Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


AfterMidnight

MBNA PPI Award “Interpretative” Calculations?

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1030 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

Does Ms Wayman have an email address?

-

I had a look earlier, and couldn't find, but by deduction as good as any guess, presumably:

 

 

a) It is caroline.wayman@financial-ombudsman.org.uk

b) She will have her mail usefully screened for her by her assisting staff.

One point to philosophically bear in mind is that, I have noted from a distance, the FOS process is a multi-tier one - and employs an attrition mechanism:

i) One waits for ages, and a percentage will die over a year or two, or emigrate, or lose interest from initial their initial fire. Then the adjudicator simply shares a simplified version of your complaint with the firm.

ii) On receiving a response, an adjudicator sends an initial "I am inclined to think" mail to one party or another, to see if that party is happy enough to just give up.

iii) If the bothersome contestant still doesn't accept ... that means the adjudicator may have to get their hands dirty and perhaps do more than the standard relaying, and the earlier process of simply just testing if they can now "close" the case. They call for more evidence or whatever and are forced to reopen it, albeit without much enthusiasm necessarily. And then after a little debate perhaps give their final adjudicator-level pronouncement in the hope that ends it there, and it is accepted by all as such.

iv) If that is not accepted the file joins a queue for an Ombudsman. Who will eventually open it, and see if they feel inclined to disagree with their esteemed colleague enough to suggest (shock, and glares in the canteen) that the original analysis was wrong - often giving their own "I am inclined to" mail, to see what happens.

v) The Ombudsman makes their irreversible decision and informs both parties, and it will eventually be published too.

So ... worth noting that the "initial decisions" are just part of the complaint milling process, and we should not be surprised (or disheartened) by the glib nature of these first put-offs if received. While they are annoying in-extremis, I would suggest constantly trying to help the FOS staff ask the right questions to do their job properly - in an assistive way if possible, as the best means of achieving what you want. Albeit ... through ... very ...gritted ... teeth.

AMN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does Ms Wayman have an email address?

-

I had a look earlier, and couldn't find, but by deduction as good as any guess, presumably:

 

 

a) It is caroline.wayman@financial-ombudsman.org.uk

b) She will have her mail usefully screened for her by her assisting staff.

One point to philosophically bear in mind is that, I have noted from a distance, the FOS process is a multi-tier one - and employs an attrition mechanism:

i) One waits for ages, and a percentage will die over a year or two, or emigrate, or lose interest from initial their initial fire. Then the adjudicator simply shares a simplified version of your complaint with the firm.

ii) On receiving a response, an adjudicator sends an initial "I am inclined to think" mail to one party or another, to see if that party is happy enough to just give up.

iii) If the bothersome contestant still doesn't accept ... that means the adjudicator may have to get their hands dirty and perhaps do more than the standard relaying, and the earlier process of simply just testing if they can now "close" the case. They call for more evidence or whatever and are forced to reopen it, albeit without much enthusiasm necessarily. And then after a little debate perhaps give their final adjudicator-level pronouncement in the hope that ends it there, and it is accepted by all as such.

iv) If that is not accepted the file joins a queue for an Ombudsman. Who will eventually open it, and see if they feel inclined to disagree with their esteemed colleague enough to suggest (shock, and glares in the canteen) that the original analysis was wrong - often giving their own "I am inclined to" mail, to see what happens.

v) The Ombudsman makes their irreversible decision and informs both parties, and it will eventually be published too.

So ... worth noting that the "initial decisions" are just part of the complaint milling process, and we should not be surprised (or disheartened) by the glib nature of these first put-offs if received. While they are annoying in-extremis, I would suggest constantly trying to help the FOS staff ask the right questions to do their job properly - in an assistive way if possible, as the best means of achieving what you want. Albeit ... through ... very ...gritted ... teeth.

AMN

 

 

Yes AMN, agree...

 

But remember, if all fails we must ALL consider taking a 'Class Action' against MBNA!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes AMN, agree...

 

But remember, if all fails we must ALL consider taking a 'Class Action' against MBNA!

