on restated minimums, MBNA would have to start restating payments as full near the end of the card.

 

 

Guess what.................I now have a list of payments being restated as full.

 

 

How can a reconstructed balance paid off in full, in one month still incur a penalty charge and further interest in the next month this then gets paid off in full.

 

 

The reconstructed balance is once again zero. I then incur further interest and penalty charges on a reconstructed balance of zero, which I pay off in full and have a zero reconstructed balance. Which I incur further penalties on plus interest which I clear again with a restated full payment.

 

 

The reconstructed balance is once again zero, guess what I incur further penalty charges and interest on a zero reconstructed balance which I pay off in a restated full payment. Only to incur interest and penalty charges on a reconstructed zero balance.

 

 

I could go but I hope you get the picture. I just defies all logic.

[Miaspa 2010]

I now have two offers

 

 

V20 B041 the first offer. V20F2 Prototype

 

 

I have rejected V20F2 Prototype on the following grounds.

 

 

I agree there are five payments that were minimums, Sept, Oct Nov 06 plus April and May 09.

December 09 I disagree with on the basis no payment was made, the dd was returned.

I have already emailed my reasons for the other restated minimums were not minimum when applied to the original account.

Full payments

May June July 2010, the amounts paid were the minimum MBNA would accept on the account. I had no choice but to pay the amount for MBNA to restate the amounts are full is incorrect. I will try to look through MBNA correspondence to confirm this.

I agree May 03 is a full payment it reduces the balance to zero.

The Sept 99 I disagree with the restatement as the payment of £1,750 was greater than the outstanding balance in Aug of £1,728.03.

Sept 02 I disagree with the restatement of the payment as full, the outstanding balance was 80.65 I paid £90.

I disagree with other being restated as full at the time they were applied to the card they were not full payments.

Looking at the history of the account there are 96 payments I agree 5 are minimums, 1 is a full and two are over payments. There is no consistency that allows presumption that MBNA’s restated of payments is correct.

In regard to charges I think you are over complicating the issue the purpose of PPI redress is to put the consumer back in the position if PPI had not been applied. If MBNA are allowed to use the reconstructed balance to restate payment the same principle follows that the consumer can use the reconstructed balance in relation to penalty charges.

Even with MBNA’s variance of calculation method it still can be seen when penalties have been applied there is an amount of money held on account in the Surplus redress pot that never gets offset against the card balance.

Additionally MBNA sold the debt to Max Recovery in May 2011, the only amount receiving statutory interest after this date is the surplus pot, why doesn’t the balance of PPI and associated interest receive any statutory interest?

Finally does it not seem odd that in the revised calculation the statutory interest offered is £863.68 gross, on the initial offer the value of statutory interest is 905.20 gross. How can the statutory interest reduce in value even though the second is calculated 14 months later. The amount of statutory interest offer for the 14 month period is 7.72 x 14. =108.08.

So comparing the two calculation at May 14 the first offer gives statutory interest of £905.20 the second offer at May 14 is £755.60.

How exactly does that work? Perhaps by some imaginative redress calculation which bears no resemblance to fair redress. A methodology used purely to minimise PPI redress

[Miaspa 2010]

I missed off my final thought to the adjudicator.

 

 

 

 

Why is the calculation headed.

Output - 30/09/2015 Confidential Prototype Only - Not Suitable For Remediation, Provisioning nor Decisioning

Being factious can we have calculation on a non prototype, which is suitable for Remediation, Provisioning and decisioning.

[AfterMidnight]

While V20F2 calculations may be a prototype (which is all a bit bizarre) looks like the Chester crew are still up to known practices in it.

 

 

And FOS are still somewhat reluctant to get their hands dirty by actually looking at much in the way of "argument" from complainants, preferring to simply believe that "MBNA must know what they are doing".

 

 

Well, it is difficult not to conclude that MBNA do know what they are doing, but not in the "fair" and practical sense that FOS assumes. It is becoming harder to fathom why no-one at FOS has ever (despite many clear and rationale submissions, and related queries, from folks here and elsewhere) yet actually seen fit to spend some time looking at "the issues". Maybe we should all be asking for "group complaint related" complaints to all be handled by an individual or section ... that has an appreciation ... that there are more people than one with very related complaints for this firm. While that may go against the ethos of "looking at each complaint individually in it's own merit" - one does wonder how much it would take for someone in at least some power at FOS to think "hang on, wait a minute, let's check rather than assume - as we have been asked to do so in a number of cases."

 

 

While we have all anecdotally from each other have heard of adjudicators (but not yet an Ombudsman?) dabbling [a little] in trying to appreciate what is actually being complained around, I don't think anyone has ever seen a considered and independent analysis (or defence) of the nitty-gritty issues that make such a difference. As in - FOS do not as much just fail to appreciate the "sense" of the complaints, but are serially failing to appreciate that there is a problem worth looking at, or what that actually is.

 

 

While we may all be individuals with related problems (and take a moment to think of the multitudes who simply accepted MBNA on their word) - I feel it may be approaching time for a group letter (or similar request one anyway) from us all simply asking the question of "why has no-one at the service in the last two or three years appeared to have understood why people might complain about MBNA's methodology, and can they really state that anyone has taken time to truly understand what has been happening with it". If there was a study (at FOS, not an external one they can dismiss) which analysed the procedures (they have had enough guidance) and came up with a reasoned, independent-of-MBNA, and in-depth view that concluded "different but fair" it would at least give something to discuss, as opposed to the less than reassuring "Nah, without going into detail beyond boiler-plate guideline reporting, we think, on advice from MBNA, that it is likely all fine".

[Miaspa 2010]

Whole heartedly agree, is anyone's MP Andrew Tyrie?

 

 

I don't get any of the redress so I can quite happily push this as far up the food chain as possible.

 

 

This is a reply from my adjudicator re the late penalty charges at the end of the card.

 

 

late payment fees

I can see that the only transactions against your balance during May to July 2010 were late fees and interest charged on the entire balance. I understand your point that if the reconstructed balance was zero at that point then there wouldn’t be anything to pay, so in turn you wouldn’t be late paying.

But as I put in my assessment, I think this it too simplistic a way to look at the refund of the charges by looking at a balance that is entirely hypothetical. Those late fees were charged because the minimum repayments didn’t reach MBNA by the date they were due. Late fees were charged until the November 2010 statement because you weren’t making payments at all after August 2010.

As a service we are independent and impartial and we look at what we think is a fair resolution for both sides.

So if the reconstructed balance is entirely hypothetical how can MBNA use it to restate payments?

Answers on a postcard to

The Financial Ombudsman Service

Exchange Tower

London E14 9SR