Jump to content


MBNA PPI Award “Interpretative” Calculations?


AfterMidnight
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1762 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

Just had my copy of my calculation V20 B40 interesting read.

The oddest thing on the calculation is in June 2009 the surplus redress exceeds the reconstructed balance. MBNA then go and charge a further £1800 in charges and interest, but only refund £1200. In that time I paid another £900 off the card and increase the surplus redress balance by £300. Basically I paid £600 to MBNA for a card with no outstanding balance. Will try to upload a copy tomorrow. Certainly proves that the surplus redress method is heavily waited in MBNA's favour.

Sorry if this isn't formatted very well on my phone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

The only personal details on the build, are the account number which is long dead. Sorry it's build 41 not 40 as previously stated.

 

Forgeting penalty charges, any one have any thoughts? If anyone could link to info about claiming back penalty charges greater than £12 prior to 2006 that would be helpful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Had a bit of spare time at the weekend so when through the MBNA calc, in a bit of detail.

 

First odd thing was I couldn't get their calc to cross cast, who ever built the sheet didn't use the formula (=round(sum("calaculation bit"), 2). Loads of rounding errors all in MBNA's favour we are only talking pence but would expect better from a bank.

 

Every minimum payment prior to August 2006 does not agree to their terms and conditions, oddly one month comes out at 2.3% of the pervious months balance, two months later they are working the minimum paymet at 5.7% of the previous months balance. After April 2009 they are working out the reconstructed minimum payments at over 3.3% never a consitent amount, terms of card 3.0%

 

My favourite month is August 2002, July's statement has been reconstructed as paid in full. No balance outstanding, but MBNA leave the late payment of £20 in August and charge interest on to leave a balance of £20.16 on the reconstructed end of month figure.

 

Looking at the calc it has to be all formula based on excel or something similar. I had a look at other repayment calculations, and from what I can see MBNA have a set repayment based on the following. (I would need a lot more data to form a definant opinion this was correrct but I would expect a lot more variation even with such a small sample. Especially considering I was comparing cards at low APR and very high APR).

 

If you take Amount of PPI paid, length of time PPI paid, length of time card held. Using a set formula based on the above I always get within a decent range for all the repayment calculations.

 

Call me synical but I wouldn't be surprised if MBNA have a set figure they will repay on any PPI reclaim. The build sheets they use is just worked backwards to acheive the desired results.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Miaspa

 

 

Its getting to the stage that MBNA's calcs are so well known to be "out" in the favour by various methods that the method details are becoming almost secondary to the weight of evidence that these are unquestionably way-off in comparison with more regular methods. Well known forum-wise that is, as opposed to any (yet) official recognition from FOS. We with complaints in there long-term on this point do get the occasional inch-forward-maybe holding letter ....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Miaspa

 

 

Its getting to the stage that MBNA's calcs are so well known to be "out" in the favour by various methods that the method details are becoming almost secondary to the weight of evidence that these are unquestionably way-off in comparison with more regular methods. Well known forum-wise that is, as opposed to any (yet) official recognition from FOS. We with complaints in there long-term on this point do get the occasional inch-forward-maybe holding letter ....

 

So how many various methods are there?

 

Heres another I spotted should I post any more?

 

 

On the calculation the associated interest is based on the previous months card redress balance so if in month 10 you have £100 in the card redress, the associated interest in month 11 is £100 x monthly interest rate. Now if the £100 is moved to the surplus redress in month 11 it’s considered to be moved on the first day of the new statement so the card redress doesn’t get any associated interest in that month.

 

Now as MBNA are fond of saying the PPI is the last item added onto each months statement. That being the case they can’t possibly ascertain how much money needs to go to the surplus redress until PPI is charged at the end of the month.

 

The effect is quite good (for MBNA) because the interest at 8% simple in the surplus redress is also based on the previous months balance. In month 11 that £100 doesn’t get interest at 8% simple or at the card rate.