 

agreed

 

I am also tempted to contact my MP really just to rattle their cage - luckily our MP is an ex barrister who takes a real interest in consumer issues and actually cares about his constituents

 

I would also be interested in how many of us have actually been allocated an adjudicator perhaps those of you who have could just post a quick yes ...... Including those who normally don't post please

Thank you

GS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
agreed

 

I am also tempted to contact my MP really just to rattle their cage - luckily our MP is an ex barrister who takes a real interest in consumer issues and actually cares about his constituents

 

I would also be interested in how many of us have actually been allocated an adjudicator perhaps those of you who have could just post a quick yes ...... Including those who normally don't post please

Thank you

GS

 

Good Morning!

 

Yes - I have not yet been allocated an FOS Adjudicator, even though my complaint has been logged with the FOS for quite some time,: approximately 18 months.

Also, it would appear that Ms McAusland has made no link/tie up between individual complaints made and those of us who sent out the mass complaint open letter.

I believe that is due to the manner in which their computer system works. I believe that it was designed along the lines of a 'Call Centre' or, 'Call Centres.

 

My MP is useless, the Government sacked him from a junior ministers position and he will not be standing for Parliament in May 2015. But as a sideline, he has just claimed within the region of £1000 for a new computer;

nice work is you can get it.

 

However, in May 2015 I will be going to my new MP to complain about MBNA (and Capital One). Hopefully the new MP will be keen to assist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
agreed

 

I would also be interested in how many of us have actually been allocated an adjudicator perhaps those of you who have could just post a quick yes ...... Including those who normally don't post please

Thank you

GS

 

 

I have an allocated adjudicator, and while I don't feel it would be appropriate to name them, it may be interesting to know if our cases have been randomly distributed across their many, many FOS staff who perform this role, or otherwise. In my case I am being handled by an individual with the initials "HT".

 

 

The frustrating thing about FOS is their "noble" insistence that each case should be handled on its own merits, in isolation therefor, and lack of much knowledge-based sharing (despite their ToolKit and CMS wisdom-sharing) to help staff form considered opinions on likelihood of credibility of complaints through FOS staff group knowledge of a potential issue. So, one complaining person could easily be viewed individually as something of a motivated issue-crank (to be therefor underestimated as worthy of serious consideration), as opposed to any picture emerging of a genuine wide-ranging issue worth investigating.

 

 

While FOS will not disclose under requests, I have seen, to the public, their intranet or knowledge-base advices available to staff, it beggars belief that each complainant has to try to uphill-struggle "educate" their sceptical case-handler of the simple point that a firm reporting compliance as being with guidelines ... may be worth fundamentally having that "reported fact" checked out. It is assumed by FOS that if the firm merely reports back, IMHO, that they are as practice undertaking guideline efforts to be fair, then that is uncritically then accepted as the firm's weighty opinion - to be stacked against a single complainant's isolated - and therefor thought-unlikely - view that the firm ... may be telling either deliberate or otherwise "porkies".

 

 

In my case it seems to be a case of "complainant thinks unreasonable, but firm have considered and replied that all is dandy - and have even given advice about what MBNA do being fair by describing a few high-moral sounding processes involved". So - complaint details are just sideline-able details in the eyes of this level of FOS staff decision-making. Rather than giving proper consideration, it seems to be a case of an adjudicator skimming the complaint and deciding on a simplified balance-of-probabilities that a bank would know better about their own methods than a complainant, who appears to be going into what appears to be giving unnecessary and probably ranted and presumably-misguided microdetail. The calculation would appear, while perhaps mildly different, as an under informed overview, to be doing the right-ish things anyway as far as it can be fathomed. MBNA's response of "its fine, and here are a few (unspecific to complaint!) procedural reasons why" seems to be given a lot of undue credence. Whither a reviewing next-level-up Ombudsman would take a similar view is unknown I believe at present, and this can be suspected to be similar, but the practice of taking the line of least resistance to "resolve" certainly seems to be in play so far.

 

 

Without meaning to get personal, all-in, I think the influence of a particular previous under-consideration by a Lead Adjudicator (Vicki, as per earlier in thread) is more at fault than straightforward junior staff trying to resolve things within practice and guidelines and received wisdom.

