MBNA PPI Award “Interpretative” Calculations?

[angry cat]

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".

 

Now that is an excellent plan; let's do it!

[angry cat]

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

 

We need a member who resides in Chichester:

http://www.andrewtyrie.com/

 

My own MP has ignored my communications; disgraceful!

Edited November 7, 2015 by slick132
formatted quote

[Miaspa 2010]

We need a member who resides in Chichester:

http://www.andrewtyrie.com/

 

My own MP has ignored my communications; disgraceful!

 

 

Awaiting a reply from mine, unlikely to hear anything!

[Miaspa 2010]

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"

 

 

Pretty much the same response I have had, MS is not going to look at the revised offer or any my documentation supporting MBNA's new restated payments.

 

 

Either this is a good thing, its not working at Adjudicator level and MBNA will be brought to task or we are about to be royally screwed with a tepid Ombudsman review.

[Miaspa 2010]

AC your inbox is full!! Had one last PM to send.

[gettingsorted]

I am about ready for a group letter . Getting fed up now. Spoke to my adjudicator some weeks ago and he said that he wouldn't be long getting back to me as he had all the info required . I'm still waiting !

GS

Ps could one of the mods have a look to see why I do not get notifications on this thread. Thanks

[angry cat]

I am about ready for a group letter . Getting fed up now. Spoke to my adjudicator some weeks ago and he said that he wouldn't be long getting back to me as he had all the info required . I'm still waiting !

GS

Ps could one of the mods have a look to see why I do not get notifications on this thread. Thanks

 

We hope to get together a 'Group Letter' soon!

[slick132]

Ps could one of the mods have a look to see why I do not get notifications on this thread. Thanks

 

Looking at this for you now.

 

Have you looked at THREAD TOOLS above the first post of each page. If it reads SUBSCRIBE TO THIS THREAD, click it.

 

[Miaspa 2010]

From my MP

 

 

As promised I have written to Ms Caroline Wayman, Chief Executive of the Financial Ombudsman Service, about the concerns you have raised. I have asked Ms Wayman what steps the FOS are taking to ensure that there is equity between different organisations’ redress calculation methods and specifically if they will investigate MBNA’s calculation method.

[gettingsorted]

Hi slick132

 

Sorry didn't realise you had posted

 

Have you looked at THREAD TOOLS above the first post of each page. If it reads SUBSCRIBE TO THIS THREAD, click it.

 

Yes - it asks me if I want to unsubscribe......I didn't get a notification about our post but did get a notification of Miaspa's last post. Strange

 

Thank you

GS

Edited November 21, 2015 by slick132
Sorted format of quote

[AfterMidnight]

From my MP

As promised I have written to Ms Caroline Wayman, Chief Executive of the Financial Ombudsman Service, about the concerns you have raised. I have asked Ms Wayman what steps the FOS are taking to ensure that there is equity between different organisations’ redress calculation methods and specifically if they will investigate MBNA’s calculation method.

 

 

Pretty concise - 100 of those to Caroline's desk would be a good thing. AMN

[slick132]

Hi GS,

 

No idea why that happened but good that it's ok now

 

[gettingsorted]

Lol ! didnt get notified of this one - obviously doesn't like me !

 

On another note has anyone seen the MBNA advert on tv where they admit to be "number nerds" and are very good at all that number stuff - all to their own advantage of course1

 

https://www.youtube.com/user/mbna

 

It struck me as a bit arrogant and patronising !

 

GS

[DonkeyB]

Caggers – what’s the situation if you get a refund from MBNA, bank it, then realise you may have been short changed?

[angry cat]

Caggers – what’s the situation if you get a refund from MBNA, bank it, then realise you may have been short changed?

 

Simple, write to them requesting a recalculation explaining that after obtaining advice your PPI redress refund is incorrect.

You will not be alone in doing this!

[Miaspa 2010]

Caggers – what’s the situation if you get a refund from MBNA, bank it, then realise you may have been short changed?

 

 

 

I have no idea, in an ideal world a reworking of anyone who has had an offer under V20 or its derivatives would be forced on MBNA by the FSA, FCA or whatever they are calling themselves this week.

