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 932 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

Oh missed the post with the single spreadsheet, but method looks fine just missing 95 to 1999 PPI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have a bit more time now as its lunchtime.

 

Your case is with adjudicator Sunvin?

 

I would be asking your adjudicator what makes up the surplus redress column.

 

 

Based on the spreadsheet they are figures plucked out of nowhere.

(We all know they are restated full and minimum payments but that calculation doesn’t show that).

 

Why the reconstructed balance does not receive 8% simple interest when the card is paid off.

 

£5361.76 @ 8% simple Feb 07 to November 2014 is 35.75 x 94

 

That’s £3,360.50 of missing simple interest.

 

MBNA can say all they like about default status,

but at as at 2007 they owed £5,383.77 without the earlier PPI,

which has to receive interest at 8% simple per FOS guidelines they have denied access to you of that sum for 7 years.

 

Ask the adjudicator why in the corrected 2007 calculation the refunded PPI and associated interest was £5,383.77

but after adding 4 years PPI (504.99) the balance due to you in PPi and associated interest is only £5,361.76.

 

Plus looking down your Total cycle transaction column

there is a fair few over limit charges

why haven’t they been refunded,

 

 

I may be wrong on those but 99.9% sure that’s what they are.

I would imagine there a few more over limit penalties

but not obvious because of other transaction in the months.

There is also a few late payment penalties which may be worth asking about as well.

 

Over limit charges I think I can see.

 

29.02.2004 to 30.06.2004. 5 x £25?

31.08.2005 to 31.12.2006 12 x £25 and 5 x £12

 

Have you got all your statements or have you done a SAR request?

 

When they come back with the F & M

either your adjudicator is going to the see the issue (but as its the FOS I doubt it)

so you will need to argue why they shouldn't be restated.

Edited by Miaspa 2010
Updating after reading earlier posts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Both the FOS and the, so called, Regulator: FCA now have 14 days to reflect and do what they are paid to do!

After that time frame our missile will be fired off to the media.

 

If, the FOS and the FCA do nothing regarding our most serious concerns, they will end up with extremely RED faces.

 

Our missile (missive) has reached its target: The FCA who have confirmed receipt of same:

 

 

"I can confirm receipt of your letter of 27th October in which you set out your concerns with MBNA’s PPI redress calculations and the response that you have received from the Financial Ombudsman Service on this issue. I have also received a copy of your e-mail to Martin Wheatley on the same subject including the sample redress calculations to which you refer.

 

I will respond to the issues that you raise shortly.

 

Regards

 

Christopher Preston

Manager /Specialist Supervision / Supervision Division"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Our missile (missive) has reached its target: The FCA who have confirmed receipt of same:

 

 

"I can confirm receipt of your letter of 27th October in which you set out your concerns with MBNA’s PPI redress calculations and the response that you have received from the Financial Ombudsman Service on this issue. I have also received a copy of your e-mail to Martin Wheatley on the same subject including the sample redress calculations to which you refer.

 

I will respond to the issues that you raise shortly.

 

Regards

 

Christopher Preston

Manager /Specialist Supervision / Supervision Division"

 

Sounds hopeful Sunvin's calculations would have been helpful in the arguement as clearly shows how MBNA are fudging the redress. I guess you had other details which proved that anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sounds hopeful Sunvin's calculations would have been helpful in the arguement as clearly shows how MBNA are fudging the redress. I guess you had other details which proved that anyway.

 

Oh Yes, plenty of proof!

 

Apologies for going off topic but here is another example showing that the FOS are not fit for purpose:

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/experts/article-2816982/TONY-HETHERINGTON-Divorce-wrangle-PPI-refund-splits-court-ombudsman.html

 

Quote from the above:

 

"A fairly junior official kicked it out on procedural grounds,

saying that a complaint about a joint policy needs to come from both policyholders.

 

This is nonsense.

 

 

Anyone with a joint bank account is responsible for all debts, not just 50 per cent.

 

You have appealed against the junior official's decision and asked for a properly qualified member of the Ombudsman staff to look into it.

 

Disappointingly, all you got back was a standard acknowledgement about how the Ombudsman works

– something you received a year and a half ago.

