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 929 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

Keep the faith.

 

Remember the F & M's are just the enablers (the actual things we can all prove didnt happen on the paperwork we all have) to allow the maths to swipe the fair redress.

 

If FOS have taken 6 months to not understand the problem then so let then be seen to be not fit for purpose that they really are. They have not understood the maths behind the veneer of what the bank says is acceptable calculating. Schoolboy maths.

 

The PPI is within the account. By not taking it out as they are supposed to do with this creative accounting they are not placing the consumer back into the position they should be if the PPI had not been sold.

 

The bank is not doing as either the regulator nor the ombudsman says it should. Therefore if neither the regulator nor the ombudsman can see this then lets get someone who can and then let the regulator explain why it has been caught sleeping again (remember what this bank said about overlimits in the press not 4 months ago) and let the ombudsman explain why people who are obviously so pro bank are allowed to operate within what is supposed to be an impartial ombudsman service.

 

Let battle commence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, Ms. McAusland has, completely missed the point!

 

Furthermore, one wonders which forum she was referring to by her comment:

 

"I have taken the opportunity to look at your forum..." Which one AAD, CAG, PAG or LB?

 

Most members on the above forums, may not be aware of the fact, that our submission was addressed to both the FOS Interim Chief Ombudsman; Tony Boorman (now Caroline Wayman) and Martin Wheatley CEO of the FCA. The submission included at least four detailed actual examples of cases lodged with the FOS and a large amount of documents explaining the calculations and why MBNA had incorrectly calculated the PPI credit card redress in these cases. Ms. McAusland made no mention of the above referenced submission or the detailed explanations proving that MBNA had incorrectly calculated the PPI redress, why not!?

One can only presume that Ms McAusland had not even had sight of same or, could not even be bothered to look, when she dictated her hurried mass mailing letter dated 26 September 2014; mailed out on 29.September 2014; the very day that our patience had run out and that we posted up on CAG that we were going to the press.

 

In short, it would appear that the letter that Ms. McAusland sent out on 29 September 2014 was not dealing with our detailed submission at all. But simply a knee jerk reaction to the long thread over on CAG about MBNA Interpretive Calculations.

 

Also, Ms. McAusland states:

"We will of course consider every case on its own merits..."

But she has written her (I have missed the point) letter to many MBNA victims who already have cases lodged with the FOS!

Why send the letter to these already enraged MBNA complainants, doesn't make sense?

 

The FOS and FCA are clearly not fit purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Indeed, Ms. McAusland has, completely missed the point!

 

Furthermore, one wonders which forum she was referring to by her comment:

 

"I have taken the opportunity to look at your forum..." Which one AAD, CAG, PAG or LB?

 

Most members on the above forums, may not be aware of the fact, that our submission was addressed to both the FOS Interim Chief Ombudsman; Tony Boorman (now Caroline Wayman) and Martin Wheatley CEO of the FCA. The submission included at least four detailed actual examples of cases lodged with the FOS and a large amount of documents explaining the calculations and why MBNA had incorrectly calculated the PPI credit card redress in these cases. Ms. McAusland made no mention of the above referenced submission or the detailed explanations proving that MBNA had incorrectly calculated the PPI redress, why not!?

One can only presume that Ms McAusland had not even had sight of same or, could not even be bothered to look, when she dictated her hurried mass mailing letter dated 26 September 2014; mailed out on 29.September 2014; the very day that our patience had run out and that we posted up on CAG that we were going to the press.

 

In short, it would appear that the letter that Ms. McAusland sent out on 29 September 2014 was not dealing with our detailed submission at all. But simply a knee jerk reaction to the long thread over on CAG about MBNA Interpretive Calculations.

 

Also, Ms. McAusland states:

"We will of course consider every case on its own merits..."

But she has written her (I have missed the point) letter to many MBNA victims who already have cases lodged with the FOS!

Why send the letter to these already enraged MBNA complainants, doesn't make sense?

 

The FOS and FCA are clearly not fit purpose.

 

Further to the above:

Despite our efforts to make it as clear as possible what MBNA are up to in our detailed submission to the FCA (who requested it, we hasten to add) - and despite theirs and the FOS's assurances that this would looked into fully - it is now quite clear that our submission to the FCA has been completely ignored. Neither the FCA nor the FOS are fit for purpose, as they are clearly protecting their paymasters the banks and not the consumers.

 

Rest assured though, our concerns will not end until we have exhausted every single avenue that is open to us in order to obtain justice for many, many vulnerable consumers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have also received the recent letter for FOS's Vicki McAusland.

