Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I've an idea that what this is is clearing out stock of old tech panels as there have been signs of major breakthroughs in solar tech - inc what is effectively solar paint   reuters.com WWW.REUTERS.COM  
    • ROFL - says a minister of the government that lets its politicians promote their agendas unchallenged and well paid on the UK's version of Russia Today translated UK deputy PM launches global push to mask their election rigging "The UK is following Russia and China on a government minister and MP led process to get paid vast sums to put our message out to the plebs unchallenged, funded via right wing billionaires, AI from foreign states, and misuse of taxpayer money.   reuters.com WWW.REUTERS.COM  
    • Yes, but the process starts here... https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/data-protection-complaints/what-to-expect/ This involves making a complaint to GS first before approaching ICO. However, at the time of the complaint, I beleive we'd advise the complainant to ask for some compensation and take it from there. @FTMDave?? No, I meant this forum, The Consumer Action Group, where you're posting right now.😄 (We're in the slow process of rebranding as The National Consumer Service.)
    • And yes, they state their client is EON and that they can return the debt to EON who can either register a default or take me to court. 
    • Thank you. The npower debt was from 2019/2020 until EON took over the account late 2021.   npower had set a DCA on me even though I owed them nothing. I spoke to a customer service agent, following up by email, who confirmed I was in credit . I made a complaint to head office who sent a barrage of emails, changing the amounts each time. According to them, I owed £279.   The debt grew to what it is now as first npower and then EON subsequently failed to put a payment arrangement and direct debit in place to pay off this supposed sum and my ongoing bills.   I was very ill with Covid, struggling in lockdown with a disabled child and informed them of all this.   EON stopped their legal action when I took them to the ombudsman as this was part of my complaint and requested remedy but I have not received a notice of discontinuance.    I would like to set up my own dd to pay them off but am concerned they could still take legal action. I am on a low income and can’t afford to pay them more than a token amount each month.   
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

MBNA PPI Award “Interpretative” Calculations?


AfterMidnight
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2546 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

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?!

 

 

Latest response from my adjudicator:

 

MBNA only sent limited information about the fee they wanted to refund. However I have their breakdown of the offer and so I independently checked whether I felt what they were saying was correct. I included a section in my view, please see attached, addressing this. I said that I thought another two fees should be repaid. However as a claim hadn’t been deducted from the offer, and this outweighed the fee amounts, I said that nothing further should be paid.

 

The ombudsman will have all this information and they will include this all in their decision.

Link to post
Share on other sites

angry cat - at work so cannot comment fully but just a note to say that I have just checked my statements and the successful illness claim was actually paid into the account direct as a DDR - the amount totally agrees ...........how does that affect your opinion ?

GS

 

I had exactly the same with MBNA. My valid PPI claim was successful, after a big struggle and;

my claim was also paid directly into my CC account monthy (often late though, resulting in 22 late and over limit penalty charges: 22!)

However, MBNA continued to debit the PPI, piled on the ever accruing interest and then they changed my PPI insurer without telling me.

This matter has never been fully resolved, as the calculations are so complicated.

My claim still remains, but now it is against Lloyds: St Andrews...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good morning - am absolutely steaming ! but firstly

 

However, if any of these fees were late payment fees,
only reclaimed the over limit fees

 

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 It was deducted from the final payout amount initially; this is what happened in my husband's claim too

 

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.It was paid direct to MBNA at the time and PPI & interest continued to be charged

 

and now to why I am steaming ...........

 

Please see attached - copy of initial complaint & calculations; copies of final decision; copy of calculations; copy of letter sent in reply to FOS email reply from adjudicator; my reply to him (by letter). This will probably identify me to the FOS but by now I don't really care as I am very unhappy about the reply received. I feel that I am getting fobbed off.......

 

I approached an accountant as I just couldn't make sense of the figures received (I also work as an accountant but am not qualified) but he couldn't make any of the figures add up so he suggested I write again for a more detailed analysis..........well you see the reply I got.

 

I would now appreciate your thoughts on this - feel as if I am just going around in circles

 

 

 

Thanks

GS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Put them all in one multipage document

Then PDF that!!

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had exactly the same with MBNA. My valid PPI claim was successful, after a big struggle and;

my claim was also paid directly into my CC account monthy (often late though, resulting in 22 late and over limit penalty charges: 22!)

However, MBNA continued to debit the PPI, piled on the ever accruing interest and then they changed my PPI insurer without telling me.

This matter has never been fully resolved, as the calculations are so complicated.

My claim still remains, but now it is against Lloyds: St Andrews...

 

 

I made claims with 4 banks but only had any payment from MBNA, even though two of my other claims were also with L&E.

Payment for the MBNA claim was paid into my CC account but in one lump sum, 8 months after my successful claim. In the intervening months I was still paying £70+ PPI premiums and being hammered with penalty charges. I only ever had one payout from the policy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
I was promised a final decision in one to two weeks, a week ago..my argument in post 971 was my last roll of the dice!