 

A spokesman told me delays were due to 'the incredibly large volume of complaints' about PPI misselling,

yet at the same time he agreed that your own circumstances are 'particularly unique'.

 

It is a pity the unique legal background was not spotted in the beginning

and the claim taken away from a junior official

who seemed unable to understand that there is only one basic question:

does your court order count or doesn't it?

 

It is disheartening to see just how long it takes to get a superficial and flawed ruling from an official who failed to understand the issues."

Edited by angry cat
addition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you all know MBNA is part of Bank of America (BofA).

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/11/06/bank-of-america-forex-negotiations/18610773/

 

Do the FCA and FOS really believe that the MBNA PPI Redress calculations are correct!?

 

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/11/06/bank-of-america-takes-400-million-legal-charge/

 

Not the first time that BofA/MBNA have pulled the wool over the Regulators eyes and now they must own up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Received a reply from the FOS about my letter of complaint - as I had not received an email reply I sent one via snail mail too; as well as one to the CEO's.

Here it is

GS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Received a reply from the FOS about my letter of complaint - as I had not received an email reply I sent one via snail mail too; as well as one to the CEO's.

Here it is

GS

 

Oh deary me;

that is just a holding letter which they keep on the FOS computer system.

And I doubt very much whether the illustrious Mr. Wilkinson has even had sight of your complaint file!

 

Gary, took over from this chappie who quit:

http://www.professionaladviser.com/ifaonline/news/2125577/fos-operations-director-quits-gbp140k-replacement-sought

 

Clearly, the FOS managed to find a replacement:

 

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/about/operational-staff.html

 

It would appear that Mr. Wilkinson's signature now appears on most FOS holding letters...

One wonders what Mr. Wilkinson earns £200.000+ at least!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a very big hole they are digging into - I know its a big organisation but you would think that the comments in our letters would flag something up so that we do not get the generic "caring" letters.

frusty.gif

 

Wonder if they are watching :wave: hello to our friends at the FOS.............

 

GS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

This is the email I sent to FOS asking them to check MBNA's figures:

 

There are a few anomalies in the spreadsheets MBNA have provided. In the 3rd S/S October 2014 there is a column "Surplus Redress". Can you find out from MBNA what these figures represent? Based on the S/S they are figures plucked out of nowhere.

Why does the reconstructed balance not receive 8% simple interest when the balance on the card is zero?

£5,361.76 @ 8% simple interest Feb 2007 to November 2014 is 35.75 x 94 which is £3,360.50.

MBNA can say all they like about default status, but, as at 2007 they owed £5,383.77 without the missing 4 years PPI. This has to receive 8% simple interest per FOS guidelines. They have denied me access to that sum for 7 years.

One last question:

Why, in the corrected 2007 calculation, is the refunded PPI and associated interest £5,383.77, whereas after adding 4 years PPI(£504.99), the balance due in PPI and associated interest is only £5,361.76?

Anyone who uncritically accepts these figures is being credulous.

I am taking MBNA to court over the erroneous penalty charges. My complaint regarding these charges has been on-going for almost 3 years so I decided to see what a District Judge would think about it.

 

Just had a reply from FOS

 

Thank you for your email. I will address your queries in order.

The surplus redress column is in relation to minimum repayments. So when a minimum repayment is made MBNA assume if there was no PPI on the account and therefore your balance would have been lower, you would have made a lower minimum repayment. They then work out the difference from what you paid and what you would have paid without PPI. This figure is added to the surplus column and 8% simple interest is paid on this figure.

The reconstructed balance will receive 8% simple interest if it is in credit. However looking at the figures provided by MBNA the only time the reconstructed balance is not an outstanding amount is when it is at zero is for the estimated period. The nature of the estimated period is that assumptions are made about premiums made and you are refunded for these premiums and associated interest on the premiums. However because it is estimated data the business does not know what your actual balance on the account was and therefore if your balance went to zero or was in credit. Therefore no 8% simple interest is given for the estimated period.

As stated above 8% simple interest would be paid by MBNA on the surplus balance and on a positive reconstructed balance. Looking at your reconstructed balance I can’t see has gone into a positive and therefore 8% would only be due on the surplus balance.

