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

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 MBNAlink3.gif have restated a payment as minimum, when the statements show its not?

 

As promised ....................

 

GS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Minimum payment was 2.25% of the previous month balance.

 

I couldn't prove want the percentage was on mine as had no details prior to 2004.

 

You are an absolute diamond GS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well GS the fulls are where the damage is done behind the scenes.

 

But if you had a balance how an earth can MBNA declare a Full payment.

 

All adds to MBNA doing as they please. Hope your reading FOS. Cant you see?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well GS the fulls are where the damage is done behind the scenes.

 

But if you had a balance how an earth can MBNA declare a Full payment.

 

All adds to MBNA doing as they please. Hope your reading FOS. Cant you see?

 

If there's a balance left at th e end of the original statement there's no justification for the payment to restated as full.

 

GS was the APR on the card 19% ish at August 2000 and 22.5% at May 2003?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Miaspa

 

Totally agree. No justification at all. What do FOS not get. Its all made up but the sad thing its made up to allow the bank to cut redress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Miaspa

 

Totally agree. No justification at all. What do FOS not get. Its all made up but the sad thing its made up to allow the bank to cut redress.

 

Couldn't agree more but if you can blow the minimums out the fulls have to go as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will check for the %age interest after supper Don't like using the phone for posting ! Back later

GS

 

I was trying to work out what Sunvin minimum payments.

 

Was hoping GS was going to confirm that APR rates were as I expected, as prefer to have a couple of examples from different customers to show it works across the board.

 

If my theory was correct minimums are usually 1/10 of the APR rate. There’s usually a couple of months delay when the APR rate changes.

 

As one of Sunvin calculations had a monthly rate, if would be easy to bung the figures in excel times to the power of 12 and get the APR rate.

 

This was where the complication set in I wasn’t getting a consistent APR, at first I thought it was because MBNA applied a daily rate, I didn’t know when the payments occurred so my APR would never agree. I had this issue on my own calculations, but as I didn’t have the monthly rates it was always going to an impossible task. I had the same issue on a calculation posted up at the beginning of this thread.

 

Then playing around on excel I came up with the reason why!

 

MBNA take the interest charged, and divide it by the balance at the end of the month to get the monthly rate. It bears no relevance to the actual APR rate. This may not cause any issue if you had only one APR rate.

 

But say you did a balance transfer at a promo 0%. Now your purchases and PPI would be charged at the standard rate of the card. MBNA taking the shortcut of dividing the interest charged to the end balance is going to seriously alter your associated interest. In some months on mine the APR on the PPI and purchases was 22%, but because of an 0% rate on a transfer, the redress APR works out at 7%

 

Just another way MBNA take short cuts on their redress calculation, which stitch the consumer up.

 

 

 

OK can't form a table on here will attach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Miaspa - sorry haven't had a chance to look for the statements - file is up the attic ! but will get my husband to get them tonight and will let you have the interest rates. If you want any other copy statements give me a shout - I was on different rates and have over 90% of the statements ! I also have my own versions of the FOS spreadsheet with all the minimums, etc analysed out. I may even have one with the balances listed - you can tell I work in accounts can't you !

 

On another matter - as you may recall I sent copy letters to the FCA and the FOS - well here's my reply received yesterday from the FOS - I wonder if Caroline actually saw my letter ! I have quite a responsible job myself and part of it is to deal with the post each day; I screen the post deal with anything I can and then pass on anything that needs to to my boss. I also flag up any serious issue which may arise - even if I deal with it - to my boss so that he gets to know what is going. I don't think there is anyone in FOS who has the capabiltiy to flag up serious issues ! Anyway here's the latest letter - which to be honest I find rather patronising.............

GS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Typical FOS, passing the buck!

 

Leave the statements until you husband goes up for the Christmas decorations, as I can't use the 1/10 of APR on Sunvins calc, purely because the monthly rate given by MBNA isn't the monthly APR rate.