 

 

IMHO I reckon FOS are a busy lot, and in some ways they have my sympathies as they have, in general, a lot of people who are unhappy with them - mainly TBH because in a number of cases, consumers across-general-cases-on-everything sometime misunderstand "the rules".

 

 

Sometimes though financial firms themselves do not follow "the rules" and for FOS this can often be relatively easily identified in individual cases and pointed at as an example of ... not following the rules. So, FOS workload is often nice and straightforward, albeit with millions of cases to deal with. The question boils down to ...in FOS's understanding of their remit ... did the firm apply the rules correctly in this individual's case?

 

From a processing perspective then FOS see their remit as dealing with individual complaint cases - and applying "the rules" to come up with a decision to solve the individual case file. Solve as in deal-with-and-move-on, which can be a decision one way or another, or a compromise. FCA deal with the big stuff, and if FOS see enough of it across individual cases ... well they may then notify FCA.

 

As observed here and elsewhere it is more than disappointing that FOS (through and with FCA) have taken a very-very long time ... then regurgitated the very first piece of MBNA-spouted "complaint-answering" misdirection from MBNA on the firm's purported self-understanding of the rules.

 

 

Vicki's letter misses the point so gob-smackingly completely, that I do wonder if Vicki's team have actually yet remotely understood the complaint or issue with MBNA calculations. I conclude that Vicki for one yet still has to have that "aha" moment when one actually sees what MBNA have constructed behind a wall of surface-apparently reasonable approach to individual cases. MBNA's gambit of "we do it different, no need to understand folks, we just tailor it to people's circumstances, move along now please" - has been uncritically swallowed so far by the very people who should know better.

 

 

Basically ... MBNA completely and thoroughly understand what MBNA have constructed. Many people here ... understand completely what MBNA have created. FOS, in the form of Vicki's initial look - have demonstrated such an under-appreciation of the points ... that I now have fears for her future credibility once this becomes completely known and wide-open (one way or another, press or FOS realisation once they look at individual cases).

 

 

Unless that is Vicki decides to now have more than a mere-surface look, Vicki will become known as the individual who took six months to misunderstand her requested task - and be the known example of someone who unquestioningly accepted simple responses from a major bank that "it's all OK really". Its the level of non-questioning of MBNA that one would perhaps understand of a very junior new frontline adjudicator or a routine much-precedented case file , not someone in her position, tasked with producing a decent response. I think that I could have knocked that letter up in between four and five minutes with access to the source material (MBNA's dismissive response). Although FOS only really functionally have a task to deal with individual cases ... we should expect better.

 

To explain a bit, for more occasional readers or others: The six-months-to-respond referred to by some posters here is that while there was some piecemeal and individual information sent beforehand, both FOS and FCA were sent overly sufficient guided information on the issue to be able to follow what was been conducted under their noses (and in their name!) six months ago.

 

 

Some people expanded on the "something is amiss here" letter that many of us sent, and sent detailed submissions to FCA and FOS. Thorough and logically presented information was thus six months ago supplied to FCA and FOS with the question of - who should look at this? Essentially the volume of verifiable information gave FCA/FOS the opportunity to become the ones themselves who then officially or in public acknowledgement successfully identified the issue. That was over six months ago.

 

After six months plus, Vicki McAulsand has just answered one starting point of the "MBNA-shuffle" (the really-damaging method for reducing payments to their customers for PPI mis-sold redress). Basically that answer has been reporting back on MBNA's view that "what MBNA do is reasonable really, no need to go further, the starting point is fine, please go away".

 

 

It looks very much like FOS reckon there is no need to understand the issue ...just give a simplified version of the consumers opinion to the firm, and report the firm's view back in turn to the consumer. Aiming to just see if that finished it as the easiest way of doing so. Absolutely no chance of that!

 

 

Sadly for them, both FCA and FOS had a real chance here to catch a baddie in the act - and they both really do need the good publicity that would have created. Instead, owing to what appears primarily to be "not my desk" and "make life simple", they are creating a classic example for future textbooks of regulatory failure.

 

 

There may be some hope that FOS may yet wake up a bit. I hope so - it's not going to be pleasant when another institution (media shortly perhaps?) points out how they were so comprehensively outsmarted by a bank operating in the UK owing to a lack of effort, after Joe Public had laid it all out for them.

 

 

The other scenario that makes (perhaps more worrying for them) sense is that FCA/FOS have actually appreciated the issues, and have decided to deal only with individual complainers through FOS .... as opposed to a corporate level tick-off.

