me and MBNA and their PPI rebate calculations

[whatisdue]

Hello all and to anyone who can help me.

 

I have been following that big interpretations thread for some time.

 

i have a MBNA PPI upheld with the FOS adjudicator.

 

I was so happy when the FOS advised me that would recommend that MBNA compensate me and

 

when i saw the FOS guidelines on redress. I was expecting a substanial redress due to my continued overpayments

of the minimum amount by an average of £50to £60 pounds a month for nearly 3 yys and

the very high interest i know they had been charging me on the credit card which contained PPI.

 

The redress given to me was just my PPI premiums which was a nearly £2k and the associated interest just over £600..

 

I knew straight away something was wrong as i have struggled to pay the debt on the account balance due

to the very high contractual interest charged.

 

to cut a long story short.

The FOs adjudicator investigated and deemed the redress amount fair.

I have used the forum to quote the things wrong with the PPI redress calculation sheet

which is the latest build V20_B037

i.e. 8% produced when account in debt / The assumptions of paynments to the account with PPI

as opposed to without PPI / The card redress used to reconstruct account balance never attracts interest.

 

The big one of money being moved from the left hand side with high contractual interest to the right

that only attracts 8% simple as this never happened and the money stayed within one account.

 

I also included the JMP partnership example posted on the internet of MBNA not following guidelines

and putting consumers back into the posistion they would have been without PPI.

 

The adjudicator was unable to answer my questions yet still deemed the redress from MBNA fair.

I also sent my correspondences to Kate Tuckley at the FCA upon the advise given on your forum.

 

I have received what i think is an interesting reply which i want your comments on.

 

Kate Tuckley rightly repled that she can not get involved in my case though my details was passed to the FCA

consumer contact centre who replied

 

'As you have passed comment on MBNA your correspondence has been passed to an internal supervisory area

within the FCA for the firm.

 

Due to legal reasons we are unable to provide an update on a potential investigation

to take place though be assured your comments have been noted'.

 

I have been thinking over this and as i now wait for my complaint on redress goes to the ombudsman for a final decision

( i have asked for a recalculation on PS10/12 App 2 example 6 )

could this be the thing by the FCA that finally stops MBNA getting away with shortchanging consumers.

 

Have i finally stepped on something big ?

or have i just had a standard replyv from the FCA ?

which you may have already had.Ken / gettingsorted / aftermidnight ...

 

. your comments on this please

[ken100464]

Whatisdue.

 

I had the same reply from Kate so if they are or arent doing an investigation then I am sadly not party to this. That said they did mention in a recent press release that they are looking or have looked at the next tier of providers under the big 6 and found serious flaws within the systems of many with one company being referred to the FCA investigations team. They are also now looking at the big six and will report back in due course. If MBNA is one of these I have no idea. Would be nice if FCA would tell us though.

 

TBH I dont expect any adjudicator to understand what is going on. They should but like many of us they wont be sure so wont take the bank on.

 

Like the thread states they are using the FOS line that if you the consumer paid a min or a full then they will notionally calculate the new min or full and remove the difference out of the account and into this mythical pot attracting 8%.

 

Thats mythical and has alot of assumptions built in. What actually happened is what PS10/12 ex 6 is supposed to strip out. The PPI and associated interest and any charges due to the PPI. ie as it states quite clearly in the FCA handbook to return as closely as they can the consumer to a position they would have been if the PPI had not been sold.

 

If you look at the spreadsheet then it is calculating as per PS10/12 I think for the most part just these blasted M and F amounts.

 

The FOS guide to redress states that the bank should assume the consumer would have paid what it did in real life. So that all sounds good and therefore they are following PS10/12 ex 6.

 

But then they cloud the issue and say if the consumer always paid off the full balance or always paid a minimum then it would be safe to assume that this is what you would do. And this is what MBNA are using to strip out the difference IMO.

 

The FCA states that the bank can use an alternative method of redress as long as that method is not for the sole purpse of reducing the redress paid to the consumer. In Hermans case above it reduced it by 72% They expect the redress to be very similar to the amount calculated by PS10/12 even if the maths behind it is different.

 

So you have to ask yourself and the adjudicator/ombudsman why is it safe to allow the offender to decide what to assume and what not to assume when calculating the compensation?? Its like the judge (FCA/FOS) asking the thief what sentence they want. Of course the thief will go for the least they can get away with.

 

On one hand you have facts what you did and an actual balance, payments PPI associated interest charges etc. Something that happened in the real world. PS10/12 exp 6 strips out the PPI and associated interest in order to return the consumer to the position they would have been if the PPI hadnt been sold (miss sold lets not forget this). On the other hand we have a spreadsheet built by the bank (who miss sold the product) which has seized upon a paragraph within the FOS guide (NOT THE REGULATOR REMEMBER) that says and I quote

But we recognise that different people use their credit cards in different ways. For example, some consumers clear their credit card balance in full each month, whereas some consumers make the minimum payment each month. These consumers might have paid a different amount to their credit card account if they hadn’t had PPI.

If the consumer had paid in full or paid the minimum EACH MONTH

So yes MBNA can do this if you did either of the two above. But what it seems to me is they cannot do this if you didnt. Every account I have seen Minimums and Fulls are sprinkled through the account as you would expect in a normal account. Normally if your account got into difficulty there is a culster of minimums at the end as it went bad. Now if PPI and the associated interest wasnt there or MBNA hadnt rate jacked just when we were in trouble maybe we wouldnt have paid a minimun maybe we could assume we would have paid more.

And thats the problem on one hand they are assuming we would do this. Is that safe? Maybe we should assume we would have paid more than the minimum and maybe we would have purchased a sofa instead of paying our credit card. Maybe its safer to assume we wouldnt have done what we did because the balance was different. If an adjudicator cant see that then sadly they shouldnt be one. You cant assume something when you have cold hard facts of what happened. The para MBNA are relying on in the FOS guidance relates to two specific types of accounts where a certain behaviour is present EACH MONTH.

And we know why. Its because it reduces the redress. And the FCA (THE REGULATOR) states that if an alternative method of redress is to be used it is not to be used IF the sole purpose is to reduce the redress to the consumer. It has to be fair and they expect the redress to be similar to if they had used the PS10/12 exp 6

 

Keep on at then what is due. Keep us updated as there are many many following behind across all the forums. I wouldnt like to be the adjudicator/ombudsman who gets this wrong as this a scandal upon a scandal which could engulf the bank, and as already been seen an adjudicator missed Hermans redress, missed the the claims companies redress so could be about to engulf the FOS as they are not getting this right.

