Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • nothing you can do can product against the very rare judge lottery syndrome.
    • not sure why you added the blue line I've highlighted? that's no in the we gave you.   as for your question... PRAC's roboclaim computer knows when the account was taken out, after all it raised the claim and checked everything carefully first before issuing the request via northants bulk courts equally inept roboclaim computer... 
    • I've been researching in preparation of compiling my particularised defence/WS.    I'm none too happy that some judges still seem to be siding with DCAs and seemingly brushing aside anything that we have assumed to be "necessary" for DCAs to have a winning case.    Reading a recent "summary" from another poster (another thread with case similar to mine - very old, illegible application form, no default notice, reliance on their own software to prove it was ever sent) and the judgment made in favour of the DCA and even suggesting that there was no "agreement with the DCA, they simply owned the debt, not the agreement"  Makes me very nervous.    Especially if cases like this will be judged on "probability" - the probability that if I signed the original application form, then I must have taken out the credit card and racked up the alleged debt as shown in statements enclosed in their WS (and dated some ten years later).   Is it ok to post some "evidence" I've found from elsewhere?    This is in line with my fears that regardless of how hard one tries to rebut the "lack of evidence" produced by DCAs for chasing these very old "alleged" debts, it does appear to come down to the luck of what judge you get on the day and how much they can be swayed by the DCA solicitor.    A quick Google search produced the following - from one case - this related to a credit agreement - which resulted in someone being made bankrupt - that person appealed the bankruptcy order on the grounds of defective credit agreement and default notice and this was the appeal judge's decision:   The necessary formalities for the entry into the regulated consumer credit agreement (which related to the debt in issue) were not complied with; The default notice served in respect of that credit agreement was defective.   The First Ground The Appellant argued that she did not receive the terms and conditions when she entered into the credit agreement and, accordingly, section 61 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (“CCA”) had not been complied with and the agreement could not be enforced. The agreement had been entered in 1995 and, whilst it had provided a microfiche copy of the front page of the application, the Respondent had been unable to provide a copy of the terms.   Despite the terms not being produced, the District Judge had found that, in the circumstances, it was very likely that such terms existed and would have been provided to the Appellant when she entered into the Agreement. Mr Justice Mann held that this was a finding that the District Judge was entitled to make.   Further, Mr Justice Mann found that it was implicit from the District Judge’s findings that she considered that the terms and conditions not only existed but had been subscribed to by the Appellant’s signature and, consequently, the requirements of section 61 CCA were fulfilled. Mr Justice Mann held that this was also a justifiable finding which should not be interfered with on appeal.   The Second Ground The Appellant also argued that the default notice upon which the Respondent relied did not comply with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notice) Regulations 1989 because it stated the full balance of the account rather than the total of the missed payments. The Respondent argued that, as a result of the missed payments, it was contractually entitled to the entire balance subject to the service of the appropriate notice, a requirement which was fulfilled by the default notice itself and, consequently, the sum required to remedy the breach was the entire amount.   Mr Justice Mann agreed with the Respondent and the District Judge, holding that: “If by the time the default notice is served circumstances have arisen which entitle the lender to recover not merely sums which might be regarded as arrears, by which I assume is meant accumulated minimum payments, but also the whole of the sum, then they are entitled to claim that sum, and the sum to require to remedy the breach for non-payment of that sum is the payment of the whole sum due. The bank is not confined, at that stage, to claiming merely the amount of arrears if it has an accrued contractual right to have the whole of the sum.”   Do judgments like these not mean that a lot of what you guys do on here (and for which I and many others are VERY grateful) somewhat redundant. What is happening to judges just accepting "well, the terms must have been there if you signed it" -    Feeling quite nervous now.
    • we know it wasn't done to avoid enforcement we understand completely. but that doesn't take from away the fact that it happened   you can't appeal the pcn's on the basis that 'it was not his vehicle to levy upon'. the law clearly states otherwise.          
    • here is a question for you, is yu house divided up into a retail/business area  and domestic area for business rates purposes? If not why on earth are you paying business water rates? ceertainly not for tax purposes as you can claim any legit expense without having to reclassify your home as a business premises. i would be stopping this nonsense and goping back to whatever water supplier is the domestic one for your area. there is stuff all they can do to get the £40 from you whan you do that.
  • Our picks

AfterMidnight

MBNA PPI Award “Interpretative” Calculations?