 

 

If Vicki's letter had shown a proper appreciation and weighing of all the points that would at least have been something. The concluding-ish paragraph that gets me from her letter is -

 

 

"So, while MBNA's calculations may not be identical to the examples set out in PS 10/12, Disp App 3 or our own note on our website, I don't think this necessarily means their calculations may be unfair."

 

 

Yup. Actually something I agree with completely, actually. However ... don't you think it is then WORTH LOOKING AT Vicki, or are you apparently happy to accept MBNA's word for it as far as mass-complaint goes? Resulting interest-rate misappropriation is ... apparently merely a resulting side issue then?

 

 

Shall we give her a couple of weeks after a friendly prompt to realise what she is doing, or enough chances - and we now send collated files and maths to our friends at the BBC and elsewhere?

 

 

Ironic in the extreme that complaint-handling procedures at FOS themselves are ... themselves somewhat lacklustre ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AC & AMN

 

Well said both of you. Both organisations had the chance and the time. Disappointing they did not take it.

 

This has not ended. A scandal upon a scandal while the Regulator and Ombudsman looked on. That is a good press story. Martin Wheatley knew about this as we wrote to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone.

 

 

I also share the disappointment in Vicki,s letter though I do agree with AMN that FOS are an individual complaint operation so maybe this is not so surprising.Though the matter of the samples given to the FOS to confirm purposely incorrect calculations to cut compensation payouts is a very very serious concern.I noticed in the letter that Vicki points out that she is unable to comment on calculations.This is unacceptable as she is the delegated officer for the FOS to answer the questions posed by the forum. Also she accepted that despite MBNA departing from PS10/12 and their own FOS guidelines on redress doesn't mean the methods of redress adopted by MBNA are not necessarily unfair, having acknowledged that PPI credit card redress is extremely complicated as stated in her letter.

 

 

 

 

Correct me if I am wrong in my thinking on this PS10/12 guidelines on credit card redress derived from this very fact of complications on calculations and provides a method to use which will be the fairest and result in as close as possible returning the consumer to a position if PPI did not apply ?

 

 

I would have expected Vicki and the FOS to have question why MBNA are using alternative redress methods on such a massive scale ? I accepted PS10/12 guidelines that there method on app 2 ex 6 is not exhaustive.Though I can not accept a lender departing from this method and applying their own method on every redress calculation.

 

 

This contradicts the stance FOS have taken on this, for if they believe that each case should be taken on their own merits ? How can you accept MBNA redress method of grouping claims made at a certain point in time and making them subject to a build such as V20_B031 or in mine and many other victims build V20_B037 There was no individual merit based on the many tens of claims and they were all put through this build to cleverly cut the redress and cut their compensation bill. It is very serious matter to me that MBNA must be open and explain to the FOS and PPI redress claimants why they have departed from FCA/FOS guidelines on such an enormously big scale equally important the answer must be satisfactory for both FCA/FOS and the consumer.

 

 

Sadly it appears that a proper investigation has not been carried out otherwise or concerns with MBNA would have been addressed.Keep your heads up people this is not over.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

QUOTE=ken100464;4624471]AC & AMN

 

Well said both of you. Both organisations had the chance and the time. Disappointing they did not take it.

 

This has not ended. A scandal upon a scandal while the Regulator and Ombudsman looked on. That is a good press story. Martin Wheatley knew about this as we wrote to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, here is an interesting turn of events;

 

I recently sent a letter chasing my request for a recalculation of my PPI redress to Chester Towers and;

bearing in mind that I am one of the mass complainants who contributed to the presentation being sent to both the FCA and FOS. I was sent the FOS Vicki McAusland letter dated 26 September 2014, in which Ms. McAusland totally missed the point contained within our mass complaint...!

 

Ms. McAusland, stated within her letter dated 26 September 2014:

 

"The issue of credit card charges and whether some of them should be refunded as part of the PPI redress has been raised recently. Although that wasn't part of your original query, I though it might be helpful to summarise the position. We have been clear that all credit card fees that were caused by the mis-sale of the PPI should be refunded to consumers.

MBNA has argued that there are circumstances where fees were not caused by the mis-sale of the PPI but by a consumer's own behaviour. We are working through these issues with MBNA..."

Not half, I bet they (FOS) are; cosy, cosy!