[ken100464]

Perhaps another round of complaints to Kate is in order?

 

Last time we werent really sure what they were up to now we are.

[dx100uk]

own thread created

 

dx

[AfterMidnight]

Ken / whatis due / all

 

Agreed re. perhaps another sending round to FCA - I haven't got it to hand, but think my reply from there was very much same.

 

whatisdue - you can, should you wish, add to your FOS complaint in terms of new evidence or understanding (something I have not done myself as of yet). As ken says our understanding here has evolved in terms of what the firm are doing, through using our collective minds and with emerging examples.

 

Like ken, I kind of expect an adjudicator not to necessarily really first appreciate the basis of our complaints. I had a different type of insurance complaint a few years back, and it took a bit of to-and-fro after FOS heard the firm's version (not even an explanation - which was entirely just "we have looked again, and this is fine really".) What is being done is complex, and the easiest way to deal with such things if you are an intermediary-of-sorts is to ask the experts who created such a method if it is fair. No surprises, MBNA report they straight-faced genuinely think it is. Front line staff replying and reporting may even think it is. Mmmmm. I have heard it stated (jokingly) that some people think MBNA can't count. They can. Very well indeed. Those spread-sheets have been devised, and reiterated looking at using Excel's or equivalent's "what if" and "scenario" functions - to produce a "goal seeking" spread-sheet. Guess what that goals is. And they will have devoted far more time and attention to making their methods seem outwardly defendable, compared to the situation of the FOS adjudicator - who is drowning in perhaps simpler cases.

 

In your shoes, whatisdue, I would be putting my submission part two or part three now to FOS - even if not expanding your case, I would ask some very pointed questions as to why they deem some things that compose the calculation being "fair". If I understand your chronology, you perhaps complained straightforwardly to FOS re. value, heard back, then complained again with a more detailed "why this is so", which was then largely ignored in detail by FOS, who just came back with "I still think it is fair"....?

 

I have seen (my words) that MBNA purport (drawing on wording that is, yes, FS, not FSA/FCA): " FOS say we can use what was really paid as best guide, and what you really paid was actually an intended minimum or maximum really, so we'll use our reckoning of that as being actual, see - perfectly OK and reflects your account best really. " Yup, best only for MBNA as that allows a bit more smoke and mirrrors. Regardless anyway of that, eh, accuracy, the 8% swap out next step bit is, in any case, really difficult to justify beyond being an entirely natural unintended extension of the process they have chosen. Nothing to do with MBNA really then. Just the way it works Ms/MR Adjudicator, honest it's all fine and just reflects accounts really well. AS IF.

 

So - while it is easy for us to preach to the converted here, is some senses, the task is making the eh, "less motivated to understand fully in comparison with MBNA's programmers" FOS staff - appreciate what an enormous difference MBNA's choice of method and assumptions and, eh, plastic surgery, makes. Hope we are encouraging you to put your case strongly as you can. The risk is an Ombudsman at the next stage saying: OK, the compliant, in essence, is - that you say not broadly in line with FOS guidelines, and firm says it is broadly in line - well it is different, but still probably broadly in line.

 

In much the same way really that your satnav would be broadly right taking you to Newcastle from London instead of intended Glasgow as it was asked to, and it then asked you to believe it because it's complex really, and the average person can't be expected to appreciate GPS triangulation.

 

AM

[ken100464]

I have sent another complaint into the FCA with my more rounded understanding of what they are doing. Suggest everyone else does.

 

Quite agree with AM. This has evolved because of new evidence. An adjudicator is just someone off the street who just happened to get your case file infront of them. They may be good at maths they maybe pants at it.

 

Sadly the bank will always be in pole position unless you can actually ask the question that sparks the understanding or questioning that something doesnt quite add up in the adjudicators mind.

 

For me the bit in FOS which seems to be what MBNA are doing says EVERY MONTH. It doesnt say when it happens OCCASIONALLY. And dont forget this isnt in the FCA's rulebook. They are the regulator not FOS. FOS just take the regulators rulebook and turns that into real life guidance.

 

Going right to the start of the big thread. Its the method we are after, get that over turned and a re calculation as per PS10/12 exp 6 is the only possible outcome.

[whatisdue]

Hi Ken / everyone

 

Thanks for your input I really don't know what I would have done without CAG and this thread on MBNA PPI redress. They would have done one on me and I would have been truly skanked without you and the others help.

 

I forgot to mention that I written to my MP on my case something you suggested in previous threads and am waiting for a reply as they investigate.

 

I quite agree that I think we need to be more concerted with our efforts on what has happened to PPI claims with MBNA and the first stop for me (tell me if I am wrong) is with the FCA I think everyone with a MBNA PPI redress that they suspect is wrong should be banging on the FCA door asking the same questions as we have as to why an alternative method of redress has been used which clearly leaves the consumer shortchanged. The delaying tactics of not sending out redress calculations to the consumer when repeatedly asked / the no explanation of calculation methods and of how the redress amount is reached / the notional reconstruction of accounts when actually happened with the account is right in front of them to see. Also why does the FOS ask them to carry out a hypothetical calculation to determine where the account would be if again the facts on what actually happened is clearly in front of them. My overpayments of the minimum amount was and still is a big issues to me. The adjudicator told me my overpayments were included in the redress calculations I asked for examples of this and was never given. I see the overpayments and the giving back of the PPI as now a payment to the account not just taken off the account balance each month as something that would have affected the balance the interest and the charges on the interest each month that I overpaid. Again no examples given off this. Though surely if the min amount consisted of say £40 PPI of the min amount total of the month of say £110.00 then that £40 should now go to paying off the balance for that month as it used for the PPI instead which means that the interest and charges for that month need to be adjusted to reflect this ? tell me if I am wrong. I am sure this is where I am owed thousands as it affected my ability to pay the debt. All I had was the PPI premium for each month given back to me with little interest added. Sorry for going off the track a bit but my overpayments I feel strongly about.

 

I do think we all need to be together on this and try and get as many people with MBNA PPI redress to contact and to advise what to do

[ken100464]

What is due

 

For what it is worth I totally agree wih you. The reason PS10/12 is there is to give redress for what is quite frankly an appalling scandal.

