Jump to content


AfterMidnight

MBNA PPI Award “Interpretative” Calculations?

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 984 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Ahhhh, I see sorry!

 

No, it says charges due to PPI (then underneath it says) Associated interest/net premium (then next to that it says) *Running redress balance/Credit balance/simple 8%

 

*3rd one

 

Up2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

U2.

 

I cant really say without seeing it as I dont have a V20_B017 copy which to advise you on. Up to you if you want to post it and I will compare to what I have got

 

I have a V20_BO20 which seems to have the same headings as you have. Also your redress was May 12? We think the problem started July 2012 which is just after the V20_BO20. This V20_BO20 when worked through was NOT a million miles out from the CAG sheet and therefore appears to have been using PS10/12 as its inner workings.

 

The column surplus redress third in from right is the big give away and this seems absent in your spreadsheet.

 

So can suggest one of two things.

 

1) Post up and I will compare with the version I have seen. If its same good chance yours is ok

2) Spend a couple of free hours inputting into the CAG spreadsheet. Pretty boring but worth it to find out if you are thousands out or just a couple of hundred. If its thousands we could have another look for you. But I am thinking you could be lucky here and be just before the changeover o the new system which the thread is all about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Ken. I have already started filling out the cag spreadsheet, am upto 2004 and needed a break as my head is starting to hurt lol. I've tried to match the % rate with as far as I've got and it looks like MBNA have used 9% where as I was paying at least 19.9% the majority of the time I was using the card so will be interesting to see what they have used once I've finished inputting (hopefully this time tomorrow).

 

I will try and post up what they've sent but scanner is not working at the mo so will have to do this at work tomorrow.

 

Thanks again for your help and making things a little clearer I will update soon

 

Up2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With your interest rate just remember you could have different rates all wrapped into one. The one that does seem to make a big impact is if you did a 0% balance transfer teaser at anytime. Say at start of card. This will bring your overall rate down and because things are/were paid off first/last as per your T&C's it might not seem quite like what you think you were paying as the headline rate is what we remember.

 

Hence why early doors on this thread the maths just became impossible to recreate unless I suppose you had the actual statements and knew which each rate was and what you were paying off first.

 

Yeah the inputting is a joy to do lol. I thought when doing mine that the hourly rate could be well worth while if we are right. Sadly thats the bit there is no easy quick way round. Good luck and if I am not about sure someone will comment for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great stuff A/M you have summarised excellently the situation of MBNA incorrect redress for me and other people like us in the same position.

 

Once again I want your thoughts along with Ken and GS and others on this thread on what I am about to say.

 

I think we need to drum up as much attention on this, what I believe to be a big scandal. Going to the press is one way. Though I believe that we need someone who if we manage to contact is the perfect voice for our cause and would genuinely act as our advocate to ensure correct redress for us and for people in the past who have been victims of underhand tactics from a lender who is clearly determined to get away with paying due redress. This person was at the forefront of the PPI mis-selling scandal and I am sure would welcome hearing of our case and taking apprioate action to ensure justice is done. The person I am talking about is of course 'Martin Lewis'

 

Please Ken A/M G/S C/G all please let me have your views on this.

 

I am in the process of trying to get details of where/how to contact Martin Lewis. If we could signpost him to the CAG forum for starters I am sure what has been written on here would fill him in on the background and the scandal going on with MBNA and how the FOS seem not to realise what they are doing/have done.

 

Again if we have a concerted effort on this we can realise something big to someone in a position and with the right background to act on our behalf.

 

your comments please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the forum and threads sake I would suggest you address the questions of another forum owner/poster in chief being asked to help to the site team and in particular to this forums owner.

 

I am grateful they are hosting this thread for us and would wish to have their blessing for something like that. Indeed we never know this forum could have connections we know nothing about and perhaps could assist in a way you are suggesting.

 

However that said I do believe the thrust of you post is correct and I have always thought the press is another way of skinning this cat. Must admit hadnt thought of Mr Lewis. And indeed if the press start sniffing you can sure as hell expect FOS to pull its finger out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been cases (other threads, other stories, other times) where CAG posters have been assisted in reinforcing a message to the wider world in the form of help with (journalistic in some cases) exposure. However sometimes that kind of message gets best attention when it is a noteworthy success story with a "therefor we also encourage you also to..." as the overall message. At present we could still perhaps just be wrongly classed as a few people with a beef about a particular issue in an unusual circumstance. So, having anyone first truly understand, and then promote the issue would be an effort, but perhaps a worthwhile one. Momentum helps...just need to consider best routes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Ken A/M GOG / up2meears everyone

 

I have been thinking on what I propose and your advise on this thread. I have decided that I want to go ahead with trying to contact Martin Lewis . I am completely indebited to this thread and its owners who have provided so much quality advise and help with the thread and forums. If you tell me who to contact for consent to use the thread for other forums/groups I would be very grateful. If they are reading this now please contact me and advise.