 

I will see how successful my arguement with MBNA on minimums and fulls goes. MBNA were supposed to have replied to my adjudicator by now but appear to be stalling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh deary me; that is just their standard holding letter. Quite a few a have received same and then it is followed up by another FOS employees letter that doesn't appear to have a Dickie bird...!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can MBNA Limited count?

 

We are a small group of MBNA Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) claimants who are representative of a much larger group of claimants from across the internet Consumer forums.

It has emerged that MBNA Limited have created a very clever non-standard method of calculating PPI redress which drastically reduces the claim ‘quantum.’ It appears that the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) have accepted that this method complies with the FCA rules (PS10/12) – but it seems very clear that it does not.

 

Our group have looked very closely at the differences between the MBNA method and the ‘prescribed’ FCA method and have concluded that the MBNA method must be challenged. It seems quite possible that neither the FCA nor the FOS have actually checked that the MBNA method is compliant with FCA rules, and have merely accepted MBNA’s assurances that it is.

 

Claimants are being offered PPI redress which is far below that which would be due if the standard FCA calculation method were used – but they are being given insufficient information as to how this redress is calculated. Naturally, most claimants simply accept that the calculation is correct – and then accept the settlement “In full & final.”

Our group believes that MBNA have devised an excessively complex calculation method that neither the FCA, FOS nor the claimant can understand – and that this method reduces most claim settlements by 50% or more. Thus, MBNA Limited is not putting consumers back into the position they would have been but for the mis-selling of PPI.

 

The group has concluded that MBNA’s method is not compliant with FCA rules, and that this needs to be addressed by the FOS & FCA. We encouraged every MBNA PPI claimant to send our Group open letter to the FCA & FOS.

 

The Group believes that the regulators are not enforcing their own rules because they are not investigating potential departures from them.

Since sending at least 20 copies of our Group open letter to Martin Wheatley, FCA and the Chief Ombudsman, FOS in February 2014, we have been given the run around. We even backed our assertions with actual proof showing actual individuals cases, which including the MBNA spreadsheets and our own calculations. Together with a detailed analysis explaining exactly why and how the MBNA methodology is incorrect and that it does not comply with the FSA/FCA rules on calculating PPI redress.

We have followed up our findings for 10 long months now. But neither the FCA nor the FOS appears to want to take any action!?

 

We would refer to the following:

 

If there is new evidence of systematic mistakes by the banks then the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) should investigate and take tough action against any bank found breaching the rules. But, even though we have provided extensive proof to both the FOS representative: Ms Vicki McAusland; Lead Ad judicator and to;

Mr. Chris Preston, Manager – Specialist – Supervision Division and Mr. Martin Wheatley, (CEO) of the FCA none appear to have taken any action whatsoever!?

 

We can of course provide our detailed analysis to back up our assertions. And, will be happy to elaborate on all of the above points but want to keep the narrative short for now."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can MBNA Limited count?

 

We are a small group of MBNA Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) claimants who are representative of a much larger group of claimants from across the internet Consumer forums.

It has emerged that MBNA Limited have created a very clever non-standard method of calculating PPI redress which drastically reduces the claim ‘quantum.’ It appears that the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) have accepted that this method complies with the FCA rules (PS10/12) – but it seems very clear that it does not.

 

Our group have looked very closely at the differences between the MBNA method and the ‘prescribed’ FCA method and have concluded that the MBNA method must be challenged. It seems quite possible that neither the FCA nor the FOS have actually checked that the MBNA method is compliant with FCA rules, and have merely accepted MBNA’s assurances that it is.

 

Claimants are being offered PPI redress which is far below that which would be due if the standard FCA calculation method were used – but they are being given insufficient information as to how this redress is calculated. Naturally, most claimants simply accept that the calculation is correct – and then accept the settlement “In full & final.”

Our group believes that MBNA have devised an excessively complex calculation method that neither the FCA, FOS nor the claimant can understand – and that this method reduces most claim settlements by 50% or more. Thus, MBNA Limited is not putting consumers back into the position they would have been but for the mis-selling of PPI.