 

Now you would of thought the regulators and FOS would since the scandal has happened and is out in the open they would be hovering over the redress like a hawk to ensure the wrong doing is righted. But they seem not to be very interested in the calculations. Wonder why?

 

Yes the maths isnt easy and yes there are some people who just wont get it. Hence why early doors I came to the conclusion fight the method not the figures. If the method gets over turned in our favour then the only viable option is the ordering of a recalculation to PS10/12 and nothing else should do. Indeed it should be our right as the people shafted by these firms to expect if we would rather to have the redress calculated as per the regulators view of the world and not some bank who has been caught out miss selling insurance.

 

I do think as you are saying get onto everyone you can. The only people who havnt been notified would be the press. Perhaps this is a way forward. I havnt done that as at present my MP has said its at FOS and they wont do anything until the FOS avenue is exhausted. But my MP is well aware of this.

 

The FCA as the regulator is well aware of this and perhaps the pressure needs heating up more. Then perhaps the regulaor will look at the method and push FOS into looking harder at this.

 

You are quite right to be angry. Imagine what Herman thought and then what he eventually got back. Money they were originally wanting to keep until someone pushed them into what I suspect was calculating correctly.

 

One thing I did pick up on is I dont think FOS ask them to carry out a hyothetical calculation. I think its more of MBNA are seeing an inch of wriggle room and making it into a full blown box of wriggling maggots. FOS is at fault for not looking closely or answering your questions. But they have done it before so that is worth pointing out. FOS have missed it before so how can that be fair. MBNA are making the FOS look like monkeys.

[AfterMidnight]

Evening all

 

With regard to whatisdue's bit that they feel strongly about: (over)payments being used within redress by MBNA to be nominally against a low-interest bearing PPI premium, as opposed to a recalculated reality of chipping away at the account total.

 

The response of the adjudicator's "it's already incorporated in MBNA's figure as supplied to you" - does show fairly clearly that they have... not quite... really quite got it at all yet. In a world where your account was reconstructed by MBNA fairly, this would be...pretty well a correct statement. Reconstruction is actually broadly fine - in principal - and could be arguably more accurate than using a blunt instrument of published percentage interest rate and premiums toted together. Your payments would, in a proper reconstruction, be incorporated - because they would not be considered premiums any more, but payments. This would make your reconstructed balance different from your with-PPI balance by more pounds, and would have a cumulative compound effect. Since your redress is the difference between the balances calculated either way - voila, your payments have, yes, been fully accounted for. If the reconstruction is done fairly, that is. And MBNA says it is, and under FOS guidelines no less. So - "that's an avenue not worth exploring further then", perhaps thinks your adjudicator. Hence...already incorporated...is the judgement.

 

In my view they appear to have seriously underestimated your case to be:

 

a) Customer doesn't like reconstruction basis, and wants a simple calculation >>>

b) Reconstruction-way instead, is actually a valid and recognised method and can certainly alternatively be chosen by firms >>>

c) Customer is wrong to question that approach (just because they don't perhaps understand, or appreciate it) >>>

d) MBNA's method, in my very quick look, may seem perhaps mildly different, but is undoubtedly a reconstruction >>>

e) We can't be expected to follow every firm's way of calculation, since this is bespoke to the firm >>>

f) MBNA even say this follows our own FOS guidelines and applies them to MBNA's and the customers ways of operating their accounts, even in their letters >>>

g) Using the argument that the simplest explanation is the most likely >>>

h) Tell customer the redress seems fair, and hope I can now close this case shortly >>>

i) If the customer does not like it after all that professional work, and they have the gall to say why...well, something that can be dealt with later, but hopefully they will go away >>>

j) Next case...

 

The absolute essence of the problem is that FOS would seem to think if a firms reports something as done "under FOS guidelines", then the bank will be absolutely believed, and no further check is really necessary. No one, in FOS eyes, would surely ever flaunt that - it's beyond conceivable. Available on the FOS site is the business response form which FOS sends out to firms to get their side of the story. Hope you are all sitting down, 'cos this next bit could be a bit of a shocker to some. The form asks for the name of the firm, your name and your postcode (probably prefilled by FOS, I would guess) then, absolutely immediately....four tickboxes...

 

 

 

 

A.1 have you made the consumer an offer to

settle their complaint?

 

 

 

 

* an offer in line with the Financial

Ombudsman Service’s guidance (full redress)

 

 

 

 

* an offer not

in line with the Financial Ombudsman Service’s

guidance

 

 

 

 

* an alternative settlement (DISP APP

3)

 

 

 

 

* something else (tell us what the offer

was)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If your business has made an offer to the consumer that

is in line with the Financial Ombudsman Service’s standard redress guidance (as

set out at www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/

 

technical_notes/ ppi/redress.html) you

should:

 

 

 

 

Send us a copy of the offer letter you sent to the

consumer.

 

 

 

 

Go straight to section E – without

needing to complete the rest of the form.

 

 

Aftermidnight back again here: section E is, eh, ...signature.

 

While the form is apparently designed mainly for disputed refusals, it does give an excellent view into the depth of detail of what MBNA may have been called to explain....

 

AM

 

(PS that technical note link they mention doesn't work for me to be able to click-through)

 

(PPS. I can easily understand that the people who sign and return the form at MBNA saying "yes we did" might even actually believe it - as this is what they have been told by their manager, and their manager's manager, etc. And, at the top, they reckon they are truly in a survival war with the claiming masses - and all is fair in love and war...)

[ken100464]

And again bring to the attention of FOS that they have been found out in the past to not have followed the FOS guidelines after a FOS adjudicator has signed it off. That adjudicator was conned and the FOS was conned and they didnt act fairly to those people.

 

But if all the bank has to do is tick a box and say yes guv we did it right. Then unless they were being checked and the penalties were high then the bank has every incentive in the world to do this.

 

Herman and the people who engaged the CMC are proof of that.

 

On one side the banks say the CMC's are the **** of the earth. But the banks dont see where the blame lies. Be honest and then the CMC has no where to draw its nourishment from. The banks by their greed spawned that industry one they dislike as much as we dislike the two of them.

[ken100464]

Whatisdue

 

Why not ask your adjudicator for a copy of the company response as AM has posted.

