Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


AfterMidnight

MBNA PPI Award “Interpretative” Calculations?

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1028 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

The plot thickens...!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here are the papers from MBNA: the initial offer letter - which was the money we received and the spreadsheet received in on Christmas Eve !

Look forward to hearing your opinions.

GS

 

 

Hi gettingsorted!

Just out of interest what was the date of the initial offer letter?

I note that it emanated from MBNA (Europe) Bank Limited!

I guess, that you know that MBNA changed their PPI insurer from London & Endinburgh to St. Andrews Insurance!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone answer this for me.

If I claim PPI and the last date I paid it was say for example 3 years ago, do I also add 8% on top of the PPI for the 3 years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you either use the fosrunning sheet and leave the int date till they settle

 

or close your CISHEET on the date their int stopped

 

and enter that amount into the statint 8% sheet from that date till its settled.

 

you are entitled to their int on PPI back at a compounded rate until they cease int

 

then you are entitled to 8% statint @8% if theirs stops

you cant claim both at the same time.


..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Angry Cat - sorry for the late reply I don't seem to be getting notifications !

Just out of interestlink3.gif what was the date of the initial offer letter?

I note that it emanated from MBNA (Europe) Bank Limited!

I guess, that you know that MBNA changed their PPIlink3.gif insurer from London & Endinburgh to St. Andrews Insurance!?

 

The original offer letter is May 2011 - didn't know about the change; knew they were St Andrews in 2005 tho'

GS

Edited by gettingsorted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well - its written - I would like both Ken and AM to cast your eyes over it but I don't really want to post it up on the forum - is that a problem ?

Thanks

GS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks dx100uk, I started paying my PPI in 2002 but HSBC say they dont have the statements for payments before 2004, Is there a way of claiming for the months they say that they dont have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well - its written - I would like both Ken and AM to cast your eyes over it but I don't really want to post it up on the forum - is that a problem ?

Thanks

GS

 

 

Not a problem for me - pm us both I would suggest. Looks like notifications may not be working at present but I check the thread regularly-ish anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks dx100uk, I started paying my PPI in 2002 but HSBC say they dont have the statements for payments before 2004, Is there a way of claiming for the months they say that they dont have?

 

Hi Zentrix9

Ombudsman's Decisions have a few cases recently where this is debated upon, with either side saying the other's estimates are unfair for the missing months. Point there though ...is that it now seems broadly considered fair to make estimates for missing months, just an argument of what. Depends though, as FOS views each case in splendid isolation. Might be a bit of an argument that could stretch forward... and need to be adjudicated on eventually, perhaps, but if you arrive at a suggested (reasonable) estimate for missing periods based on existing patterns - that could have a degree of eventual success if you suggested it to HSBC. Much better argument from you if you can prove in some way a 2002 PPI start date...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Angry Cat - sorry for the late reply I don't seem to be getting notifications !

 

 

The original offer letter is May 2011 - didn't know about the change; knew they were St Andrews in 2005 tho'

GS

 

Okay.

I noted the MBNA comment within that letter:

"Please note for your records that as a successful claim was made under the policy this amount has been deducted from the total amount due."

 

Emphasis should be placed on their wording in the singular: "Policy". Because, as MBNA changed their PPI insurer form London & Edinburgh to St Andrews, there would have been two PPI "Policies", not just one!

 

The question is: from which of the two PPI "Policies" was the successful claim payment made, London & Edinburgh or St Andrews?

Thus, would the FSA/FCA PS10/12 Rules permit MBNA to deduct that payment from the entire PPI Redress Payment, bearing in mind that their calculation looks to be incorrect in any event!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the credit contract it says the date and the PPI box is ticked so this should prove that the PPI started from 2002 :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On the credit contract it says the date and the PPI box is ticked so this should prove that the PPI started from 2002 :-)

 

 

That should do it then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Angry Cat

 

The claim was made under St Andrews - I have no idea when they changed ??? and which policy was which except that their total ppi charges agreed very closely to my spreadsheet.