 

The group has concluded that MBNA’s method is not compliant with FCA rules, and that this needs to be addressed by the FOS & FCA. We encouraged every MBNA PPI claimant to send our Group open letter to the FCA & FOS.

 

The Group believes that the regulators are not enforcing their own rules because they are not investigating potential departures from them.

Since sending at least 20 copies of our Group open letter to Martin Wheatley, FCA and the Chief Ombudsman, FOS in February 2014, we have been given the run around. We even backed our assertions with actual proof showing actual individuals cases, which including the MBNA spreadsheets and our own calculations. Together with a detailed analysis explaining exactly why and how the MBNA methodology is incorrect and that it does not comply with the FSA/FCA rules on calculating PPI redress.

We have followed up our findings for 10 long months now. But neither the FCA nor the FOS appears to want to take any action!?

 

We would refer to the following:

 

If there is new evidence of systematic mistakes by the banks then the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) should investigate and take tough action against any bank found breaching the rules. But, even though we have provided extensive proof to both the FOS representative: Ms Vicki McAusland; Lead Ad judicator and to;

Mr. Chris Preston, Manager – Specialist – Supervision Division and Mr. Martin Wheatley, (CEO) of the FCA none appear to have taken any action whatsoever!?

 

We can of course provide our detailed analysis to back up our assertions. And, will be happy to elaborate on all of the above points but want to keep the narrative short for now."

 

Open letter to the press?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Open letter to the press?

 

Yes, the following is going out to the press:

 

"Can MBNA Limited count?

 

We are a small Group of MBNA Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) claimants who are representative of a much larger group of claimants from across the internet Consumer forums.

 

It has emerged that MBNA Limited have created a very clever non-standard method of calculating PPI redress which drastically reduces the claim ‘quantum’. It appears that the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) have accepted that this method complies with the FCA rules (PS10/12) – but it seems very clear that it does not.

 

Our Group have looked very carefully at the differences between the MBNA method and the ‘prescribed’ FCA method and have concluded that the MBNA method must be challenged. It seems quite possible that neither the FCA not the FOS have actually checked that the MBNA method is compliant with FCA rules, and have merely accepted MBNA’s assurances that it is.

 

Claimants are being offered PPI redress which is far below that which would be due if the standard FCA calculation method were used – but they are being given insufficient information as to how this redress is calculated. Naturally, most claimants simply accept that the calculation is correct – and then accept the settlement “in full & final.”

 

Our Group believes that MBNA have devised an excessively complex method that neither the FCA, FOS nor the claimant can understand – and that this method reduces most claim settlements by 50% or more. Thus, MBNA Limited is not putting consumers back into the position they would have been but for the mis-selling of PPI.

 

The Group has concluded that MBNA’s method is not compliant with FCA rules, and that this needs to be addressed by the FOS & FCA. We encouraged every MBNA claimant to send our Group open letter to the FCA and FOS.

 

The Group believes that the regulators are not enforcing their own rules because they are not investigating potential departure from them.

 

Since sending at least 20 copies of our Group open letter to Martin Wheatley, FCA and the Chief Ombudsman, FOS in February 2014 we have been given the run around. We even backed our assertions with actual proof showing actual individual cases, which included the MBNA spreadsheets and our own calculations. Together with a detailed analysis explaining exactly how the MBNA methodology is incorrect and that it does not comply with the FSA/FCA rules on calculating PPI redress.

 

We have followed up our findings for 10 long months now. But neither the FCA nor the FOS appears to want to take any action!?

 

We would refer to the following:

 

If there is evidence of systematic mistakes by the banks then the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) should investigate and take tough action against any bank found breaching the rules. But even though we have provided extensive proof to both the FOS representative;

Ms. Vicki Mc Ausland; Lead Adjudicator and to;

Mr. Chris Preston, Manager – Specialist – Supervision Division and Mr. Martin Wheatley (CEO) of the FCA, none appear to have taken any action whatsoever!

