MBNA PPI Award “Interpretative” Calculations?

[Miaspa 2010]

Your not alone Miaspa, Read my final decision and feel free to make any comments. I have had the same ombudsman make the final decision as you. I am sure you will notice the exact same wording in the standard letters he uses.

FOS

 

 

 

That wasn't my final decision just one I saw when looking, mine is still provisional with all parties to respond by the 29th July.

 

 

It seems to be the more technical you get with the FOS, the more uptight they get. I'm trying softly, softly, catchy monkey. I have been asked to clarify a couple of points, so might get somewhere.

 

 

I may just get a similar response to you, who knows but agree with AC ask for an extension so you consider the decision in full.

[Miaspa 2010]

Let say over the lifetime of the card.

 

 

Spending £7,700

PPI £2,300

Interest £3 000

 

 

The ombudsman has used the argument MBNA are refunding 28% of the interest charged, when only 23% of the spending on the card was PPI.

 

 

So he thinks a refund of £2,300 PPI plus associated interest of £840 is fair. Purely because MBNA are refunding a higher proportion of interest compared to PPI and actual spend.

 

 

F%*k me if only life was that simple, hold on a minute Mr Smith your life is insured for £100,000 you lost your todger in the accident your claiming compensation on. On the basis that your flaccid todger is only 2% of your body I feel that an award of compensation of £3,000 is more than equitable. They are giving you 3% of your life cover when your todger only makes up 2%.

[angry cat]

Goodness me; we are ALL having to wait an extraordinary long time?!!!

[Miaspa 2010]

Goodness me; we are ALL having to wait an extraordinary long time?!!!

 

Not heard a bean on mine, time for an email!

[angry cat]

Not heard a bean on mine, time for an email!

 

Are they actually really looking at the complaints or, have they just put them on the back shelf?

We know the template holding updates are just diarised; computer generated...

[Miaspa 2010]

Still waiting, I got my provisional decision on 29th June, which I replied to by the deadline of 29th July.

Today I get this .............

The ombudsman is still considering everything and hasn’t yet come to a final decision.

Unfortunately, it’s not for me to say when the final decision may be made as it’s not something I have any control over.

Thank you for your continued patience and we’ll be in touch again when we’ve got a further update.

[angry cat]

Still waiting, I got my provisional decision on 29th June, which I replied to by the deadline of 29th July.

Today I get this .............

The ombudsman is still considering everything and hasn’t yet come to a final decision.

Unfortunately, it’s not for me to say when the final decision may be made as it’s not something I have any control over.

Thank you for your continued patience and we’ll be in touch again when we’ve got a further update.

 

 

We are all in the same boat, so to speak...

How on earth do the FOS get away with such incompetence?!

[Miaspa 2010]

Guess what..........................still waiting!!

[angry cat]

Ditto at al!

 

I guess you have heard the news about Lloyds Banking wanting to acquire the UK MBNA credit card portfolio. But they won't buy until the PPI liabilities have been sorted out for the MBNA existing card holders...

[citizenB]

Ditto at al!

 

I guess you have heard the news about Lloyds Banking wanting to acquire the UK MBNA credit card portfolio. But they won't buy until the PPI liabilities have been sorted out for the MBNA existing card holders...

 

 

Lloyds needs to sort out its own claims before mithering that another company has liabilities !. I see they have had to set aside a further £1 billion for ongoing claims.

 

 

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-10-26/lloyds-banking-group-sets-aside-further-1-billion-for-ppi-claims/

 

 

Lloyds Banking Group has set aside a further £1 billion to fund compensation claims for the mis-selling of payment protection insurance (PPI).

 

The lender, which is partly state-owned, said it has also accounted for a further £150 million to cover other conduct issues, including £100 million relating to packaged bank accounts.

 

Lloyds is the worst affected by the PPI scandal, and revealed as part of its third-quarter trading update that it would take a further hit.

 

[Old Cogger]

and it is public monies they are operating on - when is this scandal of mis use public funds going to stop === the public need halp not the Bankers and their millions of ill gotten gains!