 

Maybe our next Class Action task (within parameters of the FOS system anyway) is a considered "group" individually-sent response sent by all (we may have taken our collective eye of the ball a bit, with non-disputing) specifically to Vicki, updated to mention that her "decision" is being referenced by FOS staff ...and it may well be in her interests to review 100% if that was done carefully enough ... and in her interests to get some second opinions from one of the 300O staff at FOS who may have the motivation and genuine capability to understand what the issue really is. The FOS handbooks and induction materials, available online if searched for, are all full of the alleged approachability of colleagues with specific functions who can be conferred with. A junior officer would, given the job-scope, feel perhaps that they don't want to be someone who questions organisational precedential consideration.

 

 

Should we be collectively perhaps (and nicely and civilly) through assistance shaming Vicki into making absolutely sure she has exhausted all internal resources to make sure she had reached the proper considered judgement that was requested of her? I feel a few bullet-points to be placed into letters or mails to Vicki that are largely built on personal style and experience might help - particularly if we keep it simple and understandable.

 

 

The big question is - if better to try to persuade individual adjudicators or ombudspersons that a single case is unfair to tumble-through accepted knowledge, or to try to persuade FOS & FCA (as tried previously, largely ignored or under considered) that they have been so far blissfully-ignoring an organised effort of alleged deception, or at the least misjudgement, by a specific bank, that has (my calculations, based on published FCA figures) undercompensated by a substantial sum each - something over two hundred thousand (200,000) individual MBNA customers - of whom we are but the (informed) tip of the ice-berg. As in, "Vicki ... that's worth checking properly surely ..."

AMN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems very clear to anyone with a modicum of common sense.

They prefer to deal with complaints individually in order that they can pick off each complex MBNA complaint one by one;

The FOS are not geared up or, are able to deal with mass complaints about a firm, which renders our situation an utter scandal!

And illustrates just how incompetent the FOS Adjudicators really are...

These people are NOT sufficiently experienced; they are NOT experienced RE the Maths calculations etc

They are paid same or similar to that of a Team Leader Shelf Stacker in Tesco or Debt Collectors in DCA Call Centre/Centres.

 

They are making decisions that they are not sufficiently qualified to make. And these decisions are cheating MBNA complainants out of miscalculated PPI redress due.

 

Time to make a FOI request as we need to know and have a right to know.

 

MBNA's cage has definitely not been rattled, why?

Why so cosy with MBNA and Wheatley?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AMN & everyone

 

 

I have been looking at this calculation method supplied by rib. I must say I don't understand how the method works but the columns and titles do appear to fall in line with PS/10/12 app 2 ex 6.

 

 

The point i want to make is that if this method is acceptable in being compliant with FCA/FOS guidelines then the question can be put to MBNA as to why they stopped using this method and started using the methods under the V20 builds which people on this thread have and have found to be purposely inaccurate in redress calculation.No doubt if this method was used on calculations as opposed to the V20 builds the redress amounts would differ.

Is it possible the geek could advise how this method works and is complaint with guidelines?

 

 

If this method is and as our are cases are being looked at individually.It may be worth each person putting to the FOS a method of proper redress calculations used by MBNA previously asking for redress to be run by this method and not the V20 builds to see the likely different redress amounts to rubbish the V20 builds

 

 

Leaving MBNA to explain and justify adopting the V20 builds .I wonder what they would come up with ?

 

 

Your comments please

 

 

QUOTE=AfterMidnight;4673880]If I recall correctly from earlier posts,

this was a calculation undertaken in late 2011, S'Rib.

 

 

MBNA have, according to anecdotal evidence, been doing "funny" things twice

- once were originally caught and prevented a few years back, then towed line for a while,

then had a go at a Mark II more devious bespoke version a couple of years back,

which is the latter one that most posts here refer to.

 

 

Can't speak for original "variation" but your calculation does not feature any of the later shenanigans,

and at first appearance looks like it would have little to obviously complain around in terms of obvious known MBNA "methods".

 

 

I would guess your calculation was in the intervening period where they were calculating far more in line with known normal expectations...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an adjudicator allocated, (MS).

 

 

The problem as I see it, is the FOS either don't understand or aren't asking MBNA the correct questions. My own adjudicator ignores the most pertinent points of my emails when querying MBNA.