 

We can of course provide our detailed analysis to back our assertions."

 

The Group considered that 10 months was sufficient time, in order to investigate.

But it has become clear that little or, nothing has been done;

we have indeed been more that patient!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That sounds great - we've given them enough time

 

.....is the " after assertions there for a reason ?

 

When is it going out .

GS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Further to Miaspa's interest rate sussing. Different reasoning/method: but I reckoned a long time ago that MBNA's magically-appearing (i.e. presented, not explicitly calculated) interest values were dubious too. I arrived at conclusion they used a form of account composition value-weighted averaging of different "bucket" rates to arrive at one they used - i.e. an average of their choice. Miaspa's version is much same thing, much more easy to understand, cleaner.

 

 

My complaint to FOS about MBNA featured two elements 1) Calculation Method [see last 33 pages of this thread!] and 2) Interest Rate Arrival Method - along with a few proofs on rates used based on unusual months and MBNA's SAR'd logs. Log records on months where account was almost all balance transfer at very low rate, showed some months had far more interest charged "for" me in logs, than "given" to me in redress ... sometimes by factor scales.

 

 

That has though ... yawn... been sitting underneath backlogged paper/file piles .. at FOS for a very long time ...

 

 

As said many times by many people ... method, rates, smokescreens ... its almost as though ... someone at the firm asked a few smart people to come up with multiple compounding subtle ways to reduce all this banker-bonus-draining PPI redress payments to an absolute minimum ... that they could kinda-deniably-get-away with if no one in authority could be bothered to look properly.

 

 

I am not sure if I am proud, or sad, or mad, (all I think) that we all here and in similar places have a far better grasp of this than "the professionals" - particularly after the "pros" have been nicely asked to investigate. Particularly by almost a year ago having been given, by interested amateurs, overkill-level primers, tools and guides on the true extent of the problem - all described to them in easy-follow-steps.

Worth recalling that we are the tiny minority of difficult-questioning-types and that the huge majority of people cynically/accidently disadvantaged by MBNA have no idea whatsoever that they were subject to procedures which reduced what they were entitled to. It is not just us that FOS and FCA are, apparently increasingly incompetently, dropping between two stools - there are very many thousands of people ... who may be just about to discover that MBNA were a little economical with the truth with their calculations of the PPI redress they received a while back. I estimated the number once based on MBNA's own compliance reporting figures - it is a huge amount of people.

 

 

And it looks like they won't be finding out from FOS. And it looks like they won't be finding out from FCA rulings. How difficult can it be for FOS/FCA, a year after receiving a mass complaint, to have one responsible and sufficiently-intelligent individual just examine the validity or otherwise of MBNA's inventions with their PPI redress calculations? So far I have seen or heard nothing from FOS cases, for one, beyond "eh, we asked MBNA and they took a while, but eventually told us it was different but perfectly OK and not to worry".

 

 

It would only take one reasonably clued person at FOS or FCA to take the small effort to check beyond the astonishingly gullible "bank-says-no" apathy levels; check the results of a proper consideration; and share that around. I have seen no signs that anyone at FOS for one has spent more than a very few minutes on the question, or truly understands there is even any issue here at all.

 

 

There are literate and numerate but not financial people here and hereabouts who have been studying MBNA's PPI method on-and-off for two years. Motivated through mutual understanding, achieved through conversation, most people following this thread have a good appreciation of what has been done. FOS seem to be incapable of treating anything beyond individual everyone-start-from-scratch responses of "eh, you are actually questioning a bank's standard procedure, really?" being the first uninformed but nicely enough put response from caseworkers. On MBNA methodology then ... no conversation internally at FOS/FCA, or between them. No checking. No understanding. And no motivation to do so it seems.

 

 

Why can we all understand at least most of "it" when the regulator and adjudicator cannot? FOS particularly are take-in so very regularly it seems by purely just the level-one enabling smokescreen bits ... that they cannot even think to check basics. In the simplest possible terms: If MBNA's method truly was a fair one, then it would produce similar ballpark figures to other known fair methods. Check any few examples ... they will not. Many will be 40%-60% less than they should be. Then ... start to ask why ... ???