The red is incorrect it does recieve 8% simple MBNA missed a trick there I could saved them some extra cash!!!!

 

On a £100 with a card at 20% APR, it saves them £1.60 ish but you work out on say 20 movements of £100 to the surplus redress per PPI claim with 50,000 claims. That’s £1.6 million saved. Less the 8% simple of becuase of the red error only £1.54 million

Edited by Miaspa 2010
got it wrong!!
Link to post
Share on other sites

Essentially (sorry to say) that it very much looks like the firm had a team working on redress calculation design, some time ago now, with a very specific if unpublicised brief. The work that was involved in running through all the variations and potential borderline or otherwise mis-application of FSA (as was at time) guidelines/allowances in order to produce "optimum" calculations - must have taken a very good bit of time and effort. And particular creativity and imagination in some design element "leaps" too. The long "interpretative" thread here has gone on for a long time, and seen many people questioning and working through different aspects over time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got another two letters from FOS.

 

They are still looking into MBNA's method of calculations.

 

Have to hope the delay is because we are right and the regulator/ombudsman has a sniff of wrongdoing. If they had found nothing one has to think we would have been dismissed by now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ken /AMN. everyone

 

 

 

 

Ditto. I have had the same letter. It is now over 6 months since the first letter from Vicki saying they were looking closely at MBNA calculation methods so I do believe a dismissal would have been made know to us by now. keep the faith everyone . I agree with AMN quote that this will all be over this year

 

 

 

 

 

 

QUOTE=ken100464;4584598]Just got another two letters from FOS.

 

They are still looking into MBNA's method of calculations.

 

Have to hope the delay is because we are right and the regulator/ombudsman has a sniff of wrongdoing. If they had found nothing one has to think we would have been dismissed by now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I have received the same letter dated 24 July 2014;

as has another MBNA PPI complainant colleague. Looks like quite a few of us are being written to by the FOS.

 

One notes, Ms. McAuslands reference to this:-

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

 

After all, the FCA/FOS could hardly ignore same!

 

All eyes on the FCA & FOS, who do seem to be taking a painfully long time...?

Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of things i forgot to mention. I saw Martin Lewis on breakfast TV advising that Lloyds and some other banks had put aside extra millions of pounds for PPI redress. I did wonder if this was in response to getting ready for the likely explosion of credit card PPI shortchange.For the story going round is that most PPI cases had ben settled and that they were coming to the end of the mis-selling sacndal.

 

 

 

 

Also i really hope Cliff D'Arcy is reading our thread as he has revealed the scandal of PPI credit card charges being missed of redress claims by the banks. I doubt if he would be at all surprised of what MBNA have been doing that we have revealed on this thread.

 

 

Any comments on what i have said good or bad as usual are always welcome.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just got another two letters from FOS.

 

They are still looking into MBNA's method of calculations.

 

Have to hope the delay is because we are right and the regulator/ombudsman has a sniff of wrongdoing. If they had found nothing one has to think we would have been dismissed by now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think reading AC's link you would have to think FCA/FOS are starting to understand the banks have been at it again. But hiding behind the FCA/FOS when saying they are doing it correctly.

 

So perhaps could be why they are extending the provision once again,

Link to post
Share on other sites

a peep paid for a mathmatician a couple of years ago and produced in court findings regarding MBNA figures which were basically as reported in this thread, but alas the Judge would not further on the subject and the fee was out of pocket of the peep, so as we have all had the letter this week from FCA/FOS that more does come of it.

:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:
Link to post
Share on other sites

a peep paid for a mathmatician a couple of years ago and produced in court findings regarding MBNA figures which were basically as reported in this thread, but alas the Judge would not further on the subject and the fee was out of pocket of the peep, so as we have all had the letter this week from FCA/FOS that more does come of it.