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 981 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

Good stuff here recently - thanks to all.

 

 

1) Current barrier to justice ... can be summarised as FOS (and FCA) having decided to look at claims purely individually only. Their half-derriered kinda-conclusion to mass complaint - was that MBNA can do what MBNA like (as long as MBNA think that is fair), and ... they were helpfully assisted to this conclusion by MBNA, when they asked if it was all OK.

 

 

2) Despite that conclusion going against entire tranches of industry regulator's and industry adjudicator's own publically accessible written and spoken words, it has a fundamental problem: Bank think fair.

 

 

3) The story is becoming a very interesting one indeed now. Several industry oversight personnel are on written record as saying that for PPI redress calculations, as long as the firm reports that the firm thinks it is fair and appropriate ... the firm can do whatever entirely takes their fancy. Talk about a licence for spreadsheet-fun from the like of MBNA. Talk about organisations that blissfully-ignorantly entirely miss the point as to why they are paid. You couldn't make it up.

 

 

I hear those fan blades starting to whir up...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/james-quinn/8274701/Martin-Wheatley-will-Hong-Kongs-loss-be-Londons-gain.html

 

Quote from the Telegraph 2011:

 

"It also appears that his time in the former British colony – he has been there for six years and will step down in the spring – was far from a walk in the park.

Reports at the time he announced his departure from the Hong Kong regulator pointed to the fact that locals were so dissatisfied with his work in relation to loss-making Lehman mini-bonds that they burnt his picture outside the regulator's offices and blasted Chinese funeral music outside.

Maybe Hong Kong's loss won't be London's gain after all?"

Edited by angry cat
addendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good stuff here recently - thanks to all.

 

 

1) Current barrier to justice ... can be summarised as FOS (and FCA) having decided to look at claims purely individually only. Their half-derriered kinda-conclusion to mass complaint - was that MBNA can do what MBNA like (as long as MBNA think that is fair), and ... they were helpfully assisted to this conclusion by MBNA, when they asked if it was all OK.

 

 

2) Despite that conclusion going against entire tranches of industry regulator's and industry adjudicator's own publically accessible written and spoken words, it has a fundamental problem: Bank think fair.

 

 

3) The story is becoming a very interesting one indeed now. Several industry oversight personnel are on written record as saying that for PPI redress calculations, as long as the firm reports that the firm thinks it is fair and appropriate ... the firm can do whatever entirely takes their fancy. Talk about a licence for spreadsheet-fun from the like of MBNA. Talk about organisations that blissfully-ignorantly entirely miss the point as to why they are paid. You couldn't make it up.

 

 

I hear those fan blades starting to whir up...

 

Very well put, AMN!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That sounds great - we've given them enough time .....

 

When is it going out .

GS

 

It has been released!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always knew this would happen and to be quite frank needs to.

 

 

As you are already aware I have fought a battle along with everybody else on this thread

and I am sure many others who have secretly been following events on this thread

and achieved the goal that everyone wants of a recalculation.

 

 

Though for me the battle still continues as I try to pre-empt what MBNA will come up with next.

 

 

I hope my battle will end with my recalculation and hopefully bring good news to this thread and my MP.

 

 

Though the battle I have been fighting leaves me totally at a loss as to why I have had to do this in the first place.

 

 

I am not alone of course and the advise and support I have received on this thread is unmeasureable.

Though make no mistake I have done the job of the FOS as so many of us on this thread have done.

 

 

I have spent a year proving to an adjudicator that the alternative redress method is not in FOS guidelines

and cheated me out of thousands a adjudicator who from day one after having asked

if MBNA had followed FOS guidelines was fully convinced what I had been given is correct when MBNA blatantly lied

and told them guidelines had been followed.

 

 

For me the biggest mistake being made by the FOS Also taking as gospel answers from a lender

who you have allowed to use an alternative method of redress calculation,

and not carrying out checks on a percentage of their cases calculated to ensure fairness given

that you openly admit that you do not carry out redress calculations yourself allowing the lender to correct themselves

and redeem themselves to that individual ? a recipe for disaster

 

 

Let the battle commence !!