 

I had already considered your point that the right people may be already watchin this thread and developments. I also considered A/M point on having a success story for journalists etc to work on. I believe that we already have this with the information posted on the internet by CMC JMP Partnerships. This is where I intend to start with my breaking news story and to use A/M comments that MBNA started to calculate redress more or less correctly at that time but since approx. July 2012 started back on their old tricks to cut redress. I am not in the least interested in any glory or publicity I wish to remain anonymous (I noticed this has been done with other success storys on PPI claims such as the woman from Hertfordshire winning £65,000 from MBNA) This again is another story we could use. Though I have no problem with my story being used to not only help myself you and the others victims of shortchange tatics by MBNA.

I am about to write an e-mail mentioning MBNA tatics and proof of what they have done in the past and are now still doing using the JMP partnership web page. After I have had a response (I hope I do) I hopefully will have had consent from the owners of this forum to advise there are other victims of this scandal.

 

any comments on this please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello Ken A/M GOG / up2meears everyone

 

I have been thinking on what I propose and your advise on this thread. I have decided that I want to go ahead with trying to contact Martin Lewis . I am completely indebited to this thread and its owners who have provided so much quality advise and help with the thread and forums. If you tell me who to contact for consent to use the thread for other forums/groups I would be very grateful. If they are reading this now please contact me and advise.

 

I had already considered your point that the right people may be already watchin this thread and developments. I also considered A/M point on having a success story for journalists etc to work on. I believe that we already have this with the information posted on the internet by CMC JMP Partnerships. This is where I intend to start with my breaking news story and to use A/M comments that MBNA started to calculate redress more or less correctly at that time but since approx. July 2012 started back on their old tricks to cut redress. I am not in the least interested in any glory or publicity I wish to remain anonymous (I noticed this has been done with other success storys on PPI claims such as the woman from Hertfordshire winning £65,000 from MBNA) This again is another story we could use. Though I have no problem with my story being used to not only help myself you and the others victims of shortchange tatics by MBNA.

I am about to write an e-mail mentioning MBNA tatics and proof of what they have done in the past and are now still doing using the JMP partnership web page. After I have had a response (I hope I do) I hopefully will have had consent from the owners of this forum to advise there are other victims of this scandal.

 

any comments on this please.

 

With the greatest of respect to Martin Lewis, I doubt very much if he could do much more than is already being done on CAG already!

In reality, it is the FCA enforcement division who should be investigating the claims being made against MBNA Limited. Unfortunately, like the OFT, the FCA do not take up complaints made by the 'General Consumer'. However, if a sufficient number of people make their complaints against MBNA Limited to the FCA, at least 20, then the FCA should look into these concerns!

It is also likely that BankFodder himself and Martin Lewis may also raise the concern being posted up on their individual forums to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).

 

Please note that MBNA has previously been chastised by the Regulators, both here and over the Pond...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, the link is indeed most interesting...

 

I have just discovered that I had a PPI claim upheld in 2009 and as per the link, the PPI Redress amount was/is incorrect!

Am in correspondence with MBNA currently and am awaiting the result of a FULL SAR that I have just made. I actually have all of my statements and original documents. However, I have specifically requested the formula/spreadsheet showing exactly how Gail Powell arrived at the figure re: the PPI Redress.

 

Please note, although MBNA upheld the PPI mis-sale (long battle) payment has on just been credited to me; long story...!

Further, I have a colleague who recently received Redress; that calculation was made on an reconstructed account. Again, the amount paid, is incorrect!

 

Obviously, MBNA Limited cannot count!?

 

This is just one of my long MBNA battle threads:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?148902-Mbna-Ppi-I-Want-My-Money-Back!(1-Viewing)-nbsp

 

MBNA, have only just made a PPI refund payment to me which I have accepted in part payment of my claim. But I know for a fact that the amount was incorrect; the calculation was made in October 2009...

 

I am now waiting for my FULL SAR request to be complied with by next weekend!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatisdue

 

Totally agree with Angry Cat on this.