 

 

Unless the industry regulating and adjudicating bodies start to ask pointed and interesting (and followed up) questions to a firm under their jurisdiction ... then ... those bodies themselves can only expect pointed and interesting and followed up questions ... and this is starting to happen. While I have some sympathy and don't believe it is necessarily any single individual's fault ... there seems to be no desks that the buck does not do a quick traverse over. Almost a year ago a substantial portfolio of relevant information that some people here refer to occasionally to was sent to FCA. This was in addition to individual "mass" complaints to FOS. This was made available to the people identified as being the right people to receive this information by the heads of their organisations, who had been nicely asked who was best person to receive. FCA, at one rank level anyway, decidedly understood it all well enough to be able to describe the essentials themselves to other people.

 

 

Lack of joined-up thinking, outmoded compartmentisation, lack of nerve, apathy, cognitive inability, under-resourcing, credulity, underprioritisation, or mutual self interest with firms? Take your pick, but expect some more public debate on the reasons behind this regulatory failure to take in an interest in where the watchdogs themselves were being misled just as much as the public was. Joe/Jo Public was not willingly or negligently misled, as suspiciously overcomplex-for-a-reason procedures had not been in any way drawn to their attention. Named people at industry bodies ... have no such excuse ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said !

 

Thinking about the skill set of the adjudicators at the FOS from miaspa's post in an email from his case worker -

 

Thank you for your email. I think I have got to the bottom of it. The figure £5,361.76 is the PPIlink3.gif premiums and associated interestlink3.gif you paid.

 

I would worry about the fact that he / she THINKS that they have got to the bottom of it. Would anyone be happy to agree to the decision made by a adjudicator who is obviously unsure about what they are talking about. It is so obvious that they do not understand the basics of what miaspa is complaining about..............

 

When does the open letter go out please?

GS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Further to Miaspa's interest rate sussing. Different reasoning/method: but I reckoned a long time ago that MBNA's magically-appearing (i.e. presented, not explicitly calculated) interest values were dubious too. I arrived at conclusion they used a form of account composition value-weighted averaging of different "bucket" rates to arrive at one they used - i.e. an average of their choice. Miaspa's version is much same thing, much more easy to understand, cleaner.

 

 

My complaint to FOS about MBNA featured two elements 1) Calculation Method [see last 33 pages of this thread!] and 2) Interest Rate Arrival Method - along with a few proofs on rates used based on unusual months and MBNA's SAR'd logs. Log records on months where account was almost all balance transfer at very low rate, showed some months had far more interest charged "for" me in logs, than "given" to me in redress ... sometimes by factor scales.

 

 

That has though ... yawn... been sitting underneath backlogged paper/file piles .. at FOS for a very long time ...

 

 

As said many times by many people ... method, rates, smokescreens ... its almost as though ... someone at the firm asked a few smart people to come up with multiple compounding subtle ways to reduce all this banker-bonus-draining PPI redress payments to an absolute minimum ... that they could kinda-deniably-get-away with if no one in authority could be bothered to look properly.

 

 

I am not sure if I am proud, or sad, or mad, (all I think) that we all here and in similar places have a far better grasp of this than "the professionals" - particularly after the "pros" have been nicely asked to investigate. Particularly by almost a year ago having been given, by interested amateurs, overkill-level primers, tools and guides on the true extent of the problem - all described to them in easy-follow-steps.

Worth recalling that we are the tiny minority of difficult-questioning-types and that the huge majority of people cynically/accidently disadvantaged by MBNA have no idea whatsoever that they were subject to procedures which reduced what they were entitled to. It is not just us that FOS and FCA are, apparently increasingly incompetently, dropping between two stools - there are very many thousands of people ... who may be just about to discover that MBNA were a little economical with the truth with their calculations of the PPI redress they received a while back. I estimated the number once based on MBNA's own compliance reporting figures - it is a huge amount of people.