 

 

Both Ms McAusland and MS my adjudicator have received the Professor Bob calculation which shows in a way a seven year old would understand how MBNA are manipulating redress. There has been limited response to the email that contained Bobs example. Other points raised in the same email have been addressed without satisfaction but poor old Bob generated nothing.

 

 

I may press the point further depending on the next response from my adjudicator, I have emailed Ms Wayman it wasn't sent back up as undeliverable but that hasn't raised a response either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The latest response.

 

 

Thank you for your email of 12 January 2015 and apologies for the delay in my response, I have been out of the office – returning yesterday.

I have spoken to MBNA and I have been provided with copy statements from January 2008 until January 2011 – I have attached them to this email though I don’t know whether the file size will be a problem or not. It has been confirmed by MBNA that these are the only available statements as they only retain copies for seven years.

I appreciate that you believe that MBNA has withheld statements to put consumers at a disadvantage. I cannot comment on why MBNA did not provide you with these statements, however I note that it is not uncommon for businesses to only retain certain information for a relatively short period of time.

I have reviewed PS10/12 and I understand that you do not think that MBNA’s calculations directly follow the notes provided in PS10/12. I have however previously outlined our services’ position regarding this. PS10/12 and the FCA’s complaint handling rules in DISP App 3 provides the framework for how businesses should calculate redress for mis-sold PPI, but it cannot cover all possible scenarios. The letter I sent to you dated 14 October 2014 further discusses this.

I will review the statements that have been provided as part of my wider investigation but I would be grateful if you could let me know if there is anything in the available statements in particular that you would like me to look at.

I have not yet finalised my investigation, and this in part because of the on-going work we are carrying out with MBNA with regards to its position on charges and fees.

My response

 

 

 

The statements do prove some of my concerns were correct on restatement of minimum payments. This must now raise concerns over earlier restatements which MBNA have not provided statements for. Further for MBNA to restate minimum payments they must have a record of these. Hypothesis and assumptions cannot be used when they have been shown to be incorrect.

The statements refer to calculation of minimum payments in the terms and conditions of the card.

The exact reference is 1B, can please ask MBNA to supply a copy.

Finally I am aware of your previous emails on PS10/12, I refer to the actual documentation.

PS10/12 3.22 page 46

 

We consider that it is unlikely to be fair to customers to take such an approach where a

complaint involves multiple breaches or failings or where it is clear that the failing was

particularly significant for that customer. Consequently, we anticipate that such different

approaches are unlikely to be appropriate in the majority of cases and will be the “exception

not the rule” for firms when dealing with a complaint satisfactorily.

Finally I supplied you with a example of how MBNA’s calculation is detrimental to the consumer, the “Professor Bob calculation”. I have had no response to this.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well thanks to MBNA's supplying statements from 2008 that's 15 of 29 restated minimum payments proved to be incorrect.

 

 

14 to go plus some full payments to argue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good stuff (from you!) - keep it up Miaspa.

 

 

 

Thanks for the email address had a reply. Next step FCA. FOS are saying they can only look at individual cases.

 

 

Thank you for your email of 14 January 2015, addressed to our chief ombudsman and chief executive, Caroline Wayman. I work closely with Caroline in her office, so she has asked me to reply on her behalf.

You’ve explained that you have concerns about the way MBNA calculates its PPI refunds and that you’re worried your refund will be inaccurate.

The first step when we consider a complaint is for one of our adjudicators to give their informal opinion to both sides. Your case is with our adjudicator,M****** S******** who is still making his enquiries into the issues you have raised. M**** will take into account all the available information and arguments to reach h** opinion and, once this has happened, **e’ll be in touch to explain the outcome *he has reached.

If, once M**** has given h** opinion, you’re still unhappy, then you can ask for your case to be passed to an ombudsman as the second and final “appeal” stage of our process. At this point, your case would be looked at afresh and a final decision made. Here’s a link to our consumer factsheet which explains our process for resolving complaints in a bit more detail –http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/factsheets/index.html .

You’ve raised a concern that we, as a ‘regulatory body’ don’t seem to follow set guidelines. Here at the ombudsman service, we don’t regulate businesses – that is the job of the Financial Conduct Authority. We only have the power to investigate individual cases when they come to us but we do engage in regular discussions with the regulator about widespread issues and report on them. It can take a while for these discussions to reach an outcome, but it is very important that we get it right.