 

However if you are still wanting to progress with your idea then just pm/ask one of the site team to pass your request to Bankfodder. As AC states an sure there are connections to the FCA here aswell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Angry Cat / Ken everyone

 

Thanks for your comments.

 

This is exactly the reason why I ask for opinions on any proposals (the old saying two heads are better than one !) as I myself am not sure of which direction to go in. It is that burning sense of injustice of my PPI redress from MBNA and even worse my experience with the FOS adjudicator who sided with MBNA despite being unable to explain or justify their methods that keeps me going to get justice. Though by joining this forum I know that I am not alone which is a comforting to know.

 

If you recall when I really started getting going on this thread. I advised that I had sent all correspondence between myself and MBNA and the FOS to Kate Tuckley @ the FCA who in turn advised me that my info was with a investigation team within the FCA for the firm and at that time due to legal reasons nothing could be said on weather an investigation was about to or is taking place.

 

The response from ken and others was to send their correspondences I believe to the FCA I do not know if this was done again every reader out there your comments please.

 

I share your view that to contact Martin Lewis may not be productive. Though as I said from the outset I am simply trying to drum up as much attention to our cause as possible in particular as ken stated to get the FOS ' to pull their finger out' and realise that there is a serious wrongful issue with MBNA method of PPI redress.

 

Maybe I have done enough by keeping the FCA advised and rasing the matter with my MP.

Though if there is anything else I can do I am more than willing to (the old 'leave no stone unturned' philosophy )

 

If Angry cat is right (again I share this view) that we should focusing as much as poss on the FCA as it is their rules the FOS should be following on correct redress is there anything more that I / we can do ?

 

Any comments please

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatsitdue.

 

I for one dont think anything you are doing or thinking of is wrong. Indeed and anyway to skin this cat should be investigated.

 

What the FOS if they were being impartial and fair should be doing and what in reality they are doing is what is letting the bank get away with not using the regulators rule book.

 

This thread deals with where we think we are up to in our understanding. It always revolved around FOS getting it and actually growing some when it came to slapping their paymasters.

 

As the thread hopefully puts across its all about leading your adjudicator to a point where they either get it and think wtf or you have asked so many akward questions they have been forced to ask the same of the bank.

 

Tell the adjudicator/ombudsman what you know. Tell them how its done completely at odds to how the regulator has stipulated it should be. Advise the FCA you know the bank isnt using the PS10/12 methods but some obscure way that they dont explain. (Which again is against Disp)

 

Tell them it reduces the redress by x% and all you are asking for is why. Whats the math behind it? Whereas all the consumer spreadsheets are saying this amount. This corresponds to what the majority of banks are paying MBNA's spreadsheet says this lessor amount. Why?

 

The bank has admitted its miss sold a product and has to offer redress to put you back in a position to where you were. It isnt. Ask the adjudicator if he is willing to put his name to a document covering the ass of a bank who has already 18 months before been caught and sanctioned for doing the same thing?

 

All you are asking for is a redress calculation as per PS10/12 and not as per imaginary MBNA world. We know there are instances where this F and M are wrong. They apply a full payment when in real life the balance didnt clear. They move the money when even the FOS obscure paragraph isnt met. The are assuming things on assumed figures. An assumption on an assumption when in reality the balance didnt clear. So how can they apply it?

 

Get your arguments clear in your head and ask the questions. Lead your adjudicator to a place where only a recalcualtion is the right thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whatisdue

 

I don't have a great deal to add, except saying that I also agree re. doing whatever can be done to show and demonstrate what the firm is doing. I also know that the pain and frustration of not being listened to, when you have a very valid point (that is not even being remotely understood or considered by those that should) is very much a shared one. I do realise that the advice being given here may appear to be just keep going at FOS, when you perhaps think that has very much already been oversaturated and done, but I do think it is worth continuing pleasant but continued pressure there - even if FOS have already very much said "don't call us, we will call you".

 

Some thoughts on that:

 

Not news to anyone here, but FOS seem to be in a position where they perhaps (for whatever reason) cannot/do not consider and evaluate each compliant they receive to the depth that the issue may deserves or merit. Certainly where it would seem that the case in hand...is not the stuff of a standard everyday PPI complaint...but can be mistaken by a busy adjudicator, for being that more common type (perhaps you not liking reconstructions in principle).

 

I would guess (?) that FOS have pretty much said to you whatisdue, in writing, that your issue will now not be considered further - until done so by an ombudsman. Have they said though, that any other correspondence will not be entered into?