 

 

Write to your MP, say you have received redress from MBNA but in light of Jonqil Lowes paper and the BBC article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33567564 you request your MP writes to Ms Wayman with the following or something similar.

 

 

As promised I have written to Ms Caroline Wayman, Chief Executive of the Financial Ombudsman Service, about the concerns you have raised. I have asked Ms Wayman what steps the FOS are taking to ensure that there is equity between different organisations’ redress calculation methods and specifically if they will investigate MBNA’s calculation method.

As AMN has said 100 MP's asking the same question can't be ignored. We'll get a standard boilerplate response but lets get Ms Wayman to put her 250K a year job on the line.

 

 

 

[AfterMidnight]

Caggers – what’s the situation if you get a refund from MBNA, bank it, then realise you may have been short changed?

 

 

 

Conventional advice used to be that banking a cheque was not worth it as could be seen as an admission of acceptance. However, since MBNA complaints seem to take at least 2 or 3 years plus, and a cheque is valid for six months perhaps - there can be little arguing (IMHO) that taking it as a partial payment is/was the correct thing to do. You may have recognised that it seemed low at the time and have taken the time to understand why your gut feeling was shared, and discover yourself that the mechanics of affecting factors within calculations had been worked on by other people. It takes a very-long-time for anyone at all (even after passing hurdle of awareness/motivation) to fully appreciate what has been done here. If anyone had been aware, at time, of possible underpayments they could have written to MBNA with a "without prejudice acceptance of partial payment". Can't see it doing any harm to issue that at any point really, particularly if one has complained to the firm on the issue at any point in the past or intends to do so (then wait, then join consecutive FOS queues).

 

 

AMN

[angry cat]

AMN and Miaspa2010,

if the MBNA PPI redress has been incorrectly calculated, the customer must go back and request a recalculation!

 

I myself, went back to them because the calculation was wrong and; even to this day monies remain due and owing.

Several other members have cases lodged with the FOS due to same.

[DonkeyB]

Thanks folks, useful. In my case, the MBNA refund was almost identical to the Barclaycard refund – but it should not have been. I ran double the balance with MBNA, so I would have expected a much greater refund.

 

I shall get writing – exhaust the MBNA route first, of course.

 

I also forgot to ask MBNA for refunds of excessive overlimiit charges (£25 vs £12), yet Barclaycard did it automatically. Weird.

[angry cat]

Thanks folks, useful. In my case, the MBNA refund was almost identical to the Barclaycard refund – but it should not have been. I ran double the balance with MBNA, so I would have expected a much greater refund.

 

I shall get writing – exhaust the MBNA route first, of course.

 

I also forgot to ask MBNA for refunds of excessive overlimiit charges (£25 vs £12), yet Barclaycard did it automatically. Weird.

 

If, MBNA conveniently forgot to include refunds of late fees & overlimit fees, they have no wriggle room...

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

[Miaspa 2010]

A response to my MP from Caroline Wayman.

 

 

Thank you for your letter regarding your constituent Miaspa 2010 and his complaint about MBNA.

I know that Miaspa 2010 is concerned about MBNA’s approach to PPI redress and you’ve asked about our role in reviewing how banks calculate compensation in PPI cases.

Our role is to look into individual cases to decide whether consumers have been treated fairly by a financial business. And where we find that they have not, we can direct the business to put things right for the consumer.

We have a well-publicised approach setting out how we think businesses should calculate fair compensation for mis-sold PPI policies, which is consistent with the regulator’s guidance. Generally speaking, we expect businesses – who hold the most accurate data in relation to historic payments and interest rates – to calculate the amount of compensation the consumer is owed. But where customers tell us they’re not sure if their compensation has been calculated fairly, we will look to see if the business’s calculations are fair taking into account the consumer’s circumstances and our recognised approach.