I hope you find my response helpful and if you would like to discuss any of the issues raised further, please feel free to contact me directly using the details below.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have recieved the recalculation MBNA are again at it and complying with PS10/12 app2 ex 6. They have recalcuated to a poultry extra of some £70 They have only reconstructed the minimum payments and left the overpayments blank and not being reconstructed. Also they have changed the overpayments they classed as minimums and made them overpayments with no reconstruction of the account balance. There also some overpayments still classed as minimums on the recalculation Another interesting point that my adjudicator has picked up on is the example that ken gave me (page 18 of this thread) now reads as £0.00 with no contribution to PPI when the May 2009 payment showed a minimum of £75.00 (it was not minimum payment) and a surplus of £1.72.The surplus redress stays the same until a minimum payment is made and then it is reconstructed which is impossible when you see the account balance decreasing with monthly payments.statement.There is also a minimum payment made which has not been reconstructed and not classed as a minimum amount when it should have been.Please read and advise my adjudicator wants an answer on this and also what the card rate used on my recalculation and if it changed. I also will be sending in all my statements as i only sent in the ones they clamimed as minimums which were not to prove they were manipulating figures.Please compare this with the orginal on page 18 of this thread and advise.As usual all comments welcome.

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

Sorry i have rushed this post a bit as i am busy. I meant to say as you know that MBNA Ltd are still using the alternative method despite the FOS ordering a recalculation and again there are still flaws which glady my adjudicator has picked up on some and asked MBNA for answers.Also the analysis given by ken was not put to MBNA by my previous adjudicator because it was at the time when Vicki made her investigation into the MBNA method in response to the mass complaint. I will put ken review to my new adjudicator and ask MBNA to reply to it.When FOS recieve the remaing statements i will show what Vicki said in her letter of assumptions being fair if a pattern of payments are as mine clearly show a consistent overpayments of the minimum amounts for nearly 3 years showing this alternative method is not approiate in my redress and does not return me to a position if mis-selling had not happened.All comments as usual welcome.

I have recieved the recalculation MBNA are again at it and complying with PS10/12 app2 ex 6. They have recalcuated to a poultry extra of some £70 They have only reconstructed the minimum payments and left the overpayments blank and not being reconstructed. Also they have changed the overpayments they classed as minimums and made them overpayments with no reconstruction of the account balance. There also some overpayments still classed as minimums on the recalculation Another interesting point that my adjudicator has picked up on is the example that ken gave me (page 18 of this thread) now reads as £0.00 with no contribution to PPI when the May 2009 payment showed a minimum of £75.00 (it was not minimum payment) and a surplus of £1.72.The surplus redress stays the same until a minimum payment is made and then it is reconstructed which is impossible when you see the account balance decreasing with monthly payments.statement.There is also a minimum payment made which has not been reconstructed and not classed as a minimum amount when it should have been.Please read and advise my adjudicator wants an answer on this and also what the card rate used on my recalculation and if it changed. I also will be sending in all my statements as i only sent in the ones they clamimed as minimums which were not to prove they were manipulating figures.Please compare this with the orginal on page 18 of this thread and advise.As usual all comments welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is how MBNA are working out the monthly associated interest see my early post 634 , the rate on the PPC should be the rate prescrided for purchases at the bottom of the statement. There minor rounding differences purely as we are only rounding to whole pence. I haven't finished the sheet as supposed to be doing tax returns.

 

 

31.07.09 has no interest charged on the original statement so there is no monthly associated interest, the formula doesn't work not sure if this is an omission from MBNA but check your statement.

 

 

Oh if you check your minimums from 30.09.09 they should be what you have paid plus the missing payment from 31.08.09.

 

 

Why does the calculation stop 31.01.13 it should run until todays date.

 

 

Can't copy and paste will attach PDF.

Edited by Miaspa 2010
format

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thoughts on recent posts:

 

 

MIASPA, there were a few people that had a crack at FCA previously on this issue last year following our letter addressed to both FOS and FCA, and who submitted additional information to the FCA. Sadly to say that at the time, after initially expressing interest, FCA fell down on following up with a thorough investigation of the salient points. Some of this is inferred in earlier posts of this somewhat large thread. Falling between two stools, in all senses, comes to mind.