 

 

QUOTE=angry cat;4651880]It has been released!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A little light relief:

 

 

I think it was maybe William Shakespeare who wrote The Merchant of Chester:

 

 

Scene 1: A Hypothetical Courtroom

 

 

Judge: (accompanied by general cheers from the galleries): "So, generally-detested money-merchant, you have been comprehensively proven to have taken the good people's money through trickery and near-deceit, and should now payest this back - along with all the ill-gotten gains of interest - on this accursed ppi and charges. So says this court!".

 

 

Defendant: "Yes, yes, your Honour, yesh, yesh, although (shifts from side to side) ... we still don't believe that really we deserve such ..."

 

 

Judge: "Silence!". (much cheering from galleries).

 

 

Judge: "By the authority of the rule of the land, I sentence you to payback every penny of these premiums." (crowds break out into beaming smiles and shake each others hands).

 

 

Judge: "Furthermore you shall indeed pay back all such interest on this, when indeed miss-sold, and all charges invoked furthermore too". (claps from back of courtroom resound heavily).

 

 

Judge: "And to make sure you fully do, without further likely chicanery, given such past experience: we have scribed rules and guidelines for you to do so ... (waves arms with a flourish) ... bring forth PS10/12".

 

 

Defendant: (whispers to self ,gloatingly) : "But, I have indeed read this document, and I thinketh that there may be room for sweetest cold revenge: there are perchance things I can get my most devious clercs to twist around and alloweth to take place - should you ever perhaps hold this document in a certain way, in a certain light, in a certain frame of mind, and merely overlook an error or two of our own ... which could anyway be claimed a genuine honest mistake, in the unlikely occasion that anyone ever askedeth".

 

 

Defendant: (initially aloud) : "We will do our best to Serve!": (then to self in low voice): "... serve ourselves, that is".

 

 

Judge: (addresses entire room) "Well there we have it". (turns gravely to the dock) : OK defendant, in all cases where miss-sale accepted, I sentence you ... to do ... whatever the helleth you like with your ruminations and calculus parchment, report back only what you see fit to the good people; ... but please do try to do what your goodselves think is fair."

 

 

Galleries (gasps of shock disbelief) ... a few voices rise ... "But Sire...", "Your Honour", "But Surely"...

 

 

Judge: "BUT, and it is indeed a big but ...there will be checks involved!" (crowds sigh in relief).

 

 

Judge: "We shall expensively convert the old quay building into a tower of righteousness ... by adding floors and storeys and hundreds upon hundreds of extra workers to check!" (crowd, half-heartedly, hurrahs).

 

 

Judge (to astonished gasps from everyone else, winking at defendant) : " My hundreds of workers will not stop until they have, without any doubt whatsoever, discharged their duty as they see it." "That solemn duty has two parts." ... (clears throat) ... "Firstly slowly check if PPI was miss-sold, if in doubt." ... (pauses for effect) ... "And secondly ... if The Tower wants to, re- interpret as they like the rules - to mean that if called upon to check any strangely low subsequent redress, then they can do two things." "Firstly, should they choose to, they might uncritically, and without pause for actual thought - purely only just ask the defendant if the defendant thinks the defendant has been fair, in the defendants' own rather-too-complex-to-check alternative abacus-work." .. (final wink to defendant) ..." Then relentlessly, stoically and stoutly ... accept all the defendant's answers at face-value, if they so desire, without bothering to do anything beyond a mere-surface check, if that."

 

 

(to general groans all-round, except from the dock, curtain falls)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suvin this is the arguement I used with MBNA which they were supposed to reply to by the 14th November.

 

Unfortunately they haven't replied and my adjucator I guess can't force MBNA's hand on getting a reply anytime soon.

 

MBNA's minimum payments are a set amount of the previous months balance, usually 10% of APR based on my own statements.

 

If you look at your restated payments the percentage of the minimum payments based on the oprevious months balance are very inconsistent, there is no set pattern.

 

On my statements I had a consistent minimum payment percentage when paying by DD, so would expect others to follow that pattern.

 

The ones hi lighted yellow I guess were at a time you were in some sort of payment plan. I would argue this were payments agreed with MBNA as payments you could resonably afford to make. Even if the balance had been lower the payments would have remained the same. MBNA woud of looked at maximising these payments and if you look at the percentage rate it's a lot lower than the other "minimum" rates.