 

I know you have made the relevant points, and with suitable strength of expression to your adjudicator: who doesn't really want to know (as they consider you perhaps merely entrenched in your position). However, purely from my past experience with FOS on a different unrelated issue, I found that is was always worth continuing to reinforce your points. I think this is part of the process.

 

Your adjudicator's initial aim was really just to see if MBNA explaining to you (through them) "how MBNA see it" - might perhaps have just resolved the problem. If you say "nope", as you did, then I understand they will form an initial opinion, and then write again only to the party whom they think is possibly in the wrong, saying so. If nothing heard further then from that party (2 weeks?) ...then... case closed. Further argument that they received from you...may have suggested to the adjudicator (in their view I hasten to add!) that you just had trouble in accepting his/her judgement, something that (sigh) happens all too regularly...so...onto an ombudsman...if you truly insist. Again, not news, but this is a pretty standard process I would guess.

 

I would still suggest keeping it up with FOS: If you add yet more further weight, evidence, explanation (and a pleasant, but strong summary of where you believe exactly the current "underappreciated complaint" situation is at, as per other thread suggestion) you will perhaps reach two audiences. A) There is chance, even if small one, that your adjudicator may realise they may have been about to make a faux pas, and review accordingly. B) You may now be writing "for" your ombudsman.

 

Addressing effectively the ombudsman: if, at the very top of your file pile, is a straightforward statement that leaves no doubt whatsoever that "you believe your complaint has so far been very much misunderstood, oversimplified and underappreciated - with no considerations apparently being given to your identified issues beyond seeking the opinion of the firm in question" - this can do absolutely no harm. Spelling it out, that is Leading the ombudsman to the realisation that his/her valued professional judgement, process and position, can prove its worth... is the aim... so worth thinking about from this angle, and perhaps tie-ing up all your points into simple questions - which you ask the ombudsman to ask themselves.

 

 

Those points include possibly the ones discussed already recently in the thread, put to FOS in a simple way. Also worth perhaps suggesting and laying out that your ombudsman has distinct possible routes to take from here. No human wants to be in the position that it can later be seen that some points that were expressly and un-miss-ably made directly addressed to their face; were later seen to have been simply then ignored through laziness, non-appreciation or failure of nerve. You may have to (nicely) spell this out. Difficult balance between being forceful in the face of apathy, and trying to get someone on your side. :| I wouldn't suggest necessarily using the following words, but maybe the sentiment:

 

1) Mr/s Ombudsman - You can take the firm's word - believe MBNA saying it is indeed compliant, without anyone else at all looking at it properly, when this may later be proved to be a bad mistake . 2) Mr/s Ombudsman - You can check out what is really going, on, while demonstrating to all sides a real and undeniable understanding of the specific debatable points, and making a truly informed decision. 3) Mr/s Ombudsman - You can get a view from someone else with an informed expert opinion (and who is not in the pay of MBNA), purely as to if the selective and arbitrary F&M choices, and somewhat individualistic column-swap to 8%... simply is, or is not, permissible under PS 10/12 and DISP. Preferably a few people's views.

 

Knowing if (through FOI or SAR to FOS if need be, but ask politely first) the following, would be really useful to you:

 

a) Did MBNA get to hear your specific points, or were they just informed that you did not like their redress calculation?

b) Were MBNA asked to address or comment on your specific points, or were they just asked if they thought their methods were compliant?

c) Were any pointed questions of your own, or from FOS themselves, actually asked of MBNA, in any shape or form? If so, have these been subject to checking for answering the question asked?

d) Was any suitably considered and knowledgeable opinion, beyond that of the firm, sought as to if the firm's methods and deviations were allowable under regulatory guidelines?

 

As usual my quick posts turn into something longer, but I hope that has been of some help. Good luck in getting the balance right and keeping up the fight. If I, or anyone else can help in the specifics of demonstrating your points, as a sounding board, I am sure you will get some responses or useful suggestions. Maybe try demonstrating exact points - by using your own received spread-sheet from MBNA - with ringed values and comments on these as to why they are decidedly not OK. Anything to make it real and palpable.

 

Apologies if this all sounds like encouragement to do... more of all you have already broadly done... but, honing any arguments, or deciding on taking what further steps using collective thoughts, has always been useful to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The following, should not be overlooked!