Please can you clarify the last question. I am unsure where the figure of £5,361.76 has been reached.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh dear - this reads like they are accepting mbna's explanations hook line and sinker - worrying .....

GS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Missing the fact that in real life the account would have been having associated interest at the card rate being applied. Therefore associated interest would be higher. This sum remains within the calculation to MBNA's benifit. Doesnt matter if they are messing about with minimums etc (which I am sure we can all prove MBNA have been making these up aswell) this interest remains within the balance and therefore compounds over time. FOS is getting hooked by the enabling mechanism and missing the magicians trick just as the bank wanted them too.

 

Therefore the consumer has not been put back into the position they were before the PPI was added. Shame on you FOS. Your guidance and bleating about being fair are being taken to the cleaners by this bank. Yes the one that is continually being fined for being rather naughty.

 

Come on FOS simple maths. If you really cannot get this then I am afraid you really are not fit for purpose and would suggest you are going to looking rather sheepish that you just dont grasp this bank is fooling you all yet again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ken & everyone

 

 

I have had a call from a adjudicator at the FOS.I was told that she had been given my case by Vicki and that the previous adjudicator I ha been dealing with for nearing 2 years will no longer be involved with my case.I was also told that they have already instructed MBNA to recalculate my redress and that they would like to resolve my case without going to ombudsman.I was asked if there was anything I wanted to add in my case and the adjudicator commented on my knowledge of PPI redress (all thanks to this thread ) I asked the adjudicator to confirm the recalculation will be PS10/12 app 2 ex 6 having proven the alternative method used by MBNA is designed to cut compensation by showing many of my payments were not minimum amounts which MBNA claimed I also advised they had avoided paying compound interest.I was basically giving an overview of points previously made as a reminder of MBNA clever money saving tactics using the V20 build cal sheets. The response from the adjudicator was that she could not answer any of my querys until the recalculation is recieved. I have thoughts of MBNA still trying to be clever and not give proper redress.I will of course keep you posted.I have all my statements of 4 years paying PPI so I can check the figures.Though I have to be honest and say I do not know how.For example how do you work out the contractual rate of interest charged in a month ? Also prior to a April 2011 a minimum payment paid fees and interest and took next to nothing off the debt balance so does the PPI payment now go towards paying the debt balance ? this means MBNA should be offering additional funds.Also how overlimit fees compound greatly in interest.

As mentioned i will keep you posted I just hope you can help me on checking the redress is correct.

PS I have done the FOS calculation sheet based on PS10/12 I gave FOS this though the interest rate used is I know different to the one I sent them.I hope the redress comes out to this amount time tell............

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

QUOTE=ken100464;4644079]Missing the fact that in real life the account would have been having associated interest at the card rate being applied. Therefore associated interest would be higher. This sum remains within the calculation to MBNA's benifit. Doesnt matter if they are messing about with minimums etc (which I am sure we can all prove MBNA have been making these up aswell) this interest remains within the balance and therefore compounds over time. FOS is getting hooked by the enabling mechanism and missing the magicians trick just as the bank wanted them too.

 

Therefore the consumer has not been put back into the position they were before the PPI was added. Shame on you FOS. Your guidance and bleating about being fair are being taken to the cleaners by this bank. Yes the one that is continually being fined for being rather naughty.

 

Come on FOS simple maths. If you really cannot get this then I am afraid you really are not fit for purpose and would suggest you are going to looking rather sheepish that you just dont grasp this bank is fooling you all yet again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ken & everyone

 

 

I have had a call from a adjudicator at the FOS.I was told that she had been given my case by Vicki and that the previous adjudicator I ha been dealing with for nearing 2 years will no longer be involved with my case.I was also told that they have already instructed MBNA to recalculate my redress and that they would like to resolve my case without going to ombudsman.I was asked if there was anything I wanted to add in my case and the adjudicator commented on my knowledge of PPI redress (all thanks to this thread ) I asked the adjudicator to confirm the recalculation will be PS10/12 app 2 ex 6 having proven the alternative method used by MBNA is designed to cut compensation by showing many of my payments were not minimum amounts which MBNA claimed I also advised they had avoided paying compound interest.I was basically giving an overview of points previously made as a reminder of MBNA clever money saving tactics using the V20 build cal sheets. The response from the adjudicator was that she could not answer any of my querys until the recalculation is recieved. I have thoughts of MBNA still trying to be clever and not give proper redress.I will of course keep you posted.I have all my statements of 4 years paying PPI so I can check the figures.Though I have to be honest and say I do not know how.For example how do you work out the contractual rate of interest charged in a month ? Also prior to a April 2011 a minimum payment paid fees and interest and took next to nothing off the debt balance so does the PPI payment now go towards paying the debt balance ? this means MBNA should be offering additional funds.Also how overlimit fees compound greatly in interest.