 

I would still argue you disagree with the calculation method, but get them thinking about the minimums as being incorrect aswell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have attched a schedule of my own payments made by DD, which prove a consistent % rate on minimum payments to confirm the above.

 

Mbna's next arguement will be but you have missed payments so the minimums will fluctuate but my schedule of DD's also counter that arguement.

 

This is from my email to my adjudicator, and shows how great MBNA are rolling over the consumer and sticking it to them.

 

Finally we have the payments all by DD, as can be seen everything looks fine and also proves the relationship of minimum payment compared to prior months balance.

 

Apart from one issue, the December 2006 DD payment of £94.73 was never made. MBNA tried to take the DD on 25th November and it failed, reason for failure no system. Actually the 25th November was a Saturday and DD’s never take place over a weekend. Which leads me to my point, how can any payment between January 2007 and December 2007 be reclassified as a minimum payment as it was late payment of the previous month that had been missed. I can easily justify this point as each month between January 2007 and December 2008 I was charged £12 for late payment charges. £300 in charges because MBNA tried to take a DD on weekend. (my fault for not looking at statements in detail, but slightly excessive).

 

 

MBNA used this continued default as an excuse to to increase my APR from 27.5% to 35%. Look at the balance also I'm paying just over £100 a month but my balance increases by between £10 and £15 a month. The card hasn't been used since 2005.

 

 

Effectively if you take the PPI and the charges MBNA were adding an APR of 40% on the card during 2007

 

 

The next year 2008 it hits the heady heights of 44%.

 

All because MBNA tried to take a DD on a Saturday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Miasma

 

 

The payments you have highlighted were an agreed plan with MBNA. I have pointed this out to the adjudicator and await his response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Englich was never my strong point, but didn't Shakespere write comedies or tragedies.

 

Not comic tragedies?

 

Amused me, though!

 

A little light relief:

 

 

I think it was maybe William Shakespeare who wrote The Merchant of Chester:

 

 

Scene 1: A Hypothetical Courtroom

 

 

Judge: (accompanied by general cheers from the galleries): "So, generally-detested money-merchant, you have been comprehensively proven to have taken the good people's money through trickery and near-deceit, and should now payest this back - along with all the ill-gotten gains of interest - on this accursed ppi and charges. So says this court!".

 

 

Defendant: "Yes, yes, your Honour, yesh, yesh, although (shifts from side to side) ... we still don't believe that really we deserve such ..."

 

 

Judge: "Silence!". (much cheering from galleries).

 

 

Judge: "By the authority of the rule of the land, I sentence you to payback every penny of these premiums." (crowds break out into beaming smiles and shake each others hands).

 

 

Judge: "Furthermore you shall indeed pay back all such interest on this, when indeed miss-sold, and all charges invoked furthermore too". (claps from back of courtroom resound heavily).

 

 

Judge: "And to make sure you fully do, without further likely chicanery, given such past experience: we have scribed rules and guidelines for you to do so ... (waves arms with a flourish) ... bring forth PS10/12".

 

 

Defendant: (whispers to self ,gloatingly) : "But, I have indeed read this document, and I thinketh that there may be room for sweetest cold revenge: there are perchance things I can get my most devious clercs to twist around and alloweth to take place - should you ever perhaps hold this document in a certain way, in a certain light, in a certain frame of mind, and merely overlook an error or two of our own ... which could anyway be claimed a genuine honest mistake, in the unlikely occasion that anyone ever askedeth".

 

 

Defendant: (initially aloud) : "We will do our best to Serve!": (then to self in low voice): "... serve ourselves, that is".

 

 

Judge: (addresses entire room) "Well there we have it". (turns gravely to the dock) : OK defendant, in all cases where miss-sale accepted, I sentence you ... to do ... whatever the helleth you like with your ruminations and calculus parchment, report back only what you see fit to the good people; ... but please do try to do what your goodselves think is fair."

 

 

Galleries (gasps of shock disbelief) ... a few voices rise ... "But Sire...", "Your Honour", "But Surely"...

 

 

Judge: "BUT, and it is indeed a big but ...there will be checks involved!" (crowds sigh in relief).

 

 

Judge: "We shall expensively convert the old quay building into a tower of righteousness ... by adding floors and storeys and hundreds upon hundreds of extra workers to check!" (crowd, half-heartedly, hurrahs).