 

Lets see what MBNA are saying they are doing? Lets get it once and for all from the horses mouth so to speak.

 

GS if you are reading ask your adjudicator the same thing. Start asking the adjudicators searching questions. We know that form is there. So lets ask them.

[ken100464]

Further to everything that has been written.

 

Perhaps if you insist the adjudicator/ombudsman insists MBNA calculate using their model V20_B022. Then let them compare the results and see if its fair to the consumer????? Especially if MBNA in its reply to the FOS just happens to have ticked that box " an offer in line with the Financial

Ombudsman Service’s guidance (full redress)" I say this cautiously because it says FOS not FCA. But FOS should be drawing that guidance from the regulators handbook and not making it up.

See post 9 above

A very simple way to resolve a complaint on calculations. Compare the two ways. MBNA way we are complaining about vs a vs a FCA PS10/12 way. Its simple because we also believe MBNA have such a computer model indeed we have copies of this computer spreadsheet. This doesnt need the adjudicator to have massive math skills because the bank will do it for them. All they have to then decide is after we have rechecked MBNA havnt messed with V20_B022's internal workings is to compare both answers and see if MBNA's method gives anything like the method the regulator wishes to see.

So wouldnt a simple way to resolve this would be to insist FOS insist its run again in a fully compliant FCA PS10/12 model one of which we know MBNA have or had on their system.

 

Tell FOS you are aware of this computer model, a model which apparently complies with FCA PS10/12 (the regulators understanding) and not this mythical world of assumption now being trotted out. An assumption which seems to be bending a vague paragraph in the FOS guidelines of two very particular consumer behaviours to the very limit. An assumption which the paragraph before seems to strictly prohibit as does all the other FOS guidelines contained within the guidance.

 

For anyone reading this V20_B022 is the computer model they were using back in July 2012. The model which comes very close to the result when the CAG spreadsheet was used to compare and its the model where the surplus column is absent. Which indicates the CAG model is a useful guide (which we all knew) to what you should be getting.

 

Again can only say complain to the FCA, complain to your MP, complain to the press if you feel the need to be a celeb. This is now at the point where FOS are activating these claims.

[AfterMidnight]

Further to ken's post above - good approach I would suggest, whatisdue, ask for a V20_BO22 calculation version - as you are asking for something fairly simple and concrete and easy to understand.

 

A couple of points I have been considering:

 

a) As I am sure you will, it is worth asking nicely, and building a rapport with your adjudicator if possible, as to information received from MBNA, either initially, or in response to any request you make for an example V20_B022, for example. You are after all a decent concerned individual with concrete and specific objections, not an awkward customer with an unfathomable tiny-detail issue. However, one can, if unsatisfied perhaps make a freedom of information request http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/about/foi-making-a-request.htm or I also/alternatively understand you may actually be able to SAR for your records. Naturally enough there may be some sensitive personal data exemptions from FOI, but asking about your own info may be OK - it is a firm's response you want, not info on another person. Better to get on famously with your adjudicator/ombudsman though, and help them appreciate how you can help them do their job well, without labouring the point. Asking such a particular question (can I have a BO22 to check, humour me, make me happy) may make the FOS infer you are serious, and not just making unnecessary trouble and work. And it is an easy-enough next step to do towards a goal of closing the case.

 

b) So - assuming all goes well - and you can have sight of a BO22 version (the earlier version of MBNA's calculations spread-sheet, before some extra creativity was sanctioned) of the "same claim". MBNA's possible positions? Without covering all bases, (I am sure the firm have plenty of people paid very well to work those out to their best advantage), I see these being for MBNA as follows:

1) Different versions of spread-sheets are simply used in different situations, depending on how the customer operated their account - all are compliant. (not evolutions, merely variation, BO22 is not suitable here, because... take our word, it isn't)

2) All our spread-sheets are, and were, compliant and variations and incremental number increases - are merely evolution of our internal understanding of how we can best reflect customer's account use. (we got smarter but remained fair)

3) Clarifications over time, in FOS guidance, allowed us to apply those clarifications to produce continually valid versions which all reflect understanding at the time of creation. (FOS wording changes suggested, kind of, that we then could do a few things)

4) Pressure of large claims made it necessary for us to focus on not providing overgenerous awards, so we looked carefully at the guidelines and realised we had been overcompensating, but could do so less with actually better and "truer" application of guidelines that themselves have not changed. (a little honest - but very masking of steps taken breaking not bending, guidelines)

5) The bones of the "new approach" was previously formally/informally actually pre-cleared by FOS through MBNA conversation with FOS technical helpdesk - by asking if we were within our rights to now calculate hypothetically something like thus...(I hope not for all concerned).

 

Point is, I suppose, that if there is nothing to hide, and not a problem, what reasons could there be (beyond a reluctance to get bogged down in detail) to provide the information sought - all that is being asked (BO22): is to have a calculation exactly as per the firm provided elsewhere too - as equally also being a compliant one. Point is - the date of redress calculation affects V20_ number, and not by any means related to any "when" whatsoever of the misselling consequences, or who you are, or what you did.

 

If MBNA's own spread-sheet redress versions produce radically (e.g. 50%) different values - AND both of those are claimed by the firm to be fully compliant - AND both are, though, "to-MBNA-justifiable" (through one idiosyncratic way of looking at guidelines)- THEN... which is fair? Both are? One is? Both are, but later versions are more fair? Have MBNA come up with a better definition of fair than FCA, and as used by practically every other financial institution operating in the UK? Other worldly financial institutions (although I am sure many calculate based on reconstructions) are perhaps in MBNA's eyes stupidly giving people too much, by eh, failing to understand how to apply reality as much as MBNA does. Really? While that sentiment may well be "believed" at MBNA board level, has MBNA really got it right and everyone else (FCA, other banks) is plainly wrong or not lateral-thinking enough?

 

I guess the point to reinforce could be that MBNA are not merely choosing to use, as is purported, a reconstruction that is properly configured to reflect organisational and individual characteristics - but that this MBNA-different-way version of reconstruction is designed to merely hide absolutely minimised customer redress: by brutal yet deliberately non-obvious hidden methods. These are pretty well exemplified by V20_B022 in comparison with, say, V20_BO31, or BO37 - MBNA made this sudden quantum leap in development in a moment perhaps of blinding clarity: when they realised they had, schucks, duh, been getting it wrong for a while and given away millions they did not need to really - and all and everything is, as-ever, completely compliant: because...look - we SAID it was/is. What more reassurance could you possibly need?

