Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The tech giant's business was likely boosted by US sanctions against its Chinese rival Huawei. View the full article
    • We hear from three people who have started their own companies during the downturn in aviation. View the full article
    • Covid-19 has created extra problems this Halloween, so how are firms fighting back? View the full article
    • its a 12mts contract else why would it say till 2021 and first month..   simply states they don't charge a joining fee clever marketing ploy as people don't read things. it IS a monthly payment, that runs for 12mts.   but anyway there is stuff and all anyone can do to you.   dx        
    • Hi Slick,   Amazingly fast reply, thank you!   According to the reference on the payment it says "ON 24 SEP BCC" and the payment cleared 25th September at 11:26   I was simply told to sign up on the website by a staff member in the gym, no further information was given to me by them. The website stated that it's a rolling monthly membership that could be cancelled at any time "No contract membership JUST £14.99 a month, until 2021*" As far as I am aware there was absolutely no minimum membership length, unless there's some small print I've missed somewhere. But Harlands haven't mentioned anything about me being obliged to pay for a certain length of time so... I've attached a picture to this post of what I signed up for.   Also, I'm not sure if this has any relevance at all but the building is plastered with £9.99/month signs EVERYWHERE yet it costs £14.99 when you go on the website. False advertising 🙄 Could perhaps use that as leverage in a letter if it comes to it, I dunno? 😂
  • Our picks

    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies
    • Oven repair. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/427690-oven-repair/&do=findComment&comment=5073391
      • 49 replies
    • I came across this discussion recently and just wanted to give my experience of A Shade Greener that may help others regarding their boiler finance agreement.
       
      We had a 10yr  finance contract for a boiler fitted July 2015.
       
      After a summer of discontent with ASG I discovered that if you have paid HALF the agreement or more you can legally return the boiler to them at no cost to yourself. I've just returned mine the feeling is liberating.
       
      It all started mid summer during lockdown when they refused to service our boiler because we didn't have a loft ladder or flooring installed despite the fact AS installed the boiler. and had previosuly serviced it without issue for 4yrs. After consulting with an independent installer I was informed that if this was the case then ASG had breached building regulations,  this was duly reported to Gas Safe to investigate and even then ASG refused to accept blame and repeatedly said it was my problem. Anyway Gas Safe found them in breach of building regs and a compromise was reached.
       
      A month later and ASG attended to service our boiler but in the process left the boiler unusuable as it kept losing pressure not to mention they had damaged the filling loop in the process which they said was my responsibilty not theres and would charge me to repair, so generous of them! Soon after reporting the fault I got a letter stating it was time we arranged a powerflush on our heating system which they make you do after 5 years even though there's nothing in the contract that states this. Coincidence?
       
      After a few heated exchanges with ASG (pardon the pun) I decided to pull the plug and cancel our agreement.
       
      The boiler was removed and replaced by a reputable installer,  and the old boiler was returned to ASG thus ending our contract with them. What's mad is I saved in excess of £1000 in the long run and got a new boiler with a brand new 12yr warranty. 
       
      You only have to look at TrustPilot to get an idea of what this company is like.
       
      • 3 replies
    • Dazza a few months ago I discovered a good friend of mine who had ten debts with cards and catalogues which he was slavishly paying off at detriment to his own family quality of life, and I mean hardship, not just absence of second holidays or flat screen TV's.
       
      I wrote to all his creditors asking for supporting documents and not one could provide any material that would allow them to enforce the debt.
       
      As a result he stopped paying and they have been unable to do anything, one even admitted it was unenforceable.
       
      If circumstances have got to the point where you are finding it unmanageable you must ask yourself why you feel the need to pay.  I guarantee you that these companies have built bad debt into their business model and no one over there is losing any sleep over your debt to them!  They will see you as a victim and cash cow and they will be reluctant to discuss final offers, only ways to keep you paying with threats of court action or seizing your assets if you have any.
       
      They are not your friends and you owe them no loyalty or moral duty, that must remain only for yourself and your family.
       