 

 

Judge (to astonished gasps from everyone else, winking at defendant) : " My hundreds of workers will not stop until they have, without any doubt whatsoever, discharged their duty as they see it." "That solemn duty has two parts." ... (clears throat) ... "Firstly slowly check if PPI was miss-sold, if in doubt." ... (pauses for effect) ... "And secondly ... if The Tower wants to, re- interpret as they like the rules - to mean that if called upon to check any strangely low subsequent redress, then they can do two things." "Firstly, should they choose to, they might uncritically, and without pause for actual thought - purely only just ask the defendant if the defendant thinks the defendant has been fair, in the defendants' own rather-too-complex-to-check alternative abacus-work." .. (final wink to defendant) ..." Then relentlessly, stoically and stoutly ... accept all the defendant's answers at face-value, if they so desire, without bothering to do anything beyond a mere-surface check, if that."

 

 

(to general groans all-round, except from the dock, curtain falls)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A little light relief:

 

 

I think it was maybe William Shakespeare who wrote The Merchant of Chester:

 

 

Scene 1: A Hypothetical Courtroom

 

 

Judge: (accompanied by general cheers from the galleries): "So, generally-detested money-merchant, you have been comprehensively proven to have taken the good people's money through trickery and near-deceit, and should now payest this back - along with all the ill-gotten gains of interest - on this accursed ppi and charges. So says this court!".

 

 

Defendant: "Yes, yes, your Honour, yesh, yesh, although (shifts from side to side) ... we still don't believe that really we deserve such ..."

 

 

Judge: "Silence!". (much cheering from galleries).

 

 

Judge: "By the authority of the rule of the land, I sentence you to payback every penny of these premiums." (crowds break out into beaming smiles and shake each others hands).

 

 

Judge: "Furthermore you shall indeed pay back all such interest on this, when indeed miss-sold, and all charges invoked furthermore too". (claps from back of courtroom resound heavily).

 

 

Judge: "And to make sure you fully do, without further likely chicanery, given such past experience: we have scribed rules and guidelines for you to do so ... (waves arms with a flourish) ... bring forth PS10/12".

 

 

Defendant: (whispers to self ,gloatingly) : "But, I have indeed read this document, and I thinketh that there may be room for sweetest cold revenge: there are perchance things I can get my most devious clercs to twist around and alloweth to take place - should you ever perhaps hold this document in a certain way, in a certain light, in a certain frame of mind, and merely overlook an error or two of our own ... which could anyway be claimed a genuine honest mistake, in the unlikely occasion that anyone ever askedeth".

 

 

Defendant: (initially aloud) : "We will do our best to Serve!": (then to self in low voice): "... serve ourselves, that is".

 

 

Judge: (addresses entire room) "Well there we have it". (turns gravely to the dock) : OK defendant, in all cases where miss-sale accepted, I sentence you ... to do ... whatever the helleth you like with your ruminations and calculus parchment, report back only what you see fit to the good people; ... but please do try to do what your goodselves think is fair."

 

 

Galleries (gasps of shock disbelief) ... a few voices rise ... "But Sire...", "Your Honour", "But Surely"...

 

 

Judge: "BUT, and it is indeed a big but ...there will be checks involved!" (crowds sigh in relief).

 

 

Judge: "We shall expensively convert the old quay building into a tower of righteousness ... by adding floors and storeys and hundreds upon hundreds of extra workers to check!" (crowd, half-heartedly, hurrahs).

 

 

Judge (to astonished gasps from everyone else, winking at defendant) : " My hundreds of workers will not stop until they have, without any doubt whatsoever, discharged their duty as they see it." "That solemn duty has two parts." ... (clears throat) ... "Firstly slowly check if PPI was miss-sold, if in doubt." ... (pauses for effect) ... "And secondly ... if The Tower wants to, re- interpret as they like the rules - to mean that if called upon to check any strangely low subsequent redress, then they can do two things." "Firstly, should they choose to, they might uncritically, and without pause for actual thought - purely only just ask the defendant if the defendant thinks the defendant has been fair, in the defendants' own rather-too-complex-to-check alternative abacus-work." .. (final wink to defendant) ..." Then relentlessly, stoically and stoutly ... accept all the defendant's answers at face-value, if they so desire, without bothering to do anything beyond a mere-surface check, if that."