 

AM

[whatisdue]

evening A/M and everyone

 

I have been busy @ work so have been unable to write though still following the thread.

 

Further to my big concern on overpayments and assumptions of payments to the account with PPI as opposed without PPI. This was the response from the FOS adjudicator.

 

'during the reconstruction MBNA assumed you made the same repayments to your CC account. This is detailed on the left hand side of the breakdown (V20_B037) MBNA are removing any charges directly linked to your account but assuming you made the same repayments to the account.The reconstructed balance should only reduce by the PPI charges.Having reviewed MBNA calculation it does appear that it has assumed you made the same repayments to the account.

 

Of course I asked for examples of this and of course no explanation given. I of course mentioned the reconstructed balance was not being reduced by just the PPI monthly charges. Again nothing answered on this.The card redress which was used to reconstruct the balance never attracted interest and was certainly not given back to me.

 

Time and time again I mentioned flaws in this redress yet it was still deemed fair.

 

I am afraid to say I was not on the best of terms with FOS adjudicator before I was advised my case would join the queue awaiting the ombudsman final decision. I had also read that the vast majority of ombudsman decisions follow adjudicators decision (is this down to the enormous amount of PPI cases on their books and just wanting to close and get rid of a case without giving each case due process for investigation to reach the right conclusion ?) Also A/M you are spot on that the adjudicator advised me that even though I don't understand their method of redress does not mean its wrong. I in turn told the adjudicator that as you were unable to answer my questions on this method of redress as it was clear that you didn't understand it either though remained satisfied with it

 

It was nothing personal with the adjudicator . It was just I was told that a recalculation of redress on the FCA guidelines would not be recommended as the redress was fair despite being unable to answer my questions. I have been shortchanged on PPI redress and have been left still owing money on a CC which if the correct redress had been given would have paid it off and given me more.

 

I think I might be better off asking for information on what MBNA advise FOS on my case (information I never see) under the freedom of information. I will no doubt see the business response form sent by the FOS to MBNA saying yes ! we followed your guidelines for redress calculation.

 

I will keep you posted

 

Also I found an article posted on the internet on PPI payments turning into debt payment. It reads thus;

 

CC PPI claims can be highly remunerative as the ability of the borrower to repay the main CC debt might have been great affected as a result of the need to pay for PPI. If you contributed £25 to your PPI each month the PPI provider will have to assume that you did not pay the sum towards the PPI,but would have used the amount to reduce the CC balance while settling the claim. Under such circumstances the provider has to offer additional funds to reduce your balance on the CC, if you had not contributed towards the PPI and considering the rate of interest charged on a CC can be 30% or higher, this can total up to a big amount. Such a calculation enabled a woman in in Hertfordshire to get £65,000 by way of PPI compensation in July 2012. Whereas £82,500 pounds were awarded to an Essex man in March 2012. Ashworth law, a law firm claims to have a client who received an astounding amount of £142,000 by way of CC PPI claim.

 

I want point out here that as Ken rightly says it is the method of redress that is wrong and what we need to show/prove we should not just be looking at the amounts of redress given in the examples given above. I gave this info to the adjudicator again had no response it.

 

The article sums up the point I was making to the adjudicator on payments and overpayments on my CC

 

by the way my CC was fozen for most of the duration of my paying PPI would this make any difference ? still charged a high APR rate of sum 27% ?

 

Ken/ A/M G/S and anyone else who can help with comments please.

 

 

 

Evening all

 

With regard to whatisdue's bit that they feel strongly about: (over)payments being used within redress by MBNA to be nominally against a low-interest bearing PPI premium, as opposed to a recalculated reality of chipping away at the account total.

 

The response of the adjudicator's "it's already incorporated in MBNA's figure as supplied to you" - does show fairly clearly that they have... not quite... really quite got it at all yet. In a world where your account was reconstructed by MBNA fairly, this would be...pretty well a correct statement. Reconstruction is actually broadly fine - in principal - and could be arguably more accurate than using a blunt instrument of published percentage interest rate and premiums toted together. Your payments would, in a proper reconstruction, be incorporated - because they would not be considered premiums any more, but payments. This would make your reconstructed balance different from your with-PPI balance by more pounds, and would have a cumulative compound effect. Since your redress is the difference between the balances calculated either way - voila, your payments have, yes, been fully accounted for. If the reconstruction is done fairly, that is. And MBNA says it is, and under FOS guidelines no less. So - "that's an avenue not worth exploring further then", perhaps thinks your adjudicator. Hence...already incorporated...is the judgement.

 

In my view they appear to have seriously underestimated your case to be:

 

a) Customer doesn't like reconstruction basis, and wants a simple calculation >>>

b) Reconstruction-way instead, is actually a valid and recognised method and can certainly alternatively be chosen by firms >>>

c) Customer is wrong to question that approach (just because they don't perhaps understand, or appreciate it) >>>

d) MBNA's method, in my very quick look, may seem perhaps mildly different, but is undoubtedly a reconstruction >>>

e) We can't be expected to follow every firm's way of calculation, since this is bespoke to the firm >>>

f) MBNA even say this follows our own FOS guidelines and applies them to MBNA's and the customers ways of operating their accounts, even in their letters >>>

g) Using the argument that the simplest explanation is the most likely >>>

h) Tell customer the redress seems fair, and hope I can now close this case shortly >>>

i) If the customer does not like it after all that professional work, and they have the gall to say why...well, something that can be dealt with later, but hopefully they will go away >>>

j) Next case...

 

The absolute essence of the problem is that FOS would seem to think if a firms reports something as done "under FOS guidelines", then the bank will be absolutely believed, and no further check is really necessary. No one, in FOS eyes, would surely ever flaunt that - it's beyond conceivable. Available on the FOS site is the business response form which FOS sends out to firms to get their side of the story. Hope you are all sitting down, 'cos this next bit could be a bit of a shocker to some. The form asks for the name of the firm, your name and your postcode (probably prefilled by FOS, I would guess) then, absolutely immediately....four tickboxes...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aftermidnight back again here: section E is, eh, ...signature.

 

While the form is apparently designed mainly for disputed refusals, it does give an excellent view into the depth of detail of what MBNA may have been called to explain....