Thanks

GS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Angry Cat

 

The claim was made under St Andrews - I have no idea when they changed ??? and which policy was which except that their total ppi charges agreed very closely to my spreadsheet.

Thanks

GS

 

The following it the view of the FOS:

 

"where the consumer has made a successful claim from their PPI policy

 

Where a consumer has made a successful claim under their PPI policy, and we subsequently find that it was mis-sold to them, we will usually consider it fair and reasonable for the business to take away the value of that claim from the consumer’s compensation. That is because we would tell the business to put the consumer back in the position they would have been in if they had taken out the loan without the PPI policy – which in this case means they would not have been able to claim on the policy, and would not have received the benefit from it.

 

Sometimes we see cases where a business has mis-sold several PPI policies to a consumer. If a consumer has made a successful claim from one of those policies that is larger than the redress for that policy, the consumer wouldn’t receive any redress for the mis-sale of that policy. However, we wouldn’t usually say it was fair for the business to deduct any residual claim from the redress for any other policy it mis-sold."

 

...we wouldn’t usually say it was fair for the business to deduct any residual claim from the redress for any other policy it mis-sold[Emphasis Added]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get it - I think !....if it was a St Andrew;s policy originally they sold then they could deduct the claim payment but if it was the other comapny then they shouldn't have deducted it.

Hmmm

GS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I get it - I think !....if it was a St Andrew;s policy originally they sold then they could deduct the claim payment but if it was the other comapny then they shouldn't have deducted it.

Hmmm

GS

 

Correct, GS!

The original PPI insurer was London & Edinburgh (Norwich Union), the original PPI mis-sale took place under their contract.

The successful claim was under the St Andrews PPI policy, therefore that should be deducted from the monies owed RE: St Andrews mis-sold PPI.

And NOT from the whole amount owed; MBNA should not have/are be taking said money from the two mis-sold PPI monies owed; rolling the two into one.

MBNA, must know this but they clearly are NOT following FSA/FCA PS10/12, are they?

Obviously NOT!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I suspect they do - that is what it says in my very large submission to the FOS sent in this week about my own redress.......

GS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

did they (MBNA) take monthly payments during a ckaim period, as St Andrews say it is MBNA and vice versa, then they hassle claimant for short falls from their doe money, this happened with my O H wish I new about it then?


:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
did they (MBNA) take monthly payments during a ckaim period, as St Andrews say it is MBNA and vice versa, then they hassle claimant for short falls from their doe money, this happened with my O H wish I new about it then?

To be honest I can't remember - will check statements and get back up you

GS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ken / A.M. / G.S. / GOG everyone

 

 

A belated Happy New Year to all.

 

 

I want some advise on my very recent communication with my adjudicator.

 

 

I have requested to see all the information supplied to the adjudicator by MBNA on my case which has them to say my redress is fair and reasonable despite not being to answer questions I have raised and also accepting the use of an alternative method of redress when the PS10/12 Append 2 example 6 should be followed.

 

 

I have quoted 3.9.4 and for the information to be supplied to me and noted on my file as mentioned on this thread.

 

 

This I where I want your advise as I have quoted an example of how the redress can not be correct using the example of what interest rate was used to calculate my redress. The adjudicator advised me the rate was variable. I also reminded myself what Ken said that is the method of redress more so than the calculation that needs to be proved to win the recalculation. Though there are questions on this that surely are down to the method of redress that surely means the calculation can not be correct.

 

 

1. If the APR applied to the PPI each month is not know then how can the redress amount given to me be correct ?

2. If the APR rate applied to the PPI is varied then it still needs to be know what it was each month to calculate redress correctly ? For example on my build V20_B037 I used basic maths to PPI premium of £46.60 produced a associated interest refund of £0.29 for the month meant the APR for the month was 0.63%. This of course was no where near the APR rate of nearly 16.6% when I started the card which I was advised by MBNA when I spoke to them had gone up to sum 27% for a long time. Again how can the redress amount be correct given this ?