[angry cat]

and it is public monies they are operating on - when is this scandal of mis use public funds going to stop === the public need halp not the Bankers and their millions of ill gotten gains!

 

My own PPI case involved London & Edinburg Insurance PPI. But lately St. Andrews PPI Insurance, which MBNA changed without prior informing me; St. Andrews Insurance (PPI) is owned by the Lloyds Banking group...!

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-06/lloyds-said-to-mull-taking-bank-of-america-s-ppi-hit-in-card-bid

[Old Cogger]

been there as well with O.H s MBNA years ago what a farce , MBNA during a claim blamed St. Andrews for taking PPI monthly cost & St. Andrews blamed MBNA, then MBNA threatened her if she did not pay from the monthly payout whilst claim being made, all started with London & Edinburgh PPI trouble was no regulator etc wanted to know in 2008.

 

 

all other companies do not charge the PPI fee during a claim>

[Miaspa 2010]

The latest response, think another email to my long suffering MP.

Thanks for your email.

I’m sorry its taking as long as it is, I appreciate it’s been quite a while since the provisional decision was issued.

It’s not MBNA holding up the decision. The ombudsman is carefully considering everything before coming to his final decision.

Thank you for your continued patience, we’ll let you know when we’ve got a further update for you

[Old Cogger]

considering what - belive that and I am out feeding the fairies in a minute

[suvin50]

Got an email from my adjudicator yesterday advising that my complaint was now with an Ombudsman

[angry cat]

considering what - belive that and I am out feeding the fairies in a minute

 

Talk about dragggging their feet!

[suvin50]

Update from my adjudicator:

 

" Due to the time lapse and the various offers that have been made on the complaint she has asked for MBNA's final position with regards to their offers. I have emailed them and await their response."

 

Shouldn't the Ombudsman be telling MBNA what they should be offering?

 

 

Any thoughts?

[GRUMPY OLD GIT]

Got an email from my adjudicator yesterday advising that my complaint was now with an Ombudsman

 

Ditto!

[GRUMPY OLD GIT]

Update from my adjudicator:

 

" Due to the time lapse and the various offers that have been made on the complaint she has asked for MBNA's final position with regards to their offers. I have emailed them and await their response."

 

Shouldn't the Ombudsman be telling MBNA what they should be offering?

 

 

Any thoughts?

 

Of course he or she should be;

it's not MBNA but the FOS ombudsman that needs to be telling MBNA to bring you back to the status quo

[gettingsorted]

Got my final decision in June and they demanded a reply within two weeks; I told them that it had taken several years to get to here so they could wait longer......have finally started looking at it now and have some distinct inconsistencies. They are now pushing hard for my reply so must get it over to them.

 

Have thrown out all but one for the charges claims ? as only one fee was due to PPI ? There is no explanation as to this - I was quite clearly well below my limit if I did not have PPI. Just going to read those decisions mentioned earlier.

 

They have now added the successful claim for an illness to the premium rather than deducted from the final offer which I think reduces the associated interest. The simple interest is reduced which I think it has something to do with the fact that there is less in the Surplus Redress column.

 

They have not even mentioned my query as to why there is a difference in their calculation for my OH between 2011 and when they sent us a spreadsheet.

 

To my previous helpers - if I scan the paperwork tomorrow is there any chance that you can review it and get back to me with your observations.....

 

I have had a forensic accountant look over the spreadsheets and they are still looking over them - their initial observations are that it just doesn't make sense.

 

Thank you very much

GS

 

EDITED - BY THE WAY MY HUSBAND RECENTLY RECIEVED A CHEQUE IN RESPECT OF A RECALCULATION FOR AN OVER LIMIT FEE - JUST ONE .....HE GOT OVER A 1000. pounds. I will scan that for you to.

Edited November 13, 2016 by gettingsorted
further observation

[suvin50]

My complaint looks like going the same way. Mbna will only admit to only one OTL charge, but I haven't had a decision from the Ombudsman yet.