 

 

And it looks like they won't be finding out from FOS. And it looks like they won't be finding out from FCA rulings. How difficult can it be for FOS/FCA, a year after receiving a mass complaint, to have one responsible and sufficiently-intelligent individual just examine the validity or otherwise of MBNA's inventions with their PPI redress calculations? So far I have seen or heard nothing from FOS cases, for one, beyond "eh, we asked MBNA and they took a while, but eventually told us it was different but perfectly OK and not to worry".

 

 

It would only take one reasonably clued person at FOS or FCA to take the small effort to check beyond the astonishingly gullible "bank-says-no" apathy levels; check the results of a proper consideration; and share that around. I have seen no signs that anyone at FOS for one has spent more than a very few minutes on the question, or truly understands there is even any issue here at all.

 

 

There are literate and numerate but not financial people here and hereabouts who have been studying MBNA's PPI method on-and-off for two years. Motivated through mutual understanding, achieved through conversation, most people following this thread have a good appreciation of what has been done. FOS seem to be incapable of treating anything beyond individual everyone-start-from-scratch responses of "eh, you are actually questioning a bank's standard procedure, really?" being the first uninformed but nicely enough put response from caseworkers. On MBNA methodology then ... no conversation internally at FOS/FCA, or between them. No checking. No understanding. And no motivation to do so it seems.

 

 

Why can we all understand at least most of "it" when the regulator and adjudicator cannot? FOS particularly are take-in so very regularly it seems by purely just the level-one enabling smokescreen bits ... that they cannot even think to check basics. In the simplest possible terms: If MBNA's method truly was a fair one, then it would produce similar ballpark figures to other known fair methods. Check any few examples ... they will not. Many will be 40%-60% less than they should be. Then ... start to ask why ... ???

 

 

Unless the industry regulating and adjudicating bodies start to ask pointed and interesting (and followed up) questions to a firm under their jurisdiction ... then ... those bodies themselves can only expect pointed and interesting and followed up questions ... and this is starting to happen. While I have some sympathy and don't believe it is necessarily any single individual's fault ... there seems to be no desks that the buck does not do a quick traverse over. Almost a year ago a substantial portfolio of relevant information that some people here refer to occasionally to was sent to FCA. This was in addition to individual "mass" complaints to FOS. This was made available to the people identified as being the right people to receive this information by the heads of their organisations, who had been nicely asked who was best person to receive. FCA, at one rank level anyway, decidedly understood it all well enough to be able to describe the essentials themselves to other people.

 

 

Lack of joined-up thinking, outmoded compartmentisation, lack of nerve, apathy, cognitive inability, under-resourcing, credulity, underprioritisation, or mutual self interest with firms? Take your pick, but expect some more public debate on the reasons behind this regulatory failure to take in an interest in where the watchdogs themselves were being misled just as much as the public was. Joe/Jo Public was not willingly or negligently misled, as suspiciously overcomplex-for-a-reason procedures had not been in any way drawn to their attention. Named people at industry bodies ... have no such excuse ...

 

 

The following may explain a lot!

 

http://minibondsoctaveconstellation.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/mr-martin-wheatley.html

 

http://stockmarketmanipulaters.blogspot.co.uk/2009/08/shame-on-sfc-martin-wheatley-go-home.html

 

Why is this man in his position?

We don't think that the Treasury Select Committee approved him!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Miaspa

 

Totally agree. No justification at all. What do FOS not get. Its all made up but the sad thing its made up to allow the bank to cut redress.

 

Sure is!!!

 

As more of a personal challenge rather than anything on and off for the past two years been trying to get a spreadsheet working that’s starts off with the standard PPI redress calculation but has the MBNA twist.

 

The twist being in any month I could put an F or an M in a column and the spreadsheet would replicate MBNA’s calculation.

 

The interest rate was always the stumbling block but Sunvin redress calculation helped me sort that out.

