me and MBNA and their PPI rebate calculations

[HHTFC1]

"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.

 

Thanks for this

[HHTFC1]

Hi I have received my calculation from MBNA

and am carefully inputting the data into the spreadsheet from .........(PPI+Penalties_400_v2.4)

 

I have a couple of quick questions though, and I am not sure if this is the place to ask

 

It has a section for account balance,

but when I put in that the account balance is in credit

it reduces my total amount claimed from about £1900 to £460

has anyone else used this spreadsheet and seen this happen

[dx100uk]

use our one, detailed in the interpretive calculations thread

 

dx

[HHTFC1]

Hi Everyone,

 

as mentioned above, I have received my calculation from MBNA. I have attached this to this post.

 

I have taken the information in this and completed a spreadhseet i got from another website,

 

i have attached this also it is called 'complete PPI+Penalties_400_V2.4'

 

I do not know the various interest rates applied to my account throughout its life,

so this may cause an anomoly (I have sent a SAR to MBNA so i should get the rate with this)

 

I also read somewhere that you need to do a separate spreadsheet each time the account zero's,

I am not sure why, but I have done this and i have attached these sheets.

they are named 'Sheet x - HHTFC PPI+Penalties_400_V2.4' (sheets 1-5)

 

I havent yet completed the 'FosRunningPPI v102 - AM -fixup' spreadhseet somebody advised me to

as i dont have access to the statements to do this,

again the SAR should provide these so i will do this then if anyone feels it is necessary.

 

I do think I have been under compensated based on the 'complete PPI+Penalties_400_V2.4' spreadsheet ,

but must confess i am a little confused as to why,

and would not know how to articulate this in the best way.

 

Again, thanks for all the help so far, I hope you dont mind continuing your assistance.

 

Many thanks in advance

[ken100464]

HHTFC1

 

Like a number of us you have fallen foul of the MBNA enhanced method of calculation of PPI redress.

 

As DX says the reasons behind it all are within the interpretive calculations thread. If you like war and peace its about as long and just as confusing.

 

As we understand it FOS are looking into if the way they calculate PPI is correct. We think not but we dont make the rules. FCA is fully aware of what they are up to.

 

The difference between what they paid and what your spreadsheet says (if you have inputted correctly) is what they are removing via the maths trickery within their spreadsheet.

 

I have not read your thread but basically by paying you they have said thats it. So you lodge a claim for the difference with FOS who as advised are looking at the method. You are looking for your claim to be calculated via PS10/12 exp 6 and not by some arbitary method the bank made up to reduce thousands upon thousands of claims. Of which you are just one.

 

I wouldnt spend so much time on your spreadsheet or dream of how or what you could do with the extra. I would complain to FOS that you are aware MBNA are not calculating as per the FCA prescribed way of doing things so you would like FOS to order MBNA to do as they are supposed to do.

 

Then wait 2 years and counting like some of us are.

[AfterMidnight]

Hi HHTFC1

 

 

I know it is for your own interest largely, but as ken100464 says, from a functional perspective, it is not necessary (now anyway) to provide "an alternative" calculation to FOS to consider: as the method used by MBNA has been highlighted as deviating from what many people would find acceptable quite well by this point. And it is easy to tie yourself in knots, but if you add those separate sheets together (to allow for different charge rates) it give a good indication something is amiss, and an indication of what many people believe it should be. You need good/full info of rates and dates to input to get accurate values, but separate sheets allows for different charge periods. You can't just use blanket rates, they don't, and their way/figures do reflect an accurate "use of your account" - albeit in a way with assumptions that many would label somewhat twisted in their thinking.

 

 

It is not really a case of checking MBNA's arithmetic, as you have gathered, they use a different "way of thinking" compared to examples from FOS. The point to make is to make that "method" differentiation point - if pursuing with FOS, which can be done "mathless".

 

 

Waiting is the frustrating bit....and I can appreciate your desire to find out what it might be once you have the SAR info...

 

 

Aim overall for most people is to get a recalculation ordered to be within compliance with what the firm should have done in the first place...which should take care of things. You can sift through the long interpretative thread and ascertain the method MBNA use - but there are subtleties to the bank's mechanisms, important point is to let FOS know you understand that it is wrong...and wait. Hopefully earlier upcoming cases will have made the point enough for FOS to appreciate where you are coming from, and perhaps some more "global" corrections may have been made by that time.

[Miaspa 2010]

Not sure if its of amy interest but I reworked the FOS spreadsheet so it takes your summary of statements. Adds in MBNA's redress calculation which works out a logic interest rate. And then applies this to interest in restitution. Additionally you can add in charges that would not occur on the restated balance.

 

My offer from MBNA is 5.5K if use the spreadsheet no charges refunded i get 12K refund (well I don't but thats a different story). Adding in charges that wouldn't have been incurred 18K.

 

I'm sure the FOS spread sheet works out the interest by dividing the APR by 12 to get a monthly rate. (I haven't looked at it in a while). Using that method the refund starts to get silly at 26K, funnily if If i refund all charges greater than £12 it works out at 45K.

 

As I don't get any of the refund it makes no odds to me but a 5.5K refund is an insult. I have put the MBNA calc on the interperative thread. (V20 B41)

 

Reconstructing round sum payments as minimums or full payments when at the time they were neither is blatently incorrect. The funniest part on mine is the surplus redress column starts to exceed the reconstructed credit card balance. At that point the surplus redress gets interest at 8% simple of £7, the recosntructed card balance of a slighyly lower amount is charged interest of 35% compund £26.

 

So for just that month MBNA have charged me £26 interest and £12 late payment fee but if you take the surplus redress figure from the card balance there isn't any amount outstanding.

[Miaspa 2010]

Just a quick thought on MBNA's surplus redress method, looking back ay old info last night I was trying to find the deminimus (spelling?) limit on minimum payments.

 

You either had to pay a set percentage of the previous months balance ie 1.75% 2% etc. Now I'm pretty sure and was backed up by info found in 2007 that the minimum payment had to be at the pecentage rate or if lower than a specified amount. The specified amount had to be paid. In my case in 2007 £25.

 

Now I'm pretty sure earlier it was set at £10 and £5. for earlier periods, but can find no documented evidence from my own pile of paperwork. If this in the case how can MBNA adjust a minimum payment below the deminimus limit as specified in the terms and conditions?

 

Just adds another piont to argue with FOS?