      If it was me I would send them all a CCA request.   I would bet that not one will provide the correct response and you can quite legally stop paying them until such time as they do provide a response.   Even when they do you should check back here as they mostly send dodgy photo copies or generic rubbish that has no connection with your supposed debt.
       
      The money you are paying them should, as far as you are able, be put to a savings account for yourself and as a means of paying of one of these fleecers should they ever manage to get to to the point of a successful court judgement.  After six years they will not be able to start court action and that money will then become yours.
       
      They will of course pursue you for the funds and pass your file around various departments of their business and out to third parties.
       
      Your response is that you should treat it as a hobby.  I have numerous files of correspondence each faithfully organised showing the various letters from different DCA;s , solicitors etc with a mix of threats, inducements and offers.   It is like my stamp collection and I show it to anyone who is interested!
        • Thanks
        • Like

MBNA PPI Award “Interpretative” Calculations?


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1309 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

Your not alone Miaspa, Read my final decision and feel free to make any comments. I have had the same ombudsman make the final decision as you. I am sure you will notice the exact same wording in the standard letters he uses.

FOS

 

 

 

That wasn't my final decision just one I saw when looking, mine is still provisional with all parties to respond by the 29th July.

 

 

It seems to be the more technical you get with the FOS, the more uptight they get. I'm trying softly, softly, catchy monkey. I have been asked to clarify a couple of points, so might get somewhere.

 

 

I may just get a similar response to you, who knows but agree with AC ask for an extension so you consider the decision in full.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Let say over the lifetime of the card.

 

 

Spending £7,700

PPI £2,300

Interest £3 000

 

 

The ombudsman has used the argument MBNA are refunding 28% of the interest charged, when only 23% of the spending on the card was PPI.

 

 

So he thinks a refund of £2,300 PPI plus associated interest of £840 is fair. Purely because MBNA are refunding a higher proportion of interest compared to PPI and actual spend.

 

 

F%*k me if only life was that simple, hold on a minute Mr Smith your life is insured for £100,000 you lost your todger in the accident your claiming compensation on. On the basis that your flaccid todger is only 2% of your body I feel that an award of compensation of £3,000 is more than equitable. They are giving you 3% of your life cover when your todger only makes up 2%.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
Not heard a bean on mine, time for an email!

 

Are they actually really looking at the complaints or, have they just put them on the back shelf?

We know the template holding updates are just diarised; computer generated...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 weeks later...

Still waiting, I got my provisional decision on 29th June, which I replied to by the deadline of 29th July.

Today I get this .............

The ombudsman is still considering everything and hasn’t yet come to a final decision.

Unfortunately, it’s not for me to say when the final decision may be made as it’s not something I have any control over.

Thank you for your continued patience and we’ll be in touch again when we’ve got a further update.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Still waiting, I got my provisional decision on 29th June, which I replied to by the deadline of 29th July.

Today I get this .............

The ombudsman is still considering everything and hasn’t yet come to a final decision.

Unfortunately, it’s not for me to say when the final decision may be made as it’s not something I have any control over.

Thank you for your continued patience and we’ll be in touch again when we’ve got a further update.

 

 

We are all in the same boat, so to speak...

How on earth do the FOS get away with such incompetence?!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Ditto at al!

 

I guess you have heard the news about Lloyds Banking wanting to acquire the UK MBNA credit card portfolio. But they won't buy until the PPI liabilities have been sorted out for the MBNA existing card holders...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ditto at al!

 

I guess you have heard the news about Lloyds Banking wanting to acquire the UK MBNA credit card portfolio. But they won't buy until the PPI liabilities have been sorted out for the MBNA existing card holders...

 

 

Lloyds needs to sort out its own claims before mithering that another company has liabilities !. I see they have had to set aside a further £1 billion for ongoing claims.

 

 

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-10-26/lloyds-banking-group-sets-aside-further-1-billion-for-ppi-claims/

 

 

Lloyds Banking Group has set aside a further £1 billion to fund compensation claims for the mis-selling of payment protection insurance (PPI).