 

An excerpt from Wikipedia:

"Controversies[edit]

 

MBNA was alleged to be the top contributor to George W. Bush's 2000 Presidential Campaign in the documentary Maxed Out.[10][11]

MBNA was one of the companies mentioned on a 2004 Frontline WGBH Boston PBS special about unfair business practices by credit card companies.[12] Some practices that Frontline claimed MBNA has engaged in included doubling or tripling of interest rates, shifting billing due dates/payment cycles monthly, and raising rates for customers whose payments were a day or two late. MBNA has been found to be one of the leading implementors of Rate-Jacking.[citation needed] For further information and links, see Credit Cards.

In Ireland, MBNA was accused of calling consumers up to eight times a day who are behind in making payments, which prompted the state debt advisory service to publicly state that harassment is outlawed. Affected people were advised to complain to the relevant authorities.[13] The company in December 2009 admitted overcharging 500,000 Irish consumers up to €18 million.[14][15]

In the UK, MBNA has come under fire for its interpretation of rules under which credit card providers must allocate payments to the debt with the highest interest rate first: one consumer site called MBNA's interpretation of these rules a "disingenuous money-making tactic"[16]"

 

furthermore,

...the MBNA ingeniously designed PPI/PPC was simply a purely for profit product and have noted that the monthly benefit; 3% of the balance will not be less than £10 or more than £1,000 was created in order to keep a claimant in debt to MBNA and not for any protection.

by Competition Commission May 2007: “MBNA was recently required by the US Office of Comptroller of Currency to increase the minimum monthly repayment on its credit card products to £25 to avoid negative amortization. (Neg Am) As a result, MBNA’s minimum PPI claim payment is in the process of being increased to 5% or £25, whichever is the higher (it currently stands at 5% or £10 to reflect the existing approach)."
Edited by angry cat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had a further trawl through FOS Ombudsmans Decisions and found a couple of cases attached that, although not perhaps directly relevant (I assume), for most of the people viewing this thread - do make a few very interesting points.

 

My understanding is that ombudsman prior decisions do, though, make no (formal or direct anyway) precedential influence on currently considered cases. The cases do need read a couple of times, as they initially confusingly refer to earlier related parts of the same case in some bits, so skimming top and bottom could lead one to arrive at the wrong conclusions, when considering the relevant bits to those who post here.

 

So - what I take from these documents is that: (in one earlier-time case anyway) MBNA were not, it would seem, deemed by FOS to be calculating that particular PPI misspelling redress case according to FOS's view of what was correct. Albeit at an earlier point (c. 2009/10). This may tie in with the observational picture that emerged via different posters - of redresses by the firm of being wrong/then right for a while/then wrong again. The second attached Decision is not MBNA as the firm in question: but has familiar echoes re. arcane methodology - and gives a salient insight into that, there and then at least, there was a level of depth of adjudicator understanding in that particular case at FOS, and that sensible and perhaps sufficient questions were asked on that occasion.

 

I may be guilty (very minorly) of selectively taking elements and over-generalising or attributing to causes close to my own heart...but...my favourite bit is: "We considered Mrs H's complaint and issued an assessment to MBNA in May 2011 asking it to recalculate its offer as it did not appear to be in line with our general approach."

The MBNA one might be useful to whatisdue perhaps: even if simply wanting to make a (very perspective-independent and reliable) point to an adjudicator (quote the DRN number) that... this kind of bad redress practice ...now...from this particular firm...is hardly far fetched or should be underestimated - or dismissed as impossible, or unlikely, or not worth comprehending the detail of. In other words...that any current cases should not be treated with an initial very arguably glib acceptance of MBNA's portrayal of "don't worry adjudicator1437, it's all hunky dory here". Maybe suggest that the adjudicator's team leader should take a look at that disingenuous claim in a bit more detail...before the case reaches ombudsman decision level. If, that is, providing a good service, making informed choices, and, err,... covering their back ...is of any importance to them. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The MBNA one is very interesting indeed and would suspect its via a CMO (Mrs H representative) and fits in nicely with the dates we know as being from about when they started playing ball ie back end of 2011.

 

Think anyone who believes they been short changed needs to bring that decision to the attention of the adjudicator/Ombudsman. All we want is a recalculation as per PS10/12 or even as per the spreadsheet they were using prior to July/August 2012. Why should because we were calculated as per AM's and our case 4 weeks later that we have our redress cut. That dont seem fair at all. One has to wonder if the FCA should be informed of that decision. Just think of the number of people who just havnt questioned this at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'In my annual report last year, I drew attention to the problems that can arise for consumers, when ombudsmen make "formulaic" awards which require firms themselves to calculate the actual amount of compensation due to the consumer. I very much welcome the board's response to my concerns. I understand that steps are being taken in this area. In particular, the ombudsmen are now making greater effort to specify the exact amount of compensation awarded - wherever they have the specific detailed information needed for this calculation.'