 

 

What your reply from Ms Wayman's representative says ... is true enough to an extent in its own right, in terms of remit ... but FOS has a few forms of internal knowledge sharing, including perhaps precedential judgement. My adjudicator certainly informally referenced Vicki's previous (scant) deliberation. Through addressing my replies to both my adjudicator and Vicki McAusland, I am attempting to convince both to look again at the received wisdom of Vicki's earlier (lightweight) "analysis" in terms of now accepting or not that there is no need to revisit this. That wrong-but-precedential report has had a tumbledown effect of making it less easy for adjudicators to take us seriously, through Vicki's simple and unspecific ask at the time, I suspect, of MBNA - if everything was hunky-dory at Chester as they had received some queries.

 

 

I would encourage people to appeal to both their adjudicator and Vicki to get their heads together and nicely request in strong terms that they check themselves that there has not been a situation where raised points have been under-examined for validity ...

 

 

WHATISDUE: Interesting that MBNA are making an obvious shambles of their "reconstructed reconstruction". Looks like the original mastermind who created the techniques involved may no longer be in MBNA's services, and quite possible that knowledge of what (and how) this was and is done has become somewhat diluted. Can you express again what you would like anyone here to do? Thanks.

 

 

AMN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatisdue

 

 

What happened to the card at 31.01.13?

 

 

The reason the redress hasn't increased that much is the end balance, on the first calc the notional balance outstanding was £2,365.52. On the revised calculation the notional balance is £1,700.80.

 

 

That's an extra £664.72 plus the £76.08 difference in offers. Total £740.80

 

 

You have managed to knock out 18 of the minimums, good work. Now the other 10!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A note on interest rates applied to PPI reconstructions:

 

 

In terms of interest rate - in their reconstructions, MBNA magically "produced" an uncalculated elsewhere relevant value in their calculation for interest associated with PPI for any given month, in their calculations which we are discussing. This appears as a "given" in the calculation. MBNA just took a proportion of the account interest and allocated this to PPI through simple maths proportioning of charged overall interest and PPI value to account balance. While this might seem acceptable-ish in concept, typically different bucket rates applied to different component values of the account balance, some of which was PPI (and interest on this charged for previous months PPI in the account accumulated from previously.) This summed value was treated to "card rate" or "retail rate" interest.

 

 

What MBNA would like everyone to believe is that if an account has been "compromised" by having been a maximum or minimum payment (particularly "fulls"), then PPI overpayment values are reset for interest purposes as they no longer remain in the account.

 

 

Your surplus payments (under this contrivance) therefor are "reasonable" to apply 8% to, 'guv, honest. In reality (but not in MBNA methodology) PPI values if owed to you ... were owed to you... at any given time. Under these calculations, if MBNA owed you for PPI interest for that given month .. they take the nice step of applying 8% simple from then on, and avoid factoring this in your balance (to which higher compounding interest was applied). If there were no further transactions and the account was zero balanced from that point on, then this could be argued to be kinda right and proper. If instead the account was on-going ... then in a proper reconstruction of the account then all previous PPI values remain factored in and treated as normal part of the "balance" to be corrected.

 

 

In other words, if MBNA charged you £10 for PPI charges, and you achieved a "full or minimum" - then that is the perfect excuse to break the claim into a series of claims, destroying compound interest on that £10 - which was actually charged in reality. In any account that has not been settled, and for which there remains a balance where you owed MBNA, the previous PPI and accumulated compound interest on that - in reality ... forms part of that balance. And you were charged for the firm providing you with that service. The rate you were in reality charged was your main account interest rate, and this was subject to compound interest. So - there are two points here - the first and main one is that PIPI interest values actually remained on-going in the account balance, and were subject to charge exactly as per Ts&Cs. The second point is that if an account comprised different rates for different things (balance transfers, promotional rates, whatever) then the enormously weighted average of balance-to-PPI premium typically affects to a huge extent those with different applicable rates for large parts of their balance.