 

AM

 

(PS that technical note link they mention doesn't work for me to be able to click-through)

 

(PPS. I can easily understand that the people who sign and return the form at MBNA saying "yes we did" might even actually believe it - as this is what they have been told by their manager, and their manager's manager, etc. And, at the top, they reckon they are truly in a survival war with the claiming masses - and all is fair in love and war...)

[AfterMidnight]

whatisdue

 

A kick around, below, up for discussion, of some ideas or approaches that may help you consolidate what you could potentially do to/with FOS at this stage. Apologies if any are too basic, already done, or don't sit comfortably, or are likely anyway to be further ignored by your adjudicator.

 

You are fairly well along the path, but I suspect there are some practical steps we have started to talk about that are worth thinking about (as opposed to just awaiting an ombudsman to pick up your already-added-to file, and see if he agrees with his/her adjudicator). Hopefully we can discuss these here, and I will try to contribute to distilling down our heartfelt grievances in to rhetoric-free practical points. It must be very frustrating when you are largely ignored in the meat of your already detailed and very pointed submission.

 

My initial thoughts are below, but perhaps you may wish to also consider posting up your B2O_VO37, without personal detail, as you appear not to have done that yet, and it could be worth having another few minds on it in terms of specific things you can pick up on, and how to put that further across. I am not suggesting anyone here, myself certainly included, could have made the issues raised in your case any better than you have already, but no harm in a few collective thoughts to take or leave.

 

So - I am thinking two main things at present:

 

a) Process at FOS, sadly, seems to have been taking the simple and path-of-least-resistance approach so far. By that, I mean your adjudicator has likely read your form, glanced at any supporting information, summarised briefly their understanding (here's the file- and - this case is: someone unhappy with their account being reconstructed, when a simple approach could maybe produce more) - and then simply asked for MBNA's view on "has MBNA's approach been a reasonable one". Hence the smokescreen from the firm pretending they are addressing your point, with that point being portrayed as being "objecting to a reconstruction basis in concept". Perhaps though MBNA may not have been passed on much of your argument and it has perhaps been simplified (through adjudicator) to be - put to MBNA as - customer thinks this isn't fair and the firm has trotted out the usual boilerplate text for someone who thinks a reconstruction -type approach is not fair. Either appears to fit the facts anyway.

 

To deal (adjudicate) with a complaint - can be done without necessarily understanding it. If you are a busy adjudicator, what is the point in reading through screeds of unnecessary detail, if, completely regardless of if you do so or not, the proper process is simply just next getting the view of the firm - and relaying that back to the consumer as an explanation, whither you understand it yourself or not (as you kind of said whatisdue). Consumer may say OK. Firm may say OK. Might not be an issue then, so why get involved in micro-detail of what is very likely consumer mis-directed anger and spouting-off anyway.

 

Adjudicators must be busy people. I believe 2000 PPI complaints arrive at FOS each day. Don't know how many PPI adjudicators there are, but the maths must work out as loads of cases per day to see if take-on-able, worth pursuing, progress-able, re-cap on existing progress work, etc,., etc,., etc. The only ways to cope with this caseload, as a worker, are two ways:

 

1) Very quickly you must get to recognise a complaint of being of a certain type, e.g. ppi simple misunderstanding / ppi facts uncertain / ppi little supporting / ppi angry through under appreciation / ppi raves about personal feelings / ppi irrelevant microdetail, etc. Even if these are just personal mental labels as opposed to categories that are officially recognised as such. And you can get to easily spot the type and the appropriate general response, within 60 seconds of opening each, very quickly with practice. Anyone familiar with doing any amount of work - on anything at all - that involves "regularly dealing with" anything - can appreciate this. Not, of course, that knowing this helps, or that it is in any way how things should really ideally be done.

 

2) The tried and trusted method is to get both views - yours and the firms. They got yours, whatisdue, in the envelope your compliant arrived in. They got MBNA's by asking the firm if they thought your award was fair - the request from FOS to MBNA was probably remarkably-detail free, as it had likely been pigeon-holed as per above. That summary from FOS to MBNA was probably (in effect!): "Hi (name of person from firm they deal with every day) - here's the sixth today who doesn't like reconstructions under the common miscomprehension they mess with awards). I've skimmed the usual inevitable pages of personal-only perspective, but you don't really need to see those. Can you get back to me with your explanation/answer of why what you do is OK." Hence the trot-out from MBNA about why reconstructions in principle are a valid approach, and that it is all done using FOS guidelines, etc. And probably mentions politely that they appreciate that average people may not understand all this, and they can understand that people wrongly concluded they are being done. Your reply from the adjudicator will, I suspect, bear a stunning resemblance to the explanation they received from the firm. Cut...and...paste. I would bet MBNA (not daft) use wording that says MBNA as opposed to we, etc. to make this even easier to do !

 

b) Other thing I am thinking: is that it is not as though your case file is now permanently closed and sealed until solemnly opened in some airless room by an Ombudsman. OK, so your adjudicator had you pigeonholed wrongly as a reconstruction-objector, with ramblings, but anything you will send from now will be attached to your file. Near the top I would hope. Unfortunately once labelled (not your fault at all) it is very difficult to get anything taken seriously, by the same person, and seen as anything other than you, once again, seeing yet more demons in the architecture.

 

So - if my suspicions above (I have no inside knowledge - so, conjecture, yes, but based on general life experience, and fits the facts) are correct, I think you could further consider summarising the elements of how you understand things - as simply as possible in a one-page letter to your adjudicator, in a tone that very much seems very reasonable to anyone else reading it.

 

e.g. "I think my complaint has been simply misunderstood, and I apologise for any contribution I have made for that [purely to set tone for moving forward]. This can perhaps be rectified by summarising exactly what I am complaining about......". And then go on to explain, in bite size, pruned, chunks that it is [for examples]:

 

i) I am not objecting to the principle of reconstructing an account, but the specifics ringed on BO_VO37 - perhaps FOS's own Calculations Department may have a view on the validity of those?

ii) Judging by the responses from the firm, the nature of my complaint may not have been clear to them as of yet, as they (presumably inadvertently) answer the wrong points.

iii) To check my complaint has not simply been fundamentally misunderstood, perhaps through my own lack of clarity or ability [use psychology and their responsibility to make your layman case understood] , could they check with a colleague or supervisor, please, that the nature of your complaint has simply... just not yet been quite grasped

iv) MBNA, it would seem, have not yet had the opportunity to properly give their side of events - why they believe it is fair to do (insert simple litany of issues) would be far more poignant and relevant to your case than answers which were, unfortunately, clearly based on a misunderstanding as to what you are objecting to.