 

So, you can just imagine how my eyebrows raised when I read the following MBNA missive dated 02 October 2014, (but received yesterday 08 October 2014); sent out via 3rd class contract mail UKMail and;

a strangely worded template letter, which has obviously been strung together in order to pull the wool over the eyes of both FCA and FOS;

almost as though the letter is being directed towards Vicki McAusland's eyes:-

 

MBNA Limited 02/Oct/2014

 

Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding your redress payment and the suggestion that the exclusion of default fees in our calculation, has resulted in your request for your redress payment to be reviewed.

 

(I didn't mention Default fees!)

 

I would like to clarify MBNA's position on this matter. We are confident that our Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) redress is correct; we have considered our methodology carefully and in detail. Our confidence is reinforced through external independent reviews which supported the way we approach default fees. I didn't mention default fees)

 

Fees of this nature are required to b e refunded when they are "caused" by the mis-sale of PPI. Not all credit card fees are the same between lenders. There are aspects of MBNA's fees and charges and the way they are charged (or not charged) which are highly relevant to whether MBNA might be able to refund them. For example, our system operates so that the cost of PPI is only applied after the customer has gone over limit and after the over limit fee has been applied. As such, in our view PPI could never cause our customers to be over limit or cause the fee to be applied.

 

MBNA has always worked to ensure its PPI redress calculations and the payments it makes to customers follows guidance issued by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and are informed by the decisions of the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS).

 

If MBNA were to find that an error was made regarding calculations, then consideration of previous complainants would be made. MBNA would inform all impacted customers of our actions and decisions.

 

If any subsequent redress payment was due, this would be provided along with a full explanation. The relevant regulator would then require an open communication channel and evidence of our compliance to their request. This should give you the comfort that if a redress payment was calculated outside of the expectations of the FCA or the FOS you would be compensated appropriately.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Paul Wyn Williams - MBNA Case Manager."

 

Clearly, MBNA are still running rings around the FCA and FOS and so much for Vicki McAusland, NOT!

 

Answers on a postcard!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Answer is easy.

 

We have proof of full's that are not full's and minimum's that are not minimum's. We know what the shuffle does and we know what the full and minimum's are hiding. To the uninitiated the calculation looks exactly like it should do. Reasonable. And as you are reading this thread FCA/FOS you are very trusting of a bank that is using figures that we have proof did not happen. Not investigating WHY a bank is using such an unusual method of calculation for normal claims is appalling. Being told it is reducing claims by at least a third across the board and you have not looked at the mechanics nor the maths but just asked the bank to assure you they aren't up to anything.

 

The fact this bank appears to have been caught out before by a CMC doing something similar.

 

You are being hoodwinked big style.

 

Basically we know what the bank is doing. The bank could have written to each and everyone who seemed to be close to an understanding of their methods and brought us off so to speak with enhanced payments thus closing this thread down or they could follow a path where both the regulator and ombudsman could and will get a rather rude awakening to being asleep yet again.

 

This bank has not changed its spots. It isn't cleaning up it's act. And the regulator wonders why the public doesn't trust banks as far as we can throw them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, here is an interesting turn of events;

 

MBNA Limited 02/Oct/2014

 

 

I would like to clarify MBNA's position on this matter. We are confident that our Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) redress is correct; we have considered our methodology carefully and in detail. Our confidence is reinforced through external independent reviews which supported the way we approach default fees.

 

Would MBNA be willing to provide documented evidence of these external independant reviews? I haven't heard anything on mine so letting sleeping dogs lie at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Answer is easy.

 

We have proof of full's that are not full's and minimum's that are not minimum's. We know what the shuffle does and we know what the full and minimum's are hiding. To the uninitiated the calculation looks exactly like it should do. Reasonable. And as you are reading this thread FCA/FOS you are very trusting of a bank that is using figures that we have proof did not happen. Not investigating WHY a bank is using such an unusual method of calculation for normal claims is appalling. Being told it is reducing claims by at least a third across the board and you have not looked at the mechanics nor the maths but just asked the bank to assure you they aren't up to anything.

 

The fact this bank appears to have been caught out before by a CMC doing something similar.

 

You are being hoodwinked big style.

 

Basically we know what the bank is doing. The bank could have written to each and everyone who seemed to be close to an understanding of their methods and brought us off so to speak with enhanced payments thus closing this thread down or they could follow a path where both the regulator and ombudsman could and will get a rather rude awakening to being asleep yet again.

 

This bank has not changed its spots. It isn't cleaning up it's act. And the regulator wonders why the public doesn't trust banks as far as we can throw them.

 

Many, many members of the MBNA Fan Club knew/are fully conversant with MBNA strategies...