 

annual report by Michael Barnes CBE to the board of the Financial Ombudsman Service 2006/2007

 

Shame the FOS didn't listen to their Indepandant Assessor 6 years ago

 

 

On another note I'm finding some useful titbits In Ombudsmans Decisions section of FOS website.Seems the Halifax are using calculations which do not follow the FOS guidelines either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would appear that both the FSA/FCA and the FOS are not doing their jobs correctly; the ICO falls into the same boat too!

 

One has only to look at the Coop fiasco...the FSA knew but did nothing!? The so called 'Regulators' are not regulating these firms and as ever, the firms run rings around the slow witted OFT, FCA and FOS;

nothing changes then.

 

Time to lobby our MP's and as I previously suggested make a mass complaint to the FCA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning A/M ken A/C everyone

 

Firstly I must say I am very impressed with your findings and info related to MBNA PPI redress posted on this thread.

 

A/M can I ask how you managed to get this ? This is exactly what I need to present to the FOS adjudicator as proof that my beef with MBNA is not an isolated one. In fact when I had a response letter from the FOS copied into me by my MP it stated that the adjudicator would still be open to me to discuss any more concerns/ issues until my case is taken up by the ombudsman. As I had already quoted FCA guidelines on PS10/12 and how there were flaws in MBNA alternative redress methods. I did not think I could add anymore to my case to try and sway the adjudicator as they were quite firm in their responses to me despite being unable to explain their redress methods to me that they would not recommend a recalculation. This is the kind of think that must know make the adjudicator really think twice if a previous ombudsman had ordered a recalculation on a case. I felt really bad when I showed the FOS adjudicator the case with JMP partnership posted on the net that showed what MBNA had previously been up to the response of 'we can not comment on this case and only deal with yours'. This is evidence of how they had been purposely calculating incorrectly how could the adjudicator ignore this ? and say it had no bearing on my case ? This was exactly why I had a complaint .

 

Once again I believe we need to be concerted in what we do as isolated beefs don't get as much attention as a good amount of the same complaints. I think Angrycat has a good point of using / lobbying MP,S. I also agree with Ken in that we should be keeping the FCA posted. Yes there are concerns with the FCA and even the OFT. Though we need to gain momentum to get a big explosion which will certainly get the reaction we need. I go back to what I previously said on' leaving no stone unturned'. If we contact and capture as many as possible and bring to their attention we can surely get what we want.

 

Any comments please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think your adjudicator is being an ass tbh. But I understand they are the people you have to convince first.

 

The evidence is stacking up across the board that the bank is up to its old tricks again, tricks that were found out once before and re calculations were obviously ordered once before indeed by FOS themselves. This bank has form.

 

The beef is not about how much in penny's or pounds thats owed just yet its about the method. A method that is using an obscure paragraph on the FOS online guidance, which is about a very specific consumer payment behaviour being bent and changed to suit the banks inate greed to reduce our redress.

 

All we are asking is for the FOS to tell the bank to calculate as per PS10/12. Not as per MBNA's warped view of the world. Its as simple as that. We dont trust the way they are calculating so lets have the method the regulator has proposed in its rulebook. The rulebook that says the consumer should as far as possible be returned to a position they would have been if the PPI had not been sold. So leaving associated interest in the account is ok????? The regulator specifically says remove the PPI premiums and associated interest. Not PPI premiums and a bit of associated interest and add a bit of 8% interest which the bank can calculate as it sees fit.

 

Surely even a dim adjudicator could see the fairness in asking for a PS10/12 compliant redress calculation vs a vs a bank attempt. A regulators stipulated version vis a vis a bank who has been caught miss selling, caught short changing before and generally being arrogant about what it has to do. We must not forget yes its money to us but its actually going against what the regulator has stipulated must happen. Its going against what the FOS says it stands for.