3. The variable APR I am convinced means the rates of interest are calculated daily. This is against FCA guidelines and should be monthly. I can not prove this as I was never shown any interest figures and examples of how the redress was calculated using an interest rate by FOS adjudicator or MBNA.

 

 

Please can I have any comments on this as you know the rate of interest needs to be know for correct redress. Though the use of variable rates of interest is a method in particular if it is a daily rate and it is not made know to the consumer deems the redress calculation can not be considered to be fair and reasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatitsdue.

 

My reading of your post above is exactly where arguing interest and not method would I feared lead you.

 

Alternative methods when fair is allowed I believe under disp rules. You then have to ask yourself is a daily rate fairer than monthly if they have this information.

 

Sadly I would think it would be as this is actually what happened. And obviously interest is payable up to when you paid into the account and the payment clears. Therefore interest will vary and therefore IMO your rate will appear to vary considerably. The devil is in the detail on this and the bank are hoping everyone isnt noticing the sleight of hand on these spreadsheets.

 

There are just so many factors which will change the interest paid back to you. We cannot ever replicate this totally so consumer forum spreadsheets can only ever give a ball park figure.

 

What however isnt fair is the methodology they are using after they have calculated the original interest payable per month. This bit doesnt follow FCA rulebook or FOS guidelines.

 

And that is where this thread has been useful. In discussing what they seem to do after the original calculation to get the monthly interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi whatisdue and everyone

 

 

While wholeheartedly agreeing with ken100464 (attack the methods used, not MBNA's own calculation internal figures detail), I thought it might be useful to also jot down a few additional thoughts. A case I think of choosing your next method of attack whatisdue.

 

 

The first of these is that you are correct whatisdue: in terms of the fact that MBNA have indeed provided a reconstruction of your account - with indeed interest figures applied to your PPI premiums. So by definition, they had some basis of determining that interest either over time or as an average or chosen value (rate being defined perhaps by personal records, "system", lookup-table, guess, formula, standard practice assumptions, or maybe séance). So they had some basis of interest attraction determination to go on, rather than (from what I pickup from whastisdue's most recent post ) the somewhat glib MBNA-FOS :"its variable, mere consumer, you wouldn't understand" would suggest.

 

 

Second point is that (very broadly speaking) that interest payments may vary a lot by simply being based more on what the interest rate is being applied to. Applied to - as is bundling together factors such as daily/monthly calcs / and when you paid your bill each month / and what day you charged that petrol - giving values and times to apply that interest rate to. Basically rate x factors = payment, as opposed to necessarily indicating a direct snapshot link between month end reported balance (and/or PPI payment) and interest sum applied. Personally whatisdue, I wouldn't pursue much further the daily rate argument. However...I would have a definite further think/suss about that rate. The rate itself does not jump around on a frantic basis, and they have to tell you what it is at the time. Old statements? SAR info? (What you want, from my experience, is MBNA's Additional Comms Log.)

 

 

As ken says, MBNA are "kinda allowed maybe" to produce (in some circumstances) calculations that are not as per PS 10/12 Appendix 2 Example 6. MBNA's apparent argument is that their wonderful calcs are a great "reconstruction" of your account. Better and more accurate than some simplified spreadsheet, and perfectly legit (they claim). Well that might be true if they had kept the process clean. Sadly they did not.

 

 

Your adjudicator is in the position of first having you say one thing, and then having MBNA coming back and saying another. And what MBNA is coming back with looks as though it is implying: that you (whatisdue) don't understand how their calculation is legitimate. The adjudicator (understanding things only to a certain level perhaps) has a bank saying it has scientifically reconstructed your account based on payments and account balances and payment behaviour and therefore real-life, as opposed to theoretical examples. And, that's broadly allowed. Maybe a bluff "that's exactly how it happened officer" testimony from MBNA has more of an air of authority - you are questioning a precise penny-level summary of what happened that MBNA has already supplied. So - if MBNA say that 29p was the interest attraction of PPI for your account that month, well, who is the adjudicator to say differently, it may seem rather more likely the consumer has just got it all wrong.