 

The lender, which is partly state-owned, said it has also accounted for a further £150 million to cover other conduct issues, including £100 million relating to packaged bank accounts.

 

Lloyds is the worst affected by the PPI scandal, and revealed as part of its third-quarter trading update that it would take a further hit.

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

and it is public monies they are operating on - when is this scandal of mis use public funds going to stop === the public need halp not the Bankers and their millions of ill gotten gains!

:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:
Link to post
Share on other sites
and it is public monies they are operating on - when is this scandal of mis use public funds going to stop === the public need halp not the Bankers and their millions of ill gotten gains!

 

My own PPI case involved London & Edinburg Insurance PPI. But lately St. Andrews PPI Insurance, which MBNA changed without prior informing me; St. Andrews Insurance (PPI) is owned by the Lloyds Banking group...!

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-06/lloyds-said-to-mull-taking-bank-of-america-s-ppi-hit-in-card-bid

Link to post
Share on other sites

been there as well with O.H s MBNA years ago what a farce , MBNA during a claim blamed St. Andrews for taking PPI monthly cost & St. Andrews blamed MBNA, then MBNA threatened her if she did not pay from the monthly payout whilst claim being made, all started with London & Edinburgh PPI trouble was no regulator etc wanted to know in 2008.

 

 

all other companies do not charge the PPI fee during a claim>

:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:
Link to post
Share on other sites

The latest response, think another email to my long suffering MP.

Thanks for your email.

I’m sorry its taking as long as it is, I appreciate it’s been quite a while since the provisional decision was issued.

It’s not MBNA holding up the decision. The ombudsman is carefully considering everything before coming to his final decision.

Thank you for your continued patience, we’ll let you know when we’ve got a further update for you

Link to post
Share on other sites

Update from my adjudicator:

 

" Due to the time lapse and the various offers that have been made on the complaint she has asked for MBNA's final position with regards to their offers. I have emailed them and await their response."

 

Shouldn't the Ombudsman be telling MBNA what they should be offering?

 

 

Any thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Update from my adjudicator:

 

" Due to the time lapse and the various offers that have been made on the complaint she has asked for MBNA's final position with regards to their offers. I have emailed them and await their response."

 

Shouldn't the Ombudsman be telling MBNA what they should be offering?

 

 

Any thoughts?

 

Of course he or she should be;

it's not MBNA but the FOS ombudsman that needs to be telling MBNA to bring you back to the status quo

Link to post
Share on other sites

Got my final decision in June and they demanded a reply within two weeks; I told them that it had taken several years to get to here so they could wait longer......have finally started looking at it now and have some distinct inconsistencies. They are now pushing hard for my reply so must get it over to them.

 

Have thrown out all but one for the charges claims ? as only one fee was due to PPI ? There is no explanation as to this - I was quite clearly well below my limit if I did not have PPI. Just going to read those decisions mentioned earlier.

 

They have now added the successful claim for an illness to the premium rather than deducted from the final offer which I think reduces the associated interest. The simple interest is reduced which I think it has something to do with the fact that there is less in the Surplus Redress column.

 

They have not even mentioned my query as to why there is a difference in their calculation for my OH between 2011 and when they sent us a spreadsheet.

 

To my previous helpers - if I scan the paperwork tomorrow is there any chance that you can review it and get back to me with your observations.....

 

I have had a forensic accountant look over the spreadsheets and they are still looking over them - their initial observations are that it just doesn't make sense.

 

Thank you very much

GS

 

EDITED - BY THE WAY MY HUSBAND RECENTLY RECIEVED A CHEQUE IN RESPECT OF A RECALCULATION FOR AN OVER LIMIT FEE - JUST ONE .....HE GOT OVER A 1000. pounds. I will scan that for you to.

Edited by gettingsorted
further observation
Link to post
Share on other sites
Got my final decision in June and they demanded a reply within two weeks; I told them that it had taken several years to get to here so they could wait longer......have finally started looking at it now and have some distinct inconsistencies. They are now pushing hard for my reply so must get it over to them.