 

 

 

And guess what still no final response.......from the email of my adjudicator yesterday.

 

 

I’m sorry you haven’t received your final decision in the past few weeks as hoped. I’ve been told the final decision should be finished and sent in the next few days though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I finally got a final decision....

...but I didn't because at the last hurdle the FOS removed me from the matter.

 

 

In my email I got this.......

The final decision and accompanying letter and acceptance/rejection forms were actually sent to the Official Receiver instead of you.

This is because it’s the Official Receiver’s decision to either accept it or reject the decision.

But please see attached a copy of the final decision.

If you’d like me to send a postal copy, please let me know and I’ll send a copy to you.

 

I have attached the decision as it's most amusing and the Ombudsman missed the point completely!!

 

Moral of story

don't bother wasting your time,

 

 

at the end of the day I was never going to get any compensation.

That's not what galls me,

 

 

its the FOS attitude to rollover and accept what ever the banking institute says.

The final email I received from Adjudicator which I have copied and pasted above has now made it a toothless argument as I can't even reject the decision.

 

On the plus side I do now know that Christopher Reeve isn't superman..

..he's Batman's arch enemy,

the five letter one starts with J ends in a R.

Final Decision.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I finally got a final decision....

...but I didn't because at the last hurdle the FOS removed me from the matter.

 

 

In my email I got this.......

The final decision and accompanying letter and acceptance/rejection forms were actually sent to the Official Receiver instead of you.

This is because it’s the Official Receiver’s decision to either accept it or reject the decision.

But please see attached a copy of the final decision.

If you’d like me to send a postal copy, please let me know and I’ll send a copy to you.

 

I have attached the decision as it's most amusing and the Ombudsman missed the point completely!!

 

Moral of story

don't bother wasting your time,

 

 

at the end of the day I was never going to get any compensation.

That's not what galls me,

 

 

its the FOS attitude to rollover and accept what ever the banking institute says.

The final email I received from Adjudicator which I have copied and pasted above has now made it a toothless argument as I can't even reject the decision.

 

On the plus side I do now know that Christopher Reeve isn't superman..

..he's Batman's arch enemy,

the five letter one starts with J ends in a R.

 

 

Miaspa,

FWIW - our summarised thoughts are that:

1. Miaspa has lost out on his claim for 8% Simple Interest on the Recon. Balance after the account was sold, and I agree with the FOS that the 8% interest on this should have gone to the buyer of the account (presumably the OR);

2. The various M&F payments argued about represent a very small portion of the total claim quantum, and IMHO are equivalent to re-arranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic;

3. I don't think the FOS fully understand how and why the Recon. Balance is calculated or how it should be used, and I believe that this is demonstrated by the ombudsman here;

4. The Associated (account) Interest may have been wrongly calculated, but this appears to have been given little attention - although it could well be worth more than the M&F arguments;

5. There appears to have been a large number of fees & charges made ranging from £12 to £25, and these may well have been worth a large amount (with Associated Interest) - but the ombudsman appears to have dismissed these because he has misunderstood how to use the Recon, Balance to determine if these were attributable to the PPI.

 

In short, we believe that Miaspa has concentrated too heavily on items 1 and 2, which IMO are not reclaimable (in the case of item 1) or worth relatively small amounts (in the case of item 2) - when items 3, 4 & 5 should probably have been concentrated on. The FOS managed to avoid dealing with items 3, 4 & 5 either by accident or by design, I reckon. This is probably the final stage in the FOS process, so guess that Miaspa now has to consider taking this to the Small Claims court in order to get it settled - although referring it to the Independent Assessor meanwhile might be worth considering, simply as a part of the 'pre-action protocol.' But I doubt if Miaspa is getting the advice he needs to either understand this, or to action it - as CAG do not seem to have anyone who understands it any better than the FOS do - and even the expert Jonquil Lowe admits that she considers it to be an unfathomable mess. The blind are leading the blind here, I believe - and MBNA are happily looking on as they all plunge over the cliff.

 

Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
Received my preliminary decision fro an ombudsman.

Much the same as Miaspa's

 

 

Not what I was hoping for...

 

ERR. what about the Money Laundering Regulations, required by HMRC Re; the keeping of 'Account Records'?

 

And, are the FOS really going to ignore legislation that was laid down, prior to FCA PS10/12 rules?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone remember this from 2014?

 

 

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

 

 

Especially this comment from Barclays:

 

 

Barclays acknowledged that its previous system, which assessed month-by-month whether a PPI premium had triggered a fee, did not fully capture the cumulative effect of fees and charges, as regulators require.

 

 

So what has changed since then?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Just received my final decision. No change from the preliminary decision. I don't think that anything anyone says is going to change their mindset. the last line of the letter adds "if you don't agree with the decision you can still take your complaint to court." This is despite the fact that the last comment in my final email advised that I had already been to court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...