 

 

My latest thinking is that MBNA are sort of allowed to do their reconstruction, instead of a simple spread-sheet. Unfortunately though they have taken that as licence and disguise to do nasty things to people. This thread goes in to the methods in place that make sure that is done. So ... attack the method. While info to do this is spread throughout the thread and maybe still has some way to go, this can be done two ways - a) complain about the mechanics and assumptions b) show how a proper accepted method produces very different results, so both cannot be fair.

 

 

Question: whatisdue, what information do you have on interest rates on your account? Did you SAR?

 

 

In my own FOS compliant I did say that MBNA's figures for monthly interest applied to PPI payments: are an input as opposed to a calculation or record. And questioned what rate applied, the advised retail rate, or a simple or weighted average of the different bucket rates for that month (which in some cases could have included promo rates). If you did have something that stated the rates that were in place on a particular date, while not penny accurate owing to lots of things, if your account balances and patterns did not vary much in that month from usual pattern, then it would be interesting to say: "Yes, rate did vary Mr/s Adjudicator, mainly upwards, but given that MBNA had in their own records a rate of xx% in place at that time, can that be tied up with 0.29p interest fairly in your book?". Bear in mind, though, that arguing details of their own calculation is their home turf. What they do with values is a whole lot more obviously naughty than how they initially state or calculate the starting points. Rather than spending most of your limited time pointing out to the referee that one of their players may have been offside for a moment (interest intricacies), better perhaps to bring attention to the fact they (the method) had seventeen players on the pitch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Ken / AM / Everyone.

 

 

I thank you for your comments . I will always need your advise as I seek justice on my PPI claim with MBNA. I often question why I am having to do this as surely it is the FOS to but sadly it is down to me to try and win this battle.

 

 

Ken , you are of course spot on with showing the flaws in the method rather than calculation methods. I thought the use of monthly rate as laid down by FCA as opposed to any daily rates would highlight a flaw in method.I don't have to tell you how confusing those calculations are. I would like your comments on the following written to me by the adjudicator on the calculation method

 

 

"MBNA have calculated the interest by establishing each months statement APR, and applying this to the premium paid in that month to arrive at an amount of statement interest relevant to the premium only"

 

 

As usual no examples given of this. I thought about this long and hard and came up with the following;

1. How do they know what APR or interest rate was applied to the premium ?.

2. How do you separate the APR relevant to the PPI premium when everything is in one main account and interest charged on it ?

3.Where is the months statements APR to the PPI premium never seen it ? definitely not on any monthly statements against PPI amount.

 

 

I am sure you can give me more thoughts on this. Though it was this that led to write how can redress be correct if the rate of interest is not known.

 

 

A.M., I was on a promotional rate with the example show though the rates of associated interest are much the same throughout my several years of paying PPI and also I lost the promo rate when I exceeded my credit limit which was 6 or so months after getting it. The rates of interest on my credit statement are pretty standard; Card Purchases= 1.2916 Balance transfers=1.4352 Cash= 2.0751 Default sums 1.2916.

 

 

Also I have not yet done a SAR from MBNA I will follow this up when hopefully I can see what MBNA have told the adjudicator.

 

 

I also want your comments on the answer the adjudicator gave me for the produce of 8% despite my account still in debt. This again the adjudicator says MBNA advised them with their explanation of the 8%

 

 

" MBNA apply 8% to credit and surplus balances. Surplus balance is the difference between the actual payment made and the reconstructed payments . I.E. paid £100 reconstructed payment £75 so £25 goes to surplus and earns 8% on a surplus balance rather than a credit balance.

 

 

Once again surprise ! surprise ! no examples of this given to me from my calculation sheet to understand. Though I do feel this can be torn apart

 

 

1. The calculation sheet says surplus redress not surplus balance and is paid to me albeit it a very very small amount.

2. If after the reconstructed payment is done the surplus earns 8% surely it should getting the contractual rate and not 8% ?