 

 

(to general groans all-round, except from the dock, curtain falls)

 

What a pity that it isn't real.

One can just visualise the miserable wretches being dragged out of Chester Towers and all the while being pelted with rotten fruit etc...

shacked to the stocks during their interrogations by the Judge!

 

We know full well that Banks do not tell the truth e.g. RBS this very week...

Edited by angry cat
freudian slip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MBNA are still dragging there heels two weeks since they were supposed to respond about restated minimums and fulls, and nothing. Maybe they need a bit more time to hoodwink the FOS.

 

Never mind my own adjudicator and Ms McAusland have now met Prof Bob, and also been shown fictitional full payments. I guess the answer will be it's ok cos MBNA said it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://web.orange.co.uk/article/news/fca_boss_gives_up_bonus_over_pension_gaffe

 

The damning report has been released and can be read in the Financial Times...!

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a55b80e8-7eea-11e4-a828-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3LUQK2rOV

Edited by angry cat
after thought

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.fca.org.uk/your-fca/documents/reports/davis-inquiry-report

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30397041

 

I seem to remember similar happened in Hong Kong, Mr. Wheatley!!!

 

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

 

When on earth are we going to have a Regulator who Regulates?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.fca.org.uk/your-fca/documents/reports/davis-inquiry-report

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30397041

 

I seem to remember similar happened in Hong Kong, Mr. Wheatley!!!

 

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

 

When on earth are we going to have a Regulator who Regulates?

 

 

Millions written off the quoted price off pension providers due to the incompetence of Mr Wheatley and his minions, the only penalty is they lose their bonus, and one goes on gardening leave for six months.

 

 

Its now a month since MBNA's deadline to respond to my adjudicator about restated minimums and fictional fulls. Guess what not a dickey bird from MBNA, its about time the FCA gave the FOS some teeth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did we get any reaction from our letter to the press. I know that they will need to make their own investigations but it would be nice to know if contact had been made.

 

Thank you

GS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Latest response from my adjudicator:

 

 

Thank you for your email.

 

I know when we originally corresponded you were unhappy with the discrepancy between the two offers made in April 2012 and July 2013. I hope I have gone some way in explaining why the figures differed and the fault in MBNA’s original calculator. In light of that information, apart from the fees and charges issue, could you briefly explain why you think the offer is too low and not within our guidelines.

 

 

He still believes that there was a fault in the original calculations. I know that they are just clerical workers but they should not be allowed to offer opinions without proof to back them up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suvin (I got it right this time)

 

 

The fault does not lie with the first calculation its inline with FOS guidelines (apart from the monthly interest rate for associated interest and no refund of charges). The fault is in the second calculation.

 

 

The restatement of payments to minimums when they are obviously not is incorrect.

 

 

The non application of statutory interest because of default status is incorrect.

 

 

The monthly rate of associated interest is incorrect.

 

 

No refund of charges is incorrect

 

 

Perhaps you could ask for someone with a financial background maybe ACCA or ICAEW qualified to review the calculations rather than a glorified call centre operative.

 

 

Its about time the FOS woke up!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Latest response from my adjudicator:

 

 

Thank you for your email.

 

I know when we originally corresponded you were unhappy with the discrepancy between the two offers made in April 2012 and July 2013. I hope I have gone some way in explaining why the figures differed and the fault in MBNA’s original calculator. In light of that information, apart from the fees and charges issue, could you briefly explain why you think the offer is too low and not within our guidelines.

 

 

He still believes that there was a fault in the original calculations. I know that they are just clerical workers but they should not be allowed to offer opinions without proof to back them up.

Edited by Miaspa 2010
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets look at FOS current vacancies and the job description for an adjudicator.

 

 

So really no qualifications, no financial background, no wonder they don't get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post Miaspa ( got that right). I am away now till the new year but will be pressing this in January. Thanks for all your input.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did we get any reaction from our letter to the press. I know that they will need to make their own investigations but it would be nice to know if contact had been made.

 

Thank you

GS

 

Rest assured that we are still on the case;

these things do take time!

 

Our original Press release was sent out via Marc Gander (BankFodder).

Other journalists are in the process of being contacted by our Group...

 

Patience is a Virtue!

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...