 

I must admit as I put in my first couple of “M’s” in I was getting minor rounding differences but nothing major it was only a penny off MBNA’s figures.

 

I then hit my first “F” and this is the issue.

 

Restated Balance per MBNA and my spreadsheet £1,643.97

 

Actual payment £1,750

 

So my spreadsheet correctly worked out £1,750 less £1,643.97 is 106.03, and moved this to surplus redress and knocked it off the card redress, but my card redress figure brought forward was only £84.06 so I now had a negative card redress figure. MBNA didn’t that’s odd.

 

How did they get round that? On their redress calculation the full payment is £1,665.94. Where did that figure come from its not the restated balance it’s a no nothing figure picked out of thin air.

 

But take £1,665.94 from £1,750 and you get £84.06.

 

What’s so important about £84.06, oh it the balance of my card redress.

 

The cheeky gits, they have just made up a restated payment to clear the card redress and stop it getting associated interest and let it sit for 15 years getting 8% simple.

 

Don’t believe me look at my redress calculation on page 26 of this thread it’s the first “F” in September 1999.

 

Oh dear MBNA!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Latest email from my adjudicator explaining why the interest rates vary so much:

 

The variable interest rate is due to the fact you would have had different interest rates for

different uses of the card. So the interest rate for a purchase would be different to the rate on balance transfers or cash withdrawals. Because of this difference they are unable to put one interest rate down. Therefore as you stated they work out the average interest rate using the formula you mentioned.

 

suvin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Latest email from my adjudicator explaining why the interest rates vary so much:

 

The variable interest rate is due to the fact you would have had different interest rates for

different uses of the card. So the interest rate for a purchase would be different to the rate on balance transfers or cash withdrawals. Because of this difference they are unable to put one interest rate down. Therefore as you stated they work out the average interest rate using the formula you mentioned.

 

suvin

 

But only one rate would apply to the PPI it's MBNA's credit card they should know what rate that is!

 

Are the Fos really this gullible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But only one rate would apply to the PPI it's MBNA's credit card they should know what rate that is!

 

Are the Fos really this gullible?

 

The interest rate for PPI premiums will be exactly the same as any other purchase, PPI payment premiums are simply transactions on the card. Yes of course, MBNA would know what the interest rate would have been and so would we if we had the exact month/year/type of cc card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a fictional friend Professor Bob.

He took out a MBNA Credit Card, which a zero rate APR for the lifetime of the balance transfer.

The APR on Purchases was 26.82% but Bobs not worried he only wants it for the balance transfer.

Bob being a Maths teacher work out that if MBNA take a minimum payment of 10% of the previous months balance by Direct Debit he can cancel the DD in Month 39 pay £91.24 and the balance is cleared.

(See Prof Bob 1)

Bob doesn’t look at his statements until month 39 but in month 39 his still has balance of £171.26.

He thinks that’s odd digs out his statements and notices PPI and interest on them. He summarises all the statements in a spreadsheet.

(See Prof Bob 2)

Being up on his current affairs he is aware of a PPI scandal and complains to the FOS, who remarkable emails him back the same day upholding his complaint.

Bob looks at his summary of statements and works out the PPI and associated interest total £883.05.

Fairly easy, he only has to add the PPI and interest together.

MBNA are equally on the ball and offer him.

Refund of PPI 564.55

Assoc Interest 77.91

8% Simple 78.74

Total £721.19

They will also deduct 20% tax on the 8% simple plus take off his restated balance of £107.97.

So his total refund is £600.10

Bob’s mightily confused and ask MBNA for a copy of his redress calculation. Whats all these “M’s ” and surplus redress.

(See Prof Bob 3)

He complains to the FOS, who say MBNA have confirmed it’s all OK.

Bobs short of £282.95, confused and a bit disgruntled starts a thread on a consumer forum which goes on for 2 year and 33 pages.

To this day he is still short of £282.95, but has learnt a new form of maths courtesy of MBNA!

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...