And, let us not forget, that it was MBNA themselves who were majorly chastised for having the lowest minimum monthly payment RE: credit cards; same was well reported in the press both over the pond and here in and in Which? Magazine.

Their low monthly minimum was designed to keep customers in debt. It doesn't take much intellect to work out what the consequences of same would have been when the monthly PPI premiums were applied!

 

I myself, was fined 22 times whilst I had a PPI claim on my first MBNA PPI policy in place; the fines were NOT caused by my behaviour.

 

I was also fined when the idiots lost one of my cheques: over limit and then swiftly followed by the default fee(s). In fact when I look back, it was mind boggling to see just how many times they fined me but I hasten to add none of the fines were caused by my own behaviour.

 

The latest MBNA missive that bangs on about 'Default fees' (punitive fines) was conceived by MBNA as a strategy to detract the incompetent minds of the FOS, who need to pull their socks up and deal with our concerns correctly, instead of them appearing to be in the pocket ofMBNA, as they always have been...! After, all the Banks and Financial institutions are among their paymasters.

 

The latest MBNA missive dated 02 October 2014, was designed to deflect the spotlight away from the incorrect PPI redress calculation method that MBNA Limited employ. But it has not worked even if, the FOS appeared to have swallowed it; Wake Up FOS!

Edited by angry cat
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone,

 

 

I managed to win a recalculation recommendation

by proving that the type 'M' on my redress calculation sheet from MBNA was wrong

having done a SAR with MBNA and providing the statements to the adjudicator.

 

 

it was only then that the adjudicator was willing to accept that MBNA redress calculations were incorrect.

 

 

Remember what Ken said on this on how if you pove the Type F or M is wrong

then everything else such as surplus balance / surplus rederss / card redress 8% payable on a debt balance

and the reconstructed balances can no longer be accepted and becomes null and void as the whole method is rubbished.

 

 

An SAR from MBNA is a must for everyone if you have any hope of winning anything against MBNA.

 

 

I was offered a overlimit redress of some £130 after i was told by MBNA that they owed nothing

(never understood why they changed their mind or what made them)

 

 

I questioned how they had worked it out to this amount to the adjudicator as we know there is interest applied

and it compounds alarmingly.

Again never had a answer.

 

 

I am in possesion of all my statements for the 4 years of paying PPI and have the proof that the PPI was not the last charge made

also it shows that it was charged on my balance which was over the limit amount in addition to the £12

when i struggled to pay the minimum amount on the card.

 

 

Simple maths of taking the balance and x 79p per £100 [the rate PPI was charged to me]

gives the balance total which was over limit and the PPI charge works out to that O/L total.

Meaning they were charging PPI to the balance amount irrespective of whether or not the balance amount was within or over limit.

 

 

In those months when i incurred O/L fees i know if PPI had not applied i would have been within my limit to not incurr charges in the first place.

 

 

Any comments welcome

 

 

 

 

Many, many members of the MBNA Fan Club knew/are fully conversant with MBNA strategies...

And, let us not forget, that it was MBNA themselves who were majorly chastised for having the lowest minimum monthly payment RE: credit cards; same was well reported in the press both over the pond and here in and in Which? Magazine.

Their low monthly minimum was designed to keep customers in debt. It doesn't take much intellect to work out what the consequences of same would have been when the monthly PPI premiums were applied!

 

I myself, was fined 22 times whilst I had a PPI claim on my first MBNA PPI policy in place; the fines were NOT caused by my behaviour.

 

I was also fined when the idiots lost one of my cheques: over limit and then swiftly followed by the default fee(s). In fact when I look back, it was mind boggling to see just how many times they fined me but I hasten to add none of the fines were caused by my own behaviour.

 

The latest MBNA missive that bangs on about 'Default fees' (punitive fines) was conceived by MBNA as a strategy to detract the incompetent minds of the FOS, who need to pull their socks up and deal with our concerns correctly, instead of them appearing to be in the pocket ofMBNA, as they always have been...! After, all the Banks and Financial institutions are among their paymasters.

 

The latest MBNA missive dated 02 October 2014, was designed to deflect the spotlight away from the incorrect PPI redress calculation method that MBNA Limited employ. But it has not worked even if, the FOS appeared to have swallowed it; Wake Up FOS!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In those months when i incurred O/L fees i know if PPI had not applied i would have been within my limit to not incurr charges in the first place.

 

 

mines the same.

 

 

in the months whereby I was charged o/L & late ffes

if the PPI listed on their breakdown to that point

was taken off the then bal

I would not be O/L

 

 

dx


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we keep at them with the proveable eventually someone somewhere is going to twig this is just fantasy land redress calculations.