3.Where does surplus balance come from ? never seen nothing on this on statements or on PPI details.

4. The explanation letter that followed after the calculation sheet build V20_B037 clearly states that 8% simple will only be paid when the balance is in credit and not once is a surplus balance mentioned.

 

 

The adjudicator said that they have given me something extra as it is not part of FOS guidelines. I argued that this is of little good to me and that all I want is the redress calculated as per FCA/FOS guidelines.

 

 

 

 

Any comments on this please.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi whatisdue and everyone

 

 

While wholeheartedly agreeing with ken100464 (attack the methods used, not MBNA's own calculation internal figures detail), I thought it might be useful to also jot down a few additional thoughts. A case I think of choosing your next method of attack whatisdue.

 

 

The first of these is that you are correct whatisdue: in terms of the fact that MBNA have indeed provided a reconstruction of your account - with indeed interest figures applied to your PPI premiums. So by definition, they had some basis of determining that interest either over time or as an average or chosen value (rate being defined perhaps by personal records, "system", lookup-table, guess, formula, standard practice assumptions, or maybe séance). So they had some basis of interest attraction determination to go on, rather than (from what I pickup from whastisdue's most recent post ) the somewhat glib MBNA-FOS :"its variable, mere consumer, you wouldn't understand" would suggest.

 

 

Second point is that (very broadly speaking) that interest payments may vary a lot by simply being based more on what the interest rate is being applied to. Applied to - as is bundling together factors such as daily/monthly calcs / and when you paid your bill each month / and what day you charged that petrol - giving values and times to apply that interest rate to. Basically rate x factors = payment, as opposed to necessarily indicating a direct snapshot link between month end reported balance (and/or PPI payment) and interest sum applied. Personally whatisdue, I wouldn't pursue much further the daily rate argument. However...I would have a definite further think/suss about that rate. The rate itself does not jump around on a frantic basis, and they have to tell you what it is at the time. Old statements? SAR info? (What you want, from my experience, is MBNA's Additional Comms Log.)

 

 

As ken says, MBNA are "kinda allowed maybe" to produce (in some circumstances) calculations that are not as per PS 10/12 Appendix 2 Example 6. MBNA's apparent argument is that their wonderful calcs are a great "reconstruction" of your account. Better and more accurate than some simplified spreadsheet, and perfectly legit (they claim). Well that might be true if they had kept the process clean. Sadly they did not.

 

 

Your adjudicator is in the position of first having you say one thing, and then having MBNA coming back and saying another. And what MBNA is coming back with looks as though it is implying: that you (whatisdue) don't understand how their calculation is legitimate. The adjudicator (understanding things only to a certain level perhaps) has a bank saying it has scientifically reconstructed your account based on payments and account balances and payment behaviour and therefore real-life, as opposed to theoretical examples. And, that's broadly allowed. Maybe a bluff "that's exactly how it happened officer" testimony from MBNA has more of an air of authority - you are questioning a precise penny-level summary of what happened that MBNA has already supplied. So - if MBNA say that 29p was the interest attraction of PPI for your account that month, well, who is the adjudicator to say differently, it may seem rather more likely the consumer has just got it all wrong.

 

 

My latest thinking is that MBNA are sort of allowed to do their reconstruction, instead of a simple spread-sheet. Unfortunately though they have taken that as licence and disguise to do nasty things to people. This thread goes in to the methods in place that make sure that is done. So ... attack the method. While info to do this is spread throughout the thread and maybe still has some way to go, this can be done two ways - a) complain about the mechanics and assumptions b) show how a proper accepted method produces very different results, so both cannot be fair.

 

 

Question: whatisdue, what information do you have on interest rates on your account? Did you SAR?