 

We know FOS has a software contract to calculate redress. Why not give it a wirl? We know the FOS just ask is the redress calculated in a compliant method to which the bank just presumably ticks yes no or dont know. ( Have they ever had a bank say errrrrrrrr no guv we didnt calculate as per the rulebook) Not exactly grilling the bank here are they. We know re-calculations have been ordered in the past by FOS for the exact same bank. We know when they seemed to be compliant (just after the re-calculation ordered by FOS) and when they seemed to want to be naughty again. We even have the name of the ombudsman now who ordered this. Perhaps we should point the adjudicator to her saying perhaps he might wish to consult before making the consumer wait even longer. Perhaps he might like to make a name for himself in working out that a bank isnt being truthful yet again and therefore helping all his collegues and the company he works for.

 

Or perhaps he just doesnt like work/hassle and knows when all this is over a nice salaried job in the city beckons.

 

Whatisdue. Ever thought about asking your adjudicator to give you his managers name? They have to. Perhaps along the lines that the adjudicator just isnt getting what the complaint is about and you would like to escalate it to someone more senior before it goes to the ombudsman. Tell him there a good few of these compliants in the pipeline following yours so they arent going away so perhaps a more senior collegue might like to have a look or even speak to that Ombudsman who ordered the re-calculation last time. We have her name. Just a thought. Try and lead you adjudcator to see the fairness in comparing a PS10/12 calculation with the bank version.

 

We are saying MBNA's version is flawed because the associated interest due to PPi is being left in and replaced via a very convoluted method with 8% interest. This convoluted method appears to come from the FOS online guidance. Its about a very specific consumer repayment behaviour. Not about a general consumer who may pay full and minimums occasionally (with the minimums i suspect for most of us coming when we were in trouble at the end of the account caused by this predatory lender)

 

Good luck whatever you decide but I am sure that once one adjudicator gets it they all will. We just have to make sure one of them does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Currently the front page of the Financial Ombudsman Services website has a link (right hand side a few down) for the ombudsman's decisions database. This was something that was added (Spring 2013?) as a facility aimed at moving towards greater transparency and there was some debate I think about naming firms or not - I think previous selective "case histories" all had in addition to lots of Mr A, etc. and the complained of party... being just "the financial business".

 

So - there are some ombudsman's decisions (not those of adjudicators) viewable on the site. These seem to take a couple of months perhaps to get there for any given month, as they are checked over for personal details, etc. I understand that there are only 1200 odd and go back perhaps to early 2012. You can search by some terms like narrowing down by date, outcome, product type, etc. And...there is a search field. This seems to work pretty basically for a database - e.g. searching for "Barclays Mortgages" will bring you up anything to do with both Barclays and Mortgages, - i.e. quite a few results. The results are listed with a peek at first lines, which are usually unhelpfully generic, but something can be gleaned - e.g. if looking for credit card ppi, ignore single premium mentions. If it looks interesting, you can open the PDF in a new window by clicking on it. The two I posted were simply searches using a bit of educated guesswork for search terms - and some time and effort. The whole process is a bit time-costing, and difficult to know what you haven't seen three times already before opening again - but I would rather have it than not.

 

So - all (well 1200 anyway) decisions perfectly accessible to the general public. You can access the ones I posted from there. Math of 1200 doesn't quite work I suspect for all decisions - as there must be many more ombudsman decisions than that - but a useful resource.

 

FOS make a point generally that each person's cases are considered and exist in isolation, and their job is not to punish firms, so there seems to be a bit of championing of "individualism" in two ways - i.e. your compliant not being tied in with others (unless they get so many it is deemed a mass or class compliant) - and your adjudicator is not tied to an operations manual, and uses their cognitive abilities applied to your case, for which they will get both views from both sides. In an ideal world, I would like to have a good rummage around their intranet guidelines though! This blend of eh, what must be various levels of FOS human expertise, with a system that discourages linking cases and dealing only with the case presented to them - means there is some scope for variation in terms of outcomes or "getting" the problem. Also - FCA conversion from previous FSA was partially intended, I believe, to narrow gaps in feedback loops they would have with FOS.

 

It doesn't make a great deal of sense (in an ideal world) to arrive at the conclusion, that any single reported case (noticed, reported, debated, moved to a high-level decision) ...is the extent of the problem. However, so despite Mrs H's (PDF case attached above) redress having been diagnosed as wrong - I don't know what happened then beyond her case as told in the published Decision. Having a few people therefor sussed it at FOS, then, did FOS pass onto FSA (as FCA was at the time) to checkout for wider misapplication? Were MBNA asked to do it right from then on - by anyone? Did MBNA start doing it right (for a while!) on their own volition to avoid any more such naughty-naughty notifications by FOS. Anyone from any authority ask for gen from MBNA on all cases that had been (mis)calculated as thus? Did the adjudicator pick up on (that period's) dodgy MBNA methodology at an early stage, or was the request to go to ombudsman level at FOS effectively made by the consumer?

