MBNA redress calculations

[t18con]

Hopefully I've managed to attach the document ok. Both myself and my wife were lucky enough to receive a cheque straight off from MBNA without any fighting. I didn't know at that stage that MBNA workers didn't do maths at school, so pocketed the money , no questions asked (6 months ago).

 

 

Following advice on here, I wrote to MBNA asking for their calculations, which they've sent straight away (I was expecting them to tell me to clear off as I got the cheque so long ago!!). I've included their calculations as a document. I've put the figures into one of the spread sheets and it comes out fairly close to the cheque I received. Can someone run their experienced eye over their calculations and see do they see anything amiss? Many thanks in advance.

 

 

I intend to pursue the charges end separately, but AS PART OF THIS CLAIM what could/should I realistically be pushing for by way of return of late payment charges. I know the account SHOULD be left as if I had never paid PPI in the first place, which would mean the return of ALL charges, but what are people ACTUALLY getting in this part of their claim.

 

 

Hope that makes sense. Thanks in advance guys.

[t18con]

no one??

[ims21]

Hi

 

Sorry you were missed.

 

So their spreadsheet broadly agrees with the one you had already prepared?

 

If that is the case then I would accept.

 

Alternatively, do you mean that you put their figures into your own spreadsheet?

 

Whichever way, which spreadsheet did you use....one of the sheets from CAG?

[t18con]

yeah I used one of the cag ones, the compound interest calculator one. I just thought it was strange when everyone else seemed to have to fight to get the correct amount.

 

 

the other question is the charges, do I drop them just for a separate claim? or fight to get some now?

[ims21]

Well the general rule from the regulator is that you should be put back in the position you would have been in had the PPI not been applied in the first place.

 

You can do an analysis of the account to see whether, without the PPI, these charges would have been levied. For those that arose purely due to the PPI it would be reasonable for you to ask for those back as part of the PPI claim.

 

Generally these would only be charges for going over the card limit and not any late payment charges.

[t18con]

ah grand that makes a lot of sense. will have to SAR them for that info then.

[ken100464]

My only thoughts are why are they giving you 8% simple interest when you owe upwards of £5000 on the card. That is only supposed to kick in when your account goes into credit.

 

You have paid associated interest on your premiums at the card rate but they are subtracting money from your account which attracts the associated interest and only paying simple 8% on it because they say this is how you would have operated the account if there had been no PPI present.

 

Beggars belief they know you would have operated the card differently if the PPI had not been present when the regulator suggests the way the card was actually operated should be the way the card company should reconstruct the account, not how they think it might have been.

 

Everytime you see a M or a F on that spreadsheet they are messing with the reconstruction by pretending that as you paid Minimum or Full in real that they can work out a theoretical Minimum or Full for the reconstruction and remove the difference. But heres the problem. In real you owe associated interest at the card rate. Thats real associated interest on the PPI premiums. Thats in your account balance. In this theoretical account you get back 8%. So ask yourself how is that returning you to where you would have been if the PPI wasnt there? It isnt as they are retaining the difference between the card rate interest and the 8% simple interest.

 

The effect of all this is that the balance remains higher as less money is removed from it. Surprise surprise its to the banks advantage. Simply put your redress is the difference between the original balance and the reconstructed balance. Make the reconstructed balance higher than it should be and your redress cheque will be less.

 

Your loss is the difference between what you paid in compound associated interest and what they paid you in 8% simple. Plus if they keep the balance artificially high then over limit penalties are harder to justify to claim back via the PPI claim.

 

Finally because your 8% simple refund is higher than it should be because the associated interest refund is lower, then you are also paying more tax on this element.

 

But as IMS says if your spreadsheet corresponds to the cheque they sent you then there is no complaint. But that MBNA spreadsheet is the same as everyone elses. Only difference is you have got your spreadsheet to correspond with theirs. If its a CAG spreadsheet then I cant see how you would have attracted 8% simple on balances of £5000.

 

If you get all the above and realise what they are doing then please please complain to both FOS and the FCA.

[t18con]

I had looked at the compound interest and the 8% interest and THOUGHT the proportions seemed wrong. The account ran into problems in 2010 and was ultimately closed, I assumed the 8% part of the interest was accumulated since the account was closed. I just couldn't get how 4 years odd off PPI payments at 25% could only be double 3 years at 8%. Having said that the cag compound interest calculator agrees with MBNA's calculations. . I have a letter drafted asking them to include the over limit fees, etc., so if you have anything else I should be adding, shout now.

[ken100464]

MBNA will not pay out penalty charges unless you take them to court or you have them over a barrel at FOS but to do that as IMS says you need to reconstruct the account and show FOS that mainly overlimits could not happen. Some lates also at end of account could be possible if you go into credit due to the PPI being in there.

 

One thing that worries me is that spreadsheet was run in Feb. You are 8 months on from when this happened. Did you get the cheque in March and have you cashed it without raising another dispute back then as soon as you got it?

 

If you have I would suggest the PPI reclaim would be pretty dead in the water now and FOS wont want to touch it with a barge pole.

 

Think a bit of history would be good. Bit of a timeline.

[t18con]

yeah I got the cheque in march, was expecting them to tell me to clear off when I requested the breakdown in September, but it came through ok

[ken100464]

Unless anyone would like to guide you further I would suggest the penalty charges as part of the PPI claim is pretty dead. They offered and you accepted the offer. Its also too late IMO to ask the FOS to take a look see as MBNA are known to be asking and winning claims to be time barred at the FOS.

 

So again unless anyone else is going to add this is a pure penalty charge claim. Look in the MBNA section. Penalty charge reclaims against them are as rare as hens teeth. And wins are bit like unicorns. So unless you have every intention of taking them to court and are happy to do this then IMO writing is a wasted stamp. If you do intend to take them to court then there are people on here who would guide you I am sure. But would suggest you ask to get your thread moved from the PPI forum.

 

Penalty charge claiming via court is not somehing I would wish to advise you on as totally beyond my knowledge.

 

Good luck on whatever you wish to do.