When calculating compensation for mis-sold PPI complaints it’s sometimes necessary for businesses to make assumptions about what happened – where it’s uncertain what the actual position was (often due to the absence of records for sales in the past). But where a consumer is able to provide evidence that suggests the situation might be different to what the business has assumed – as it seems Miaspa 2010 has done in this case – we’d usually expect that to be taken into account by the business, when calculating its offer.

As you’re no doubt aware, we don’t regulate businesses – this comes under the remit of the Financial Conduct Authority. But we do engage in regular discussions with the regulator and – where necessary – share the details of more widespread issues we might see.

Rest assured, Miaspa 2010 case has been passed to one of our ombudsmen – who are our most senior decision makers – to review completely afresh. The ombudsman will consider everything provided by both Miaspa 2010 and MBNA when she makes her decision, to ensure any compensation is fair and reasonable

Lets see what the new year brings, a Merry Christmas to everyone who's contributed to this thread.

[AfterMidnight]

Thanks Miaspa 2010 re: "A response to my MP from Caroline Wayman.".

 

 

A bit more open there than I might expect, and you have a gender identification there perhaps for your Ombudsperson. As you say ... lets see what the new year brings. If cases do start "hitting" an Ombudsman soon (wouldn't want to drop a paper version of my submission on my foot!), I feel it is probably important that we have shared what we can to make cases as strong as possible - as FOS treat everyone without accumulating anything much in way of wisdom gained from looking at similar cases, or even under the broadly same issue with a particular company.

 

 

While copies of JL's paper included in everyone's file won't exactly do any harm, I have been thinking about something related to one of the difficult points that has been identified by CW there for us - "where a consumer is able to provide evidence that suggests the situation might be different ".

While CW's quote is restricted to meaning, I strongly guess, to state where a complainant's circumstances have been misconstrued by identifiable firm's wrong assumptions - it does raise a very related difficulty most folks have - in that "might be different" could also apply to method. But different as in - well, to what ... MBNA have all the data and are not exactly clear and forthcoming in how they do it, strangely enough. In addition to JL's work, I know that other people who do not have a claim themselves have an informed and analysed view on MBNA's method. While some might be claims-firms, ... there is work from one mathematically-disposed independent thinker of my internet acquaintance who had a view when asked - that I reckon may be worth sharing here, so that people can then take what they can from it for themselves. I am reviewing these findings myself, seeing how the analysis works for my own claim, iterating a bit in conversation, and plan to post up a worked example of what he has discovered over time in way of mechanics ... although I am myself finding Christmas prep things getting in way a bit.

 

 

Hope everyone has a Merry Christmas too ... and also have a very strong new year's resolution. I think it is time to make sure we have all presented our strongest possible clear cases for what an alternative calculation would be - using our collected knowledge from here - and anywhere else possible - of what the firm have actually been up to. When this analysis/spreadsheet I refer to is posted with comments, I would be very interested in hearing how his spread-sheeted "this is what they seem to do" matches up with direct experience of values produced from MBNA. And ... also the alternative sheet that suggests "this is what it appears they should have done." A work in progress - in that I would like to make sure I have had a good enough play-around myself with it before posting. Best wishes to all for 2016!

[Miaspa 2010]

Well a little update I have been allocated an ombudsman.

 

 

I do have the persons name but will not name per Slick's previous post. I have had a look at her previous decisions for the past year and we have a 50/50 split, so no indication there.

[suvin50]

My complaint has also been passed to an ombudsman but I don't have a name yet. Four years now and counting.

[Miaspa 2010]

From MBNA press release 5th June 2014

Not all credit card fees and charges are the same between issuers and there are aspects of MBNA’s fees and charges and the way they are charged (or not charged) which are highly relevant to whether MBNA might be liable to refund them. 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.”

MNBA response to my enquiry to why over limit fee has been refunded 14th January 2016

“Without PPI being charged in February 2005, the non-PPI balance up to the over limit fee would have remained below the credit limit, therefore subtracting the over limit fee from the non-PPI balance also meant that when PPI was applied at statement end for March 2005, that is what took the balance over the credit limit and therefore had over limit been charged at that point it would have been caused by PPI”

Can I ask MBNA to retract there press release?