 

On another note - whatisdue - yes, your "conclusion" response from your FOS adjudicator was crafted to discourage further efforts to pursue the point beyond the resources FOS had already used to look in to your case. Too many hints of ease of leeway of another person looking at it, and then potentially arriving in your favour, would just encourage too many people to do exactly that - "why not" would be the most common view on receiving anything less than very discouraging - to someone who has gone to the effort of making a complaint. Fair enough is some regards - adjudicators apparently make multi-thousands of recommendation every week. If that got higher than 10% to go on to Ombudsman stage, there would be even bigger delay problems. So - don't take it personally, gather up your points from here and your own thinking and keep adding to your file. Showing the previous MBNA decision to your adjudicator will not necessarily I suspect make him/her want to consider it much - as it will be "only deal with yours" response again. Officially anyway. People are people, and it is like ordering a jury to disregard an insightful statement. So, it just may give pause for thought enough to consider your points. I would suggest IMHO, that you aim in your next submission to FOS, sequentially, a) Attention capture! b) Simple unambiguous statement of where you believe you are, e.g. - "As yet misunderstood, please help", c) Details of specific arguments in this thread and others, but very much visibly and noticeably applied to your own case and calculations in particular, I would suggest. And then a call for action. And, then, a request for the firm's responses please under your information rights if need be.

 

Adjudicators are human beings, so should be treated with a strong degree of recognition of that, but any complaint-case is only one of a good number of pieces of paper being processed as part of a job, every day. Taking the view that you, as one, can help them do it well - may be a useful starting perspective communication - if we want FOS not as much to "be on our side", but just to "consider properly our side".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't make a great deal of sense (in an ideal world) to arrive at the conclusion, that any single reported case (noticed, reported, debated, moved to a high-level decision) ...is the extent of the problem. However, so despite Mrs H's (PDF case attached above) redress having been diagnosed as wrong - I don't know what happened then beyond her case as told in the published Decision. Having a few people therefor sussed it at FOS, then, did FOS pass onto FSA (as FCA was at the time) to checkout for wider misapplication? Were MBNA asked to do it right from then on - by anyone? Did MBNA start doing it right (for a while!) on their own volition to avoid any more such naughty-naughty notifications by FOS. Anyone from any authority ask for gen from MBNA on all cases that had been (mis)calculated as thus? Did the adjudicator pick up on (that period's) dodgy MBNA methodology at an early stage, or was the request to go to ombudsman level at FOS effectively made by the consumer?

 

".

 

That would indeed be very interesting to find out.

 

One has to suspect that it wasnt the regulator because if a regulator found wrongdoing then you would hope the result would be a blanket re calculation of ALL accounts settled or in the pipeline. Think we would have heard about that if that happened.

 

If FOS report this back to FSA then you would also have to think that perhaps there were not so many complaints to get the FSA interested and hence this is why so few have been reported. Perhaps individual consumers hadnt quite got it and it was particular CMO's chasing. Get one client paid then they all would.

 

Which leads you to the cynical view. Bank knows the CMO's are homing in on it. Bank coughs to the CMO's. Cant afford to have big publicity so easy to pay small (CMO clients) to avoid big (everybody who ever got missold PPI). Herman just happens to ask at the same time. Goes to CEO who agrees add Herman in. Go clean for a while throw the CMO's off the scent then start again at some time in the future. Our future.

 

Of course this would never happen on the FSA watch would it. Oh thats the same watch that allowed a non banking methodist minister with political ties be in charge of a mutual bank that nearly went bust. Nah couldnt ever happen could it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An update:

Today 21/11/13, I received an A4 envelope from MBNA Limited; sent by regular mail and NOT recorded. The information was requested under the Data Protection Act 1998; a SAR.

Not a lot of documents were enclosed within the A4 envelope; which is somewhat surprising as the account goes back to 2000

And again no surprise, there was no mention of the spreadsheet that I requested or the formulas used re: my PPI Redress...!

The only indication of their calculations was a mention of v2.0

 

Of course, I will be responding and asking for the missing documentation that I requested under my subject access request (SAR)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just had a phone call from an adjudicator at FOS. They are going to tell MBNA to recalculate their offer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...