 

FCA and FOS doing themselves no favours at all. Scandal on a scandal. They been told whats wrong but are leaving individuals to fight alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do we do next ? letter of reply to Vicki Mcasuland detailing my own submission -? the over limit fees were a very small part of my submission to the FOS. My F and M's are not right and so on.......I am very unhappy about this as are the rest of us I'm sure; and I definitely want to take this further.

GS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly I am of the opinion that a group or even individual response to the letter sent by Vicki will not get what we want.I agree with AMN that the FOS is set up to look at individual complaints and consider each case to be different and merit based.This no doubt suits MBNA . I for one would want to know why Vicki can not give an answer for the examples of incorrect redress calculations given as part of the group of complaints made.I would not be surprised if the answer was along the lines of each case is judged on its merits so one incorrect calculated case does not reflect on others on the scale we are suggesting.

 

 

 

 

I am really of the opinion that it is time to go to the press and as suggested by ken I believe a good place to start is with the BBC. Micheal Johnston & Cliff D'Arcy who wrote the BBC article on O/Limit fees being missed off redress.I am sure they would reveal in this injustice to vulnerable people have suffered and the exploitation of them by MBNA and other banks in giving correct PPI redress.We need to bring there attention to this thread and from there I believe things we want to see happen will

 

 

 

 

Comments please and if anyone agrees how best do we go about this?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What do we do next ? letter of reply to Vicki Mcasuland detailing my own submission -? the over limit fees were a very small part of my submission to the FOS. My F and M's are not right and so on.......I am very unhappy about this as are the rest of us I'm sure; and I definitely want to take this further.

GS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had a call from an adjudicator this pm. Says he has been assigned to pursue my complaint including penalty charges and the last offer that MBNA made( see #306). He says he will also insist that MBNA provide the breakdown of the 2 separate calculations that they made. We live in hope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that it is time to go to the press.

 

Can someone tell me where Vicki McAusland stands in the hirearchy of the FOS.

 

Also - can someone please refresh my memory about how they work..........

 

1. Complaint in

2. Looked at Adjudicator (many months later)

3. We are told their decision

4. We disagree with the decision

5. It then goes to an Ombudsman

 

is that right ?

 

Thank you

GS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to advise you all, we are currently in the process of responding to the Vicki McAusland missive, in which Ms. McAusland misses the point etc...

 

Our next communication will provide further proof that MBNA Limited are not calculating PPI redress correctly.

And if, she still ignores our proof we will then go to the Media!

 

The ball will be in the court of the FOS/FCA, therefore do not give up hope.

 

Keep the Faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What do we do next ? letter of reply to Vicki Mcasuland detailing my own submission -? the over limit fees were a very small part of my submission to the FOS. My F and M's are not right and so on.......I am very unhappy about this as are the rest of us I'm sure; and I definitely want to take this further.

GS

 

Personally, I can see no harm in responding to Ms. McAusland individually. But rest assured she will be receiving a 'Group' communication, shortly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just to advise you all, we are currently in the process of responding to the Vicki McAusland missive, in which Ms. McAusland misses the point etc...

 

Our next communication will provide further proof that MBNA Limited are not calculating PPI redress correctly.

And if, she still ignores our proof we will then go to the Media!

 

The ball will be in the court of the FOS/FCA, therefore do not give up hope.

 

Keep the Faith.

 

I fired off a response this morning, I had a letter which referred to this forum. "Big Brother is watching"

 

Hi Vikki xx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you Angry Cat

 

Do we need to respond to her with some kind of holding letter ?

 

GS

 

GS, that is of course both your right and choice. But Ms. McAusland clearly neither understood the content of our initial Group letter or, had not bothered to read the enclosed documents that came with it.

One is also a little concerned about the manner that MBNA Limited are attempting to divert the spotlight from the PPI redress calculations to default charges!?

 

The most important thing here is not to lose faith; we will never give up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK - will send off a reply - going on holiday friday so I will do it as a holding letter and then work from there

THanks all

GS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may need to re think on your group letter, my letter contains an extra paragraph.

 

Sorry for the quality but hopefully you can make it out.

 

Seems consistently is no longer appropriate and it refers to any minimum or full payment.

The only way forward is to prove any payment is an M or F wasn't when it was originally applied to the card.

 

Edit sorry: didn't read the PDF attchment correctly on the earlier post it the same!!!

Edited by Miaspa 2010
Incorrect

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...