 

 

Essentially, in their reconstruction of your account, MBNA would far rather pay you 8% simple, as opposed to card rate compounding, on those "overpayments", so they are very keen on declaring one-way-or-another these F&Ms through their individualistic method and removing these from proper redress by literally taking them out of the "account balance" equation. There is also a related sub-argument that firms claim that PPI premium payments were taken out as the first thing from any repayment, so did not remain in the account. This is obviously, eh, very questionable, as exactly the same value remained in your account as a replacement for the "taken out" miss-sold PPI, to be charged compound interest on from then on, and on, and on. MBNA though take any excuse (including inventing some) to reduce proper redress by doing whatever they thought they could get away with in terms of reducing your claim value, while dressing up in something that even fools the casual inspection of most if not all FOS staff.

 

 

AMN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately that submission passed me by, but I did a response from my adjudicator on similar lines of Ms MacAuslands letter.

 

 

My opening gambit with the FCA.

 

 

 

I have a long standing complaint with MBNA over PPI on a credit card.

 

The case is still with an FOS adjudicator after 8 months, the issue is not if the policy has been miss-sold but the way MBNA have calculated redress.

 

The FOS stance is that is based on DISP APP 3.8.2 When applying a remedy other than those set out in DISP App 3.7, the firm should satisfy itself that the remedy is appropriate to the matter complained of and is appropriate and fair in the individual circumstances.

 

MBNA depart from the guidelines in PS10/12 using a method widely known amongst other consumer’s as the surplus redress method. MBNA restate payments to minimums, or consider payments greater than the notional balance to be reclassified as full. Any notional overpayment by the consumer is then moved to a surplus redress pot which receives 8% simple interest, rather than being offset against the credit card balance where interest charged by MBNA will be higher and at a compound rate.

 

In my own instance and in that of others consumers, we have shown using our statements that payments that have been reclassified as minimums were at the time anything but minimum payments.

 

It has been confirmed by the FOS that they will only look at individual cases, and it depends on how much evidence the consumer can bring to bear against MBNA, and how strongly they can argue against MBNA’s method of calculation if any adjustment will be made.

 

My understanding that PS10/12 was set out to give guidelines on how redress should be administered, allowing fair redress for all consumers.

 

It seems to me that the current system fails the general consumer and puts the onus back on the them to achieve fair redress.

Your early response would be appreciated.

 

 

 

Thoughts on recent posts:

 

 

MIASPA, there were a few people that had a crack at FCA previously on this issue last year following our letter addressed to both FOS and FCA, and who submitted additional information to the FCA. Sadly to say that at the time, after initially expressing interest, FCA fell down on following up with a thorough investigation of the salient points. Some of this is inferred in earlier posts of this somewhat large thread. Falling between two stools, in all senses, comes to mind.

 

 

What your reply from Ms Wayman's representative says ... is true enough to an extent in its own right, in terms of remit ... but FOS has a few forms of internal knowledge sharing, including perhaps precedential judgement. My adjudicator certainly informally referenced Vicki's previous (scant) deliberation. Through addressing my replies to both my adjudicator and Vicki McAusland, I am attempting to convince both to look again at the received wisdom of Vicki's earlier (lightweight) "analysis" in terms of now accepting or not that there is no need to revisit this. That wrong-but-precedential report has had a tumbledown effect of making it less easy for adjudicators to take us seriously, through Vicki's simple and unspecific ask at the time, I suspect, of MBNA - if everything was hunky-dory at Chester as they had received some queries.

 

 

I would encourage people to appeal to both their adjudicator and Vicki to get their heads together and nicely request in strong terms that they check themselves that there has not been a situation where raised points have been under-examined for validity ...

 

 

WHATISDUE: Interesting that MBNA are making an obvious shambles of their "reconstructed reconstruction". Looks like the original mastermind who created the techniques involved may no longer be in MBNA's services, and quite possible that knowledge of what (and how) this was and is done has become somewhat diluted. Can you express again what you would like anyone here to do? Thanks.

 

 

AMN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Miaspa: re. "My opening gambit with the FCA."

 

 

Nicely put and encapsulated. You may also wish to consider stating what exactly it is you would like FCA to do.