 

Hope these thoughts help in some way. Final couple of points:

 

1) FOS have, on their site, searchable Ombudsman's Decisions. I have been unable yet to find any that relate to MBNA PPI miscalculation. Or... miscalculation from any firm based on PPI calculation methodology as opposed to, say, missing a few years out, creditor offsets it, etc. This appears to be new ground for FOS - they just have not realised that as of yet. I would labour point about Ombudsman's decision being final and all that. If they later realise dodgy-ness of MBNA's way (FCA have been notified in detail), they will look very silly for failing to pick it up - and be in the position of having made a wrong decision they can't change. i.e. Don't run the risk - investigate properly now.

 

2) Play up on having been appeared to have been treated, unfortunately, as if your complaint was the same as per previous complaints that they already have had much experience of, and were familiar with, as opposed to quite understanding your perhaps unclear points. The complaint is rather different from what they may have first, understandably, assumed. It is good they have aims of helping the parties to understand each other fully, to avoid mistakes of comprehension. They wouldn't want to, later, be shown to have gone against their mission-statement public promise, would they ? :

 

 

our promise ...

 

We won’t take sides – and we’ll look at every problem with an open mind. But

we can’t make any promises about the outcome, because it all depends on the

individual circumstances

 

Sure does....!!!

 

AM

[AfterMidnight]

Hi whatisdue

 

 

Just thought I'd reinforce some of the points from the main MBNA calculations thread, in terms of how someone like ken or myself or a number of other people with their own interests and expertise can help you best. To do this optimally, though, will require you to take some steps:

 

 

1) DSAR - get this done now as encouraged by angry cat - and tell AC both when sent, and when you have received!

2) Enter your months of MBNA provided PPI premiums and balances and payments values in a spreadsheet if not done so - and post that up. This is information you have already publically provided on the MBNA PDF, but will allow you to get some good "what it should be" advice if you post up.

3) Share first before sending any planned communications with FOS that you plan to make - and get some constructive criticism and additions to those from one or two of the "residents" on the main thread on this topic. Enable your pm service soon to facilitate this - if you don't want to post on a public forum and ...this would also allow people to share information with you that might not yet be ready for general public display, or was sensitive for you.

4) Keep it up - you are not alone and more people will be talking to their own adjudicators soon - you are just ahead of the curve....

 

 

I would strongly suggest you did all the above as part of your action list!

 

 

AMN

[HHTFC1]

Hi whatisdue

 

 

Just thought I'd reinforce some of the points from the main MBNA calculations thread, in terms of how someone like ken or myself or a number of other people with their own interests and expertise can help you best. To do this optimally, though, will require you to take some steps:

 

 

1) DSAR - get this done now as encouraged by angry cat - and tell AC both when sent, and when you have received!

2) Enter your months of MBNA provided PPI premiums and balances and payments values in a spreadsheet if not done so - and post that up. This is information you have already publically provided on the MBNA PDF, but will allow you to get some good "what it should be" advice if you post up.

3) Share first before sending any planned communications with FOS that you plan to make - and get some constructive criticism and additions to those from one or two of the "residents" on the main thread on this topic. Enable your pm service soon to facilitate this - if you don't want to post on a public forum and ...this would also allow people to share information with you that might not yet be ready for general public display, or was sensitive for you.

4) Keep it up - you are not alone and more people will be talking to their own adjudicators soon - you are just ahead of the curve....

 

 

I would strongly suggest you did all the above as part of your action list!

 

 

AMN

 

Hi everyone, first time poster, so apologies for any dumb questions!

 

I have just had (literally yesterday) a notification from MBNA that they have upheld my PPI claim

 

Pretty happy, but having read this and other similar threads I am wondering if the calculation they did is correct, so...

 

Is anyone aware if MBNA are still playing silly buggers with the calculations or have they addressed this?

In reference to the post above, Should I wait to receive the cheque and then bank it (and wait for it to clear) before doing a SAR?

Does anyone have a spreadsheet template I could use to checks heir calculation figures for the PPI on my credit card?

 

Many thanks for anyone help on this

[AfterMidnight]

Hi HHTFC1

 

 

Good news on your upheld MBNA claim, well done. Regarding your question on if it is "right"...

 

 

The only way to know for certain ( I have seen no evidence of mending their ways) is to compare MBNA's calculations (which you will likely need to request) with an alternative established method. So, step one is to ask for that MBNA calculation, which can be done at same time and separately from SAR request and no need necessarily at all to wait for your cheque first (although that will arrive pretty surprisingly pronto based on MBNA form, so if that makes you feel comfortable it will likely be days not weeks). Most people on forums in the same situation bank the cheque but on receipt send a "signed-for" letter to MBNA saying thanks for the interim payment and saying very clearly you will treating that as such under no admission this is a final settlement on your claim until value of claim can be checked and validated. There is an argument of "banking cheque means acceptance" but most of us take the "inform treating as interim" route. Cheques will "last" for six months unbanked, and arguments can take years.

 

 

I'm pushed for time at the moment, but templates-wise, there are CAG templates in the library that people can point you to, there are also other spread-sheets available elsewhere that work particularly well with shifting interest rates and conform to the regulators "Example Six" methodology explicitly.

 

 

You will very, very, likely not understand MBNA's calculation, but there is a lot of people here now who do...so be prepared to post up, with all personal or identification info blanked over after receipt.

[HHTFC1]

Hi HHTFC1

 

 

Good news on your upheld MBNA claim, well done. Regarding your question on if it is "right"...

 

 

The only way to know for certain ( I have seen no evidence of mending their ways) is to compare MBNA's calculations (which you will likely need to request) with an alternative established method. So, step one is to ask for that MBNA calculation, which can be done at same time and separately from SAR request and no need necessarily at all to wait for your cheque first (although that will arrive pretty surprisingly pronto based on MBNA form, so if that makes you feel comfortable it will likely be days not weeks). Most people on forums in the same situation bank the cheque but on receipt send a "signed-for" letter to MBNA saying thanks for the interim payment and saying very clearly you will treating that as such under no admission this is a final settlement on your claim until value of claim can be checked and validated. There is an argument of "banking cheque means acceptance" but most of us take the "inform treating as interim" route. Cheques will "last" for six months unbanked, and arguments can take years.