[gettingsorted]

Have today written for further information - including how they have come to the overlimit charge conclusion

 

Can't make any sense of the spreadsheet and calculations

 

Will keep you posted

 

GS

[angry cat]

Got my final decision in June and they demanded a reply within two weeks; I told them that it had taken several years to get to here so they could wait longer......have finally started looking at it now and have some distinct inconsistencies. They are now pushing hard for my reply so must get it over to them.

 

Have thrown out all but one for the charges claims ? as only one fee was due to PPI ? There is no explanation as to this - I was quite clearly well below my limit if I did not have PPI. Just going to read those decisions mentioned earlier.

 

They have now added the successful claim for an illness to the premium rather than deducted from the final offer which I think reduces the associated interest. The simple interest is reduced which I think it has something to do with the fact that there is less in the Surplus Redress column.

 

They have not even mentioned my query as to why there is a difference in their calculation for my OH between 2011 and when they sent us a spreadsheet.

 

To my previous helpers - if I scan the paperwork tomorrow is there any chance that you can review it and get back to me with your observations.....

 

I have had a forensic accountant look over the spreadsheets and they are still looking over them - their initial observations are that it just doesn't make sense.

 

Thank you very much

GS

 

EDITED - BY THE WAY MY HUSBAND RECENTLY RECIEVED A CHEQUE IN RESPECT OF A RECALCULATION FOR AN OVER LIMIT FEE - JUST ONE .....HE GOT OVER A 1000. pounds. I will scan that for you to.

 

An opinion:

 

If the remainder of GS's un-refunded charges were also overlimit fees, and the 're-constructed' or 'notional' account balance owing (ie., after deducting the refunded PPI) was below the limit on each occasion that triggered an overlimit charge (ie., not at the time the charge was made) - then it seems to me that all of these fees should have been refunded. However, if any of these fees were late payment fees, then they would only be reclaimable if the 're-constructed' or 'notional' account balance owing was zero or in credit.

 

It seems very odd that the payout from a successful claim for illness under the PPI policy has not been deducted from the final offer amount - which is indeed the usual procedure. I think GS's reasoning that it reduces the amount of Associated Interest (and, in theory, 8% simple interest as well) hits the nail on the head. It appears that MBNA have found yet another 'back-door' method of reducing the amount of Associated Interest that they have to refund by doing this, and I would be interested to hear what the FOS's view of this might be. My own take on it is this:-

 

Had the PPI policy payout from the successful illness claim been credited directly to the MBNA account at the time that it was made, then the balance would have been reduced, and the monthly account interest would also have been reduced. If this was not done (and if there was no proviso that it should have been done) - then my view is that GS was free to use this money to offset the other effects of the illness (eg., loss of earnings, treatment of the illness, etc.) It appears to me that GS used the money for the latter purpose, in which case I assume that GS either continued paying the PPI premiums - or that these were not being charged for the period covered by the illness claim. And if that is the case, then MBNA either charged Associated Interest on the premiums that continued to be paid, in which case it should now be refunded - or the premiums were waived for the period of illness under the PPI policy, in which case no premiums would have been charged to the account. Using the PPI policy claim payout in the way that MBNA appear to have done seems to be erroneous (to put it politely).

 

I believe that the essence of it all lies in the PPI policy T&C's regarding how payouts are implemented. If an exemption from premiums for the duration of the illness is a prescribed part of the policy payout, then the actual net payout received by the claimant is theirs in total, and there would then be no 'right of offset' against the credited premiums. If there is a proviso that premiums should continue to be paid for the duration of the illness - then again, if these were paid, there is no offset to be made from the policy payout. However, if GS should have continued paying these premiums, but did not - then perhaps it is reasonable to use a 'theoretical' or 'notional' portion of the policy payout to offset against the unpaid premiums - but if that is the case, then IMO this should be no more than the amount of unpaid premiums, and not the entire payout amount.

[angry cat]

My complaint looks like going the same way. Mbna will only admit to only one OTL charge, but I haven't had a decision from the Ombudsman yet.

 

Yes, we are all still waiting for theses FOS ombudsmen/women to come to their decisions. But will these long labored over opinions just simply be based on those of the individual FOS adjudicators; FOS adjudicators who did not/do not comprehend?!