 

Have thrown out all but one for the charges claims ? as only one fee was due to PPI ? There is no explanation as to this - I was quite clearly well below my limit if I did not have PPI. Just going to read those decisions mentioned earlier.

 

They have now added the successful claim for an illness to the premium rather than deducted from the final offer which I think reduces the associated interest. The simple interest is reduced which I think it has something to do with the fact that there is less in the Surplus Redress column.

 

They have not even mentioned my query as to why there is a difference in their calculation for my OH between 2011 and when they sent us a spreadsheet.

 

To my previous helpers - if I scan the paperwork tomorrow is there any chance that you can review it and get back to me with your observations.....

 

I have had a forensic accountant look over the spreadsheets and they are still looking over them - their initial observations are that it just doesn't make sense.

 

Thank you very much

GS

 

EDITED - BY THE WAY MY HUSBAND RECENTLY RECIEVED A CHEQUE IN RESPECT OF A RECALCULATION FOR AN OVER LIMIT FEE - JUST ONE .....HE GOT OVER A 1000. pounds. I will scan that for you to.

 

An opinion:

 

If the remainder of GS's un-refunded charges were also overlimit fees, and the 're-constructed' or 'notional' account balance owing (ie., after deducting the refunded PPI) was below the limit on each occasion that triggered an overlimit charge (ie., not at the time the charge was made) - then it seems to me that all of these fees should have been refunded. However, if any of these fees were late payment fees, then they would only be reclaimable if the 're-constructed' or 'notional' account balance owing was zero or in credit.

 

It seems very odd that the payout from a successful claim for illness under the PPI policy has not been deducted from the final offer amount - which is indeed the usual procedure. I think GS's reasoning that it reduces the amount of Associated Interest (and, in theory, 8% simple interest as well) hits the nail on the head. It appears that MBNA have found yet another 'back-door' method of reducing the amount of Associated Interest that they have to refund by doing this, and I would be interested to hear what the FOS's view of this might be. My own take on it is this:-

 

Had the PPI policy payout from the successful illness claim been credited directly to the MBNA account at the time that it was made, then the balance would have been reduced, and the monthly account interest would also have been reduced. If this was not done (and if there was no proviso that it should have been done) - then my view is that GS was free to use this money to offset the other effects of the illness (eg., loss of earnings, treatment of the illness, etc.) It appears to me that GS used the money for the latter purpose, in which case I assume that GS either continued paying the PPI premiums - or that these were not being charged for the period covered by the illness claim. And if that is the case, then MBNA either charged Associated Interest on the premiums that continued to be paid, in which case it should now be refunded - or the premiums were waived for the period of illness under the PPI policy, in which case no premiums would have been charged to the account. Using the PPI policy claim payout in the way that MBNA appear to have done seems to be erroneous (to put it politely).

 

I believe that the essence of it all lies in the PPI policy T&C's regarding how payouts are implemented. If an exemption from premiums for the duration of the illness is a prescribed part of the policy payout, then the actual net payout received by the claimant is theirs in total, and there would then be no 'right of offset' against the credited premiums. If there is a proviso that premiums should continue to be paid for the duration of the illness - then again, if these were paid, there is no offset to be made from the policy payout. However, if GS should have continued paying these premiums, but did not - then perhaps it is reasonable to use a 'theoretical' or 'notional' portion of the policy payout to offset against the unpaid premiums - but if that is the case, then IMO this should be no more than the amount of unpaid premiums, and not the entire payout amount.

Link to post
Share on other sites
My complaint looks like going the same way. Mbna will only admit to only one OTL charge, but I haven't had a decision from the Ombudsman yet.

 

Yes, we are all still waiting for theses FOS ombudsmen/women to come to their decisions. But will these long labored over opinions just simply be based on those of the individual FOS adjudicators; FOS adjudicators who did not/do not comprehend?!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...