 

Hmm, it could be of benefit to learn just who that individual was and in which county court!?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

People

 

 

been a while since last updates so ill give you all todays latest from the FOS

 

 

I have 2 suspect redress offers one from MBNA and one from Halifax I have had an interesting conversation with a gentleman in the FOS redress department and I have been told that the FOS have raised issues with both MBNA and Halifax over their concerns as to how the redress is being worked out in particular the interest offered this is a quote from the FOS. we may be winning the slow battle of attrition.

 

 

Matt

Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of things i forgot to mention. I saw Martin Lewis on breakfast TV advising that Lloyds and some other banks had put aside extra millions of pounds for PPI redress. I did wonder if this was in response to getting ready for the likely explosion of credit card PPI shortchange.For the story going round is that most PPI cases had ben settled and that they were coming to the end of the mis-selling sacndal.

 

 

 

 

Also i really hope Cliff D'Arcy is reading our thread as he has revealed the scandal of PPI credit card charges being missed of redress claims by the banks. I doubt if he would be at all surprised of what MBNA have been doing that we have revealed on this thread.

 

 

Any comments on what i have said good or bad as usual are always welcome.

 

whatisdue, it may well come to pass, sooner rather than later, that Cliff D'Arcy will be provided with the full SP regarding what exactly has been happening over the past 6 months with our Group Complaint about MBNA Limited!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good afternoon - hope you are all well

 

Just thought I would check in; don't get any notifications now from the forum for some reason :???:

 

As will the rest of you - still nothing with MBNA !

 

You will recall that in my last post I said I was going to Barclays for the overdraft PPI for me and my OH; together with a couple of mortgage care policies.

 

Well we got a result - 4 letters were posted in the same SD package on the 8th July and text acknowledgements were received for OH (2) and me (1) on the 10 July. My OH woke me up at around 1am on the 12th July and his Barclays Bank had had around 12000 deposited into it ! we got rather excited and proceeded to transfer it out very quickly. My friend who was the 4th letter rang me on the Tuesday after and she had received a cheque that morning for around £700 (her claim was only around £90 paid). A week later my OH had another £2000 paid in..........I think it must be a record for a complaint to be upheld. Unfortunatley the Principality refused - but that was a long shot :roll:

 

Unfortunately I am still waiting .........but I suspect that my claim is a lot higher than OH's as he paid PPI on his overdraft from 1997 to 2006 but I have paid it from 1998 up till now ! have just checked the online tracking and my Complaint is now being reviewed but knowing my luck it will be refused ! Will keep you posted........

 

The interesting thing about the letter received about the claim is how they have calculated it. THey have rebuilt the account without the PPI, repaid the OD Interest paid, repaid any bank charges which were levied because of the PPI in the balance and then the 8% on top and it is all very well laid out and understandable. They also included a lealflet which has been issued by the FOS, Barclays and Martyn Lewis about upholding the claim which is very easily understood.

 

Speak to you soon

 

GS

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi Everyone,

 

I contacted MBNA back in June 2014 to ask them to look at the calculations of my redress in November 2011.

 

They wrote back in July 2014 to say it had been calculated correctly and emailed me a copy of the original single page with a brief breakdown that I received with my cheque.

 

I emailed them back requesting a statement showing the build of the redress.

 

I heard nothing until today, I got a letter back saying their investigations are taking longer than expected and they should respond by the end of September.

 

After the news of the FCA findings hopefully they will send me a complete breakdown of how the worked out the PPI redress and the silver lining would be a nice cheque attached too!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi skinny rib - would be good if it pans out that way - will be interesting to see what your calcs say if and when MBNA at least provide you with the information they should have. FCA releases are fairly general but I do believe that after much regulator-provoking that MBNA have been rumbled ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi skinny rib - would be good if it pans out that way - will be interesting to see what your calcs say if and when MBNA at least provide you with the information they should have. FCA releases are fairly general but I do believe that after much regulator-provoking that MBNA have been rumbled ...

 

It would be a shame if they do send me the statement and it shows they did incorrectly calculate my redress, and nothing can be done as was calculated in November 2011 and not January 2012!. My mother and sister both had PPI redress from MBNA at about the same time as me too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...