 

 

Perhaps, as this issue affects a large amount of people, and FOS are geared only for individual cases, and that here is unquestionably an unaddressed widespread consumer-issue to answer - can FCA consider why the departure from guidelines has not been treated accordingly, as of yet, if this something they are aware of? Does their own classification of requirements as guidelines truly mean that FCA are happy to stand back and let banks do unchecked as they wish when calculating PPI miss-sale redress? Can they highlight in writing where that is permissible, intended, or outside of FCA remit under current regulations?

 

 

AMN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Points taken on board, will address them if I get a reply.

 

 

Having a stroll around the internet in a quiet moment found an interesting library of old MBNA terms and conditions on the Legalbeagels website. That's got me enough ammunition to argue earlier restated minimums, I really need to have a think on the fulls though as my initial arguments have failed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Miaspa: re. "My opening gambit with the FCA."

 

 

Nicely put and encapsulated. You may also wish to consider stating what exactly it is you would like FCA to do.

 

 

Perhaps, as this issue affects a large amount of people, and FOS are geared only for individual cases, and that here is unquestionably an unaddressed widespread consumer-issue to answer - can FCA consider why the departure from guidelines has not been treated accordingly, as of yet, if this something they are aware of? Does their own classification of requirements as guidelines truly mean that FCA are happy to stand back and let banks do unchecked as they wish when calculating PPI miss-sale redress? Can they highlight in writing where that is permissible, intended, or outside of FCA remit under current regulations?

 

 

AMN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The earliest easiest readible terms and conditions I could find state that.

 

 

A minmum payment is the lower of 2.25% of the previous months balance or PPI plus Interest plus charges, plus £5.If the amount is less than £5, then £5 will need to be paid unless paying off the account balance in full.

 

 

If you have a change in the percentage rate it should be printed on your detailed account history I had a change in 2004 to 2.75% ( SAR request required to get those details)

 

 

Lets have a look at Whatisdues recent summary. see attached PDF

With ten minutes work last night that's another two minimums knocked out for Whatisdue. Also proves method is correct as one minimum is right.

Follow the basis and see what else gets removed!! If you can reduce the minimums to one or two where is the consistent payments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The earliest easiest readible terms and conditions I could find state that.

 

 

A minmum payment is the lower of 2.25% of the previous months balance or PPI plus Interest plus charges, plus £5.If the amount is less than £5, then £5 will need to be paid unless paying off the account balance in full.

 

 

If you have a change in the percentage rate it should be printed on your detailed account history I had a change in 2004 to 2.75% ( SAR request required to get those details)

 

 

Lets have a look at Whatisdues recent summary. see attached PDF

With ten minutes work last night that's another two minimums knocked out for Whatisdue. Also proves method is correct as one minimum is right.

Follow the basis and see what else gets removed!! If you can reduce the minimums to one or two where is the consistent payments?

 

MBNA Terms and Conditions 12/00: T&C - 7750-1.9/14.9-06-01

 

1.4

the minimum payment shown on the statement will be:

(a) the lesser of:

(i) 2.25% of the Account balance as shown on the statement (subject to a minimum of £5); or

(ii) the total sumof all of the following: charges for Payment Protection Cover, interest charged on the statement, Fees, plus £5 or

(b) the Account balance as shown on the statement if less than £5;

except as mentioned in conditions 2.4, 3.5, and 3.6...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good work Miaspa 2010.

 

 

I recall that MBNA minimum credit card payments were raised (for some certainly) to 5% around c.2008, and then changed to 1% plus charges c. 2011 under guidance of not allowing people to easily become used to paying too little, at the time it was optional for banks do so for existing customers, but compulsory for new customers after that time.

 

 

AMN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AMN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I have not been on - we are very busy at work and as you know I do not get notifications; there is a lot to digest here. (After the 31st Jan).

 

I had an adjudicator appointed in Oct 2013; sent a package to them in January 2014; received a holding letter in March 2013 and since then nothing from the Adjudicator (female - AH).

 

I got the Vicki letter in sept 14 and then as I had responded to the Vicki letter to the Chief Exec as discussed previously I got a holding email in Oct.

 

NOt sure whether to chase them or not - can't do anything till Feb reading with interest the responses you seem to be getting

 

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...