 

 

I'm pushed for time at the moment, but templates-wise, there are CAG templates in the library that people can point you to, there are also other spread-sheets available elsewhere that work particularly well with shifting interest rates and conform to the regulators "Example Six" methodology explicitly.

 

 

You will very, very, likely not understand MBNA's calculation, but there is a lot of people here now who do...so be prepared to post up, with all personal or identification info blanked over after receipt.

 

Thank you for coming back to me

 

Where can I get these templates from - sorry for the divvy question, should the links in the post point to them?

I will definitely post the interim payment notice and get a SAR off.

Once I have that info I will get going on posting them up on here so anyone that would like to help or pass comment can do

[AfterMidnight]

HHTFC1 - ask for the calculation and ask for a SAR - i.e. submit separate requests, the calculation ask (your right) will not cost you anything - and will likely get a quicker response. Do the SAR too though.

 

 

You will need information to put into any calculating spread-sheet - what do you have (e.g. statements, known values) to input? If you don't have this as of yet then you may need to wait for MBNA's calculation to arrive and take info from that..(and that will likely go back six years, maybe more). Links in message above are more "explains of terms".

 

 

If you let us know in summary what you have information-wise, we can point you best in the right direction, but you will need more info to input than MBNA's few lines of text that you likely have (or will have shortly) in your letter.

[whatisdue]

AMN/ Ken / G/S HHTFC1 & everyone.Just to update you my the last communication between myself and the FOS adjudicator on my case to be re-assessed. I have not heard anything since it seems a long time but it only coming up to some 4 weeks since my last communication. I was bearing in ming G/S reply with his adjudicator who advised that MBNA PPI calculations were being looked at a senior level. I thought i might have heard something on this from my adjudicator but then again ,i believe that the lead adjudicator Vicky may have picked up case to investigate and gather info on what MBNA have been doing. There are many sceaniros going on in my mind on what is happening, though the bottom line is i believe that things are happening behind the scenes at the FOS and i am begining to have confidence that all the things said and done on this thread will come to fruition. With regards to calculations i have used the FOS running spreadsheet and i have also used a spreadsheet on the legal seagulls (think i spelt it right) for MBNA calculations. I have found the legal seagulls better because it asks for the yealy APR rate and also most importantly the monthly rate of interest for calculations. As i have used both spreadsheets the end result figure were fairly similiar. Though the monthly rate i used on the legal seagulls came out higher as the FOS running spreadsheet can only use one rate of interest.Any comments on the use of these spreadsheet welcome.

Hi HHTFC1

 

 

Good news on your upheld MBNA claim, well done. Regarding your question on if it is "right"...

 

 

The only way to know for certain ( I have seen no evidence of mending their ways) is to compare MBNA's calculations (which you will likely need to request) with an alternative established method. So, step one is to ask for that MBNA calculation, which can be done at same time and separately from SAR request and no need necessarily at all to wait for your cheque first (although that will arrive pretty surprisingly pronto based on MBNA form, so if that makes you feel comfortable it will likely be days not weeks). Most people on forums in the same situation bank the cheque but on receipt send a "signed-for" letter to MBNA saying thanks for the interim payment and saying very clearly you will treating that as such under no admission this is a final settlement on your claim until value of claim can be checked and validated. There is an argument of "banking cheque means acceptance" but most of us take the "inform treating as interim" route. Cheques will "last" for six months unbanked, and arguments can take years.

 

 

I'm pushed for time at the moment, but templates-wise, there are CAG templates in the library that people can point you to, there are also other spread-sheets available elsewhere that work particularly well with shifting interest rates and conform to the regulators "Example Six" methodology explicitly.

 

 

You will very, very, likely not understand MBNA's calculation, but there is a lot of people here now who do...so be prepared to post up, with all personal or identification info blanked over after receipt.

[whatisdue]

I apologise fior the incorrect spelling it is ;Legal seagulls consumer forum

AMN/ Ken / G/S HHTFC1 & everyone.Just to update you my the last communication between myself and the FOS adjudicator on my case to be re-assessed. I have not heard anything since it seems a long time but it only coming up to some 4 weeks since my last communication. I was bearing in ming G/S reply with his adjudicator who advised that MBNA PPI calculations were being looked at a senior level. I thought i might have heard something on this from my adjudicator but then again ,i believe that the lead adjudicator Vicky may have picked up case to investigate and gather info on what MBNA have been doing. There are many sceaniros going on in my mind on what is happening, though the bottom line is i believe that things are happening behind the scenes at the FOS and i am begining to have confidence that all the things said and done on this thread will come to fruition. With regards to calculations i have used the FOS running spreadsheet and i have also used a spreadsheet on the legal seagulls (think i spelt it right) for MBNA calculations. I have found the legal seagulls better because it asks for the yealy APR rate and also most importantly the monthly rate of interest for calculations. As i have used both spreadsheets the end result figure were fairly similiar. Though the monthly rate i used on the legal seagulls came out higher as the FOS running spreadsheet can only use one rate of interest.Any comments on the use of these spreadsheet welcome.

[ken100464]

Good Afternoon WID.

 

I think this will be the hardest part for us all waiting for the first indication which way the authorities jump and we are not going to know that until FOS start to talk again. And that wont happen other than holding letters until the higher management has decided what to do.

 

Yours and GS's claim appear to be the furthest forward so I would expect one of you to get the first indication something is happening. Until that time am not sure there is much more we can comment on.

[HHTFC1]

Hi again,

 

So I sent a 'signed for' SAR, request for calculation and 'notice of interim payment' to MBNA. It was received by them on 7th April. I await their responses

 

I know the SAR can take up to 40 days, and I am unlikely to get confirmation of the interim payment, but are there any guidelines as to how long it will take them to deliver the calculation?

 

Cheers in advance

 

Darren

[AfterMidnight]

"are there any guidelines as to how long it will take them to deliver the calculation?"....

 

 

...No guidelines really, and probably not covered statute-wise by a timescale AFAIK, but I have known MBNA to take a) A couple of weeks max, b) About a month, and c) Not until you ask again.

 

 

I would diary-forward to ask them again after c. 28 days of receipt.