As mentioned i will keep you posted I just hope you can help me on checking the redress is correct.

PS I have done the FOS calculation sheet based on PS10/12 I gave FOS this though the interest rate used is I know different to the one I sent them.I hope the redress comes out to this amount time tell............

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

QUOTE=ken100464;4644079]Missing the fact that in real life the account would have been having associated interest at the card rate being applied. Therefore associated interest would be higher. This sum remains within the calculation to MBNA's benifit. Doesnt matter if they are messing about with minimums etc (which I am sure we can all prove MBNA have been making these up aswell) this interest remains within the balance and therefore compounds over time. FOS is getting hooked by the enabling mechanism and missing the magicians trick just as the bank wanted them too.

 

Therefore the consumer has not been put back into the position they were before the PPI was added. Shame on you FOS. Your guidance and bleating about being fair are being taken to the cleaners by this bank. Yes the one that is continually being fined for being rather naughty.

 

Come on FOS simple maths. If you really cannot get this then I am afraid you really are not fit for purpose and would suggest you are going to looking rather sheepish that you just dont grasp this bank is fooling you all yet again.

 

How very interesting that they do not wish to have your case escalated up to an FOS Ombudsman!

We wonder why...?

 

Rest assured whatisdue, we will be able to run your recalculated figures through our 'Math Geek'.

 

Turning to our mass Complaint, the FCA and FOS have one week left before we launch our media missile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WID

 

As AC says we can check that they have followed PS10/12 app2 exp6. That will not be a problem.

 

It is now for FOS and FCA to come up with a reason why one bank should be allowed to cut redress substantially across the board because that bank is using an alternative method to what the regulator wanted them to. We can prove the enablers are wrong. But because they are hung up on the enablers the powers that be cannot get their head around the trickery that is stopping associated interest still within the account from being fairly part of the redress. They are allowing the bank not to put the consumer back into a position they would be if the PPI wasnt there.

 

FOS/FCA you really are being made out to be mugs here. Will only take one journo to get this and you really are going to have a rather lot of explaining to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets look at MBNA offer

 

£3,266.71 PPC refund

£3617.21 Associatied Interest

£1159.94 8%

£8043.86 Total

 

Now if MBNA say the surplus redress column is restated minimum payments then surely this is money owed in regard to these overpayments. So in fact there offer of 8043.86 should be broken down as such.

 

£1522.15 restated minimum payments

£1159.94 8% interest on above

£5361.76 Refunded PPC and Associated interest (Difference in original and restated balance)

£8,043.85

 

So after after adding £500 pound in PPC the amount refunded in PPC and associated interest is lower than in previous offer.

 

 

Hi

 

Just had a reply from FOS

 

Thank you for your email. I will address your queries in order.

The surplus redress column is in relation to minimum repayments. So when a minimum repayment is made MBNA assume if there was no PPI on the account and therefore your balance would have been lower, you would have made a lower minimum repayment. They then work out the difference from what you paid and what you would have paid without PPI. This figure is added to the surplus column and 8% simple interest is paid on this figure.

The reconstructed balance will receive 8% simple interest if it is in credit. However looking at the figures provided by MBNA the only time the reconstructed balance is not an outstanding amount is when it is at zero is for the estimated period. The nature of the estimated period is that assumptions are made about premiums made and you are refunded for these premiums and associated interest on the premiums. However because it is estimated data the business does not know what your actual balance on the account was and therefore if your balance went to zero or was in credit. Therefore no 8% simple interest is given for the estimated period.