 

 

In my own FOS compliant I did say that MBNA's figures for monthly interest applied to PPI payments: are an input as opposed to a calculation or record. And questioned what rate applied, the advised retail rate, or a simple or weighted average of the different bucket rates for that month (which in some cases could have included promo rates). If you did have something that stated the rates that were in place on a particular date, while not penny accurate owing to lots of things, if your account balances and patterns did not vary much in that month from usual pattern, then it would be interesting to say: "Yes, rate did vary Mr/s Adjudicator, mainly upwards, but given that MBNA had in their own records a rate of xx% in place at that time, can that be tied up with 0.29p interest fairly in your book?". Bear in mind, though, that arguing details of their own calculation is their home turf. What they do with values is a whole lot more obviously naughty than how they initially state or calculate the starting points. Rather than spending most of your limited time pointing out to the referee that one of their players may have been offside for a moment (interest intricacies), better perhaps to bring attention to the fact they (the method) had seventeen players on the pitch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whatisdue:

 

"MBNA have calculated the interest by establishing each months statement APR, and applying this to the premium paid in that month to arrive at an amount of statement interest relevant to the premium only"

 

 

(Quick replies - apologies - and all said without seeing your calcs from MBNA). They have the PPI applicable rate - as being the same rate as : the rate that your account interest charge against account balances has, when worked out from interest value and account balance value, when this is reverse-engineered. (this observation of mine is oversimplified)

As usual no examples given of this. I thought about this long and hard and came up with the following;

1. How do they know what APR or interest rate was applied to the premium ? See above.

2. How do you separate the APR relevant to the PPI premium when everything is in one main account and interest charged on it ? They don't.

3.Where is the months statements APR to the PPI premium never seen it ? definitely not on any monthly statements against PPI amount. See above, it is a reconstruction assumption.

 

I am sure you can give me more thoughts on this. Though it was this that led to write how can redress be correct if the rate of interest is not known.

 

 

A.M., I was on a promotional rate with the example show though the rates of associated interest are much the same throughout my several years of paying PPI and also I lost the promo rate when I exceeded my credit limit which was 6 or so months after getting it. The rates of interest on my credit statement are pretty standard; Card Purchases= 1.2916 Balance transfers=1.4352 Cash= 2.0751 Default sums 1.2916.

 

 

Also I have not yet done a SAR from MBNA I will follow this up when hopefully I can see what MBNA have told the adjudicator.

 

 

I also want your comments on the answer the adjudicator gave me for the produce of 8% despite my account still in debt. This again the adjudicator says MBNA advised them with their explanation of the 8%

 

 

" MBNA apply 8% to credit and surplus balances. Surplus balance is the difference between the actual payment made and the reconstructed payments . I.E. paid £100 reconstructed payment £75 so £25 goes to surplus and earns 8% on a surplus balance rather than a credit balance.

 

 

 

This is "true but wrong". And... by surplus balance.... they perhaps mean the monthly difference "balance" allocated to surplus redress column as opposed to going to card redress (not an accumulating "balance" but the difference or leftover value)

 

Once again surprise ! surprise ! no examples of this given to me from my calculation sheet to understand. Though I do feel this can be torn apart

 

 

1. The calculation sheet says surplus redress not surplus balance and is paid to me albeit it a very very small amount.

2. If after the reconstructed payment is done the surplus earns 8% surely it should getting the contractual rate and not 8% ? An MBNA twist on things. There should very arguably not be a "surplus balance" - it is misappropriated, and that kind of thing can only be used for credit balances, or perhaps when you always paid either always fully or always minimally - each and every month

3.Where does surplus balance come from ? never seen nothing on this on statements or on PPI details. See above as before..

4. The explanation letter that followed after the calculation sheet build V20_B037 clearly states that 8% simple will only be paid when the balance is in credit and not once is a surplus balance mentioned. Interesting, although their explanations fall down in a lot of ways...letter definitely ** after **calculation sheet? I'd like to see it if poss, with personal details taken out.

The adjudicator said that they have given me something extra as it is not part of FOS guidelines. I argued that this is of little good to me and that all I want is the redress calculated as per FCA/FOS guidelines.

 

 

Your adjudicator is just quoting MBNA, and may also be a bit confused as to what your issue really is, seeing as MBNA are reporting back such generous shining account reconstruction wonderfulness all-round...

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...