As stated above 8% simple interest would be paid by MBNA on the surplus balance and on a positive reconstructed balance. Looking at your reconstructed balance I can’t see has gone into a positive and therefore 8% would only be due on the surplus balance.

Please can you clarify the last question. I am unsure where the figure of £5,361.76 has been reached.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

No, don't have any statements. All the SAR provided was the transaction history.

 

suvin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If all that Suvin50 has is transaction logs, then there should at least be enough there to support his claim. Assuming he has DSAR'd MBNA, then they cannot really argue against estimated figures based on these, if that is all they have provided.

 

And if, MBNA do have further information that they did not supply within Suvin50s 'Full' Data Subject Information Request why haven't MBNA disclosed same?

Feeling sure that if MBNA went to court, they would magically find the statements in question within their extensive archives...not forgetting the requirements within the 'Money Laundering Regs, of course!

 

Furthermore, no doubt the ICO would be interested to learn as to why MBNA have with held information that was requested within a SAR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If all that Suvin50 has is transaction logs, then there should at least be enough there to support his claim. Assuming he has DSAR'd MBNA, then they cannot really argue against estimated figures based on these, if that is all they have provided.

 

And if, MBNA do have further information that they did not supply within Suvin50s 'Full' Data Subject Information Request why haven't MBNA disclosed same?

Feeling sure that if MBNA went to court, they would magically find the statements in question within their extensive archives...not forgetting the requirements within the 'Money Laundering Regs, of course!

 

Furthermore, no doubt the ICO would be interested to learn as to why MBNA have with held information that was requested within a SAR.

 

I was thinking more of proving the restated the minimum payments are a load of cock and bull. Has anyone actual got the prior month statement showing the next minimum payment on it.

 

i.e. Proving that MBNA have restated a payment as minimum, when the statements show its not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Latest guess from the adjudicator:

 

Thank you for your email. I think I have got to the bottom of it. The figure £5,361.76 is the PPI premiums and associated interest you paid. However it doesn’t take into account the surplus redress which would form part of the PPI. If you add the figure of £5,361.76 and the surplus redress figure of £1,522.15 you then get the total in the updated offer letter.

 

 

suvin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Survin

 

You want to ask your adjudicator what is that surplus interest? Where is surplus redress in the example in the FCA handbook?

 

We know what it is. Am sure your adjudicator wont. And seeing as these redress offers are supposed to be clear to everyone then why isnt MBNA being particularly clear hear.

 

Oh its because they cannot say this is the amount removed from your notional balance which subsequently leaves a certain amount of associated interest in your balance which then compounds at the card rate.They could never say what it really is because its there to reduce the redress.

 

And who benifits?. It certainly isnt the consumer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how does the surplus redress form part of the PPI its restated payments and the refund of these. Even if MBNA were coreect in restating these payments which I stronly disagree as at the time most of the payments were round sums and are not based on a set percentage of the previous months balance as per the the terms of the card.

 

So in fact in MBNA's intial offer we have the following.

 

Refunded PPI £2,763.07

Associated Interest £2,620.70

Total £5,383.77

 

 

They then offer

 

Refunded PPI £3,266.71

Associated Interest £2,095.05

Total £5,361.76

 

Common sense dictates that the offer should increase by at least by the £500 odd pounds in PPI, additionally the associated interest should increase significantly.

 

If a member of the FOS can't see such blatent manipulation, which even my seven year old could understand, then why are they working on bringing the bank to task.

 

 

 

 

Latest guess from the adjudicator:

 

Thank you for your email. I think I have got to the bottom of it. The figure £5,361.76 is the PPI premiums and associated interest you paid. However it doesn’t take into account the surplus redress which would form part of the PPI. If you add the figure of £5,361.76 and the surplus redress figure of £1,522.15 you then get the total in the updated offer letter.

 

 

suvin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was thinking more of proving the restated the minimum payments are a load of cock and bull. Has anyone actual got the prior month statement showing the next minimum payment on it.

 

i.e. Proving that MBNA have restated a payment as minimum, when the statements show its not?

 

I do .... and I think the FOS have a copy of the comparison spreadsheet I did.

 

Will be back later !

 

GS

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...