Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi slick!    On 22 July they said they would refund me £74.07 Theres no DD in place as my membership was a once off payment in November last year.  Hi Dx,    I paid through PayPal last year as a one off payment. 
    • I'm trying to understand it all but I certainly tend to agree with my colleague @dx100uk that it looks as if you may have been taken for a ride. You found an advertisement for a bag on an online sales site. Instead of going through the established procedure of that site, which presumably allows them to recover a commission from the seller you started dealing directly with the seller who is an unknown person to you and of course that allowed the seller to avoid paying the commission. At whose suggestion was it that you went off-site? You then pay by PayPal but instead of logging it with PayPal as a payment for a purchased item, you tell PayPal that it was actually simply a gift or transaction between friends and family. This also allowed the seller to avoid paying a PayPal fee on the money. At whose suggestion was it that you paid in this way?       I don't say that you definitely have been scammed, but it doesn't look very good. This is how it might have happened: after you agreed to take the transaction off-site, so you lost the protection of the established system – and the seller avoided the commission and also avoided the sales site knowing that they had sold their item, you then agreed to pay the seller some money – but not for a purchase – simply as a gift. This has two consequences. Firstly, the seller avoids a PayPal fee and secondly, because PayPal has been misled as to the purpose of the payment, you lose the protection of PayPal if it turns out that you've been scammed or there is some other problem with the transaction. The seller then apparently sent you the parcel and they sent you pictures of a package with your address on it. Separately they sent you a Hermes tracking number – but there is no evidence that the package was actually posted to your address. The seller might simply have taken a picture with your address and sent that to you by way of reassurance – and then changed the label and posted the parcel to themselves but sent you a tracking number which is inaccessible to you and in respect of which you will be prevented from getting any information. All you've seen is a parcel with your address on it. All you've been given is a tracking number which satisfied you for a while until the parcel did not arrive and then when you started to make enquiries, you found that you were unable to access any details referring to the tracking number. Of course the tracking number says that the item was delivered – because maybe it was – but in that case it was delivered to the address on the parcel which might have been the seller's own address – or the address of a friend. I don't want to say that this is definitely how it happened, but it is a plausible scenario. Of course Hermes is an awful lot of parcels – but on the other hand I expect that most of the parcel is that going to Hermes hands are delivered successfully. We only get the bad stories on this forum. I can imagine that Hermes rate of successful deliveries is better than 97% because otherwise people wouldn't simply just hate them, they would go out of business.   We can help you bring a complaint against Hermes if you want. However, on the basis of what you say, the odds are stacked against you but it would be useful to try and find out the address which was associated with tracking number. As far as your apparent willingness to travel hundred and 50 miles to ask for your money back, don't bother. If you did actually go there, are you sure that the seller actually lives at the address that you have been given? What evidence do you have that? Of course if you found that the seller didn't reside at that address then it is slamdunk that you have been scammed. But then what are you going to do? You can try to inform the police but of course it won't get you anywhere. You can inform the sales website – but they will say that you brought it on yourself because you agreed to go off-site. You can inform PayPal – that they will say that because you sent the money which was calculated to avoid their fees, you have lost the protection. If you travelled the 150 miles and found that the seller did reside at that address, do you really think that they are going to hand your money over to you? If they are acting dishonestly then they will simply say that it is nothing to do with them, that they addressed it all correctly and they don't understand what has happened and that this is simply Hermes up to their old tricks. What are you going to do? You simply risk getting into a very nasty argument and depending on how bad it went, you might even find that the police are called and I'm afraid that they would be looking at you – not the seller. Maybe you can answer the questions that I've post above as to who it is who initiated the various ways of doing business.    
    • The legal campaign's going well then. The recount in Wisconsin gave Trump more votes but Biden even more, at a cost of $3m. And a donor to the organisation bringing the failed cases is suing to get his $2.5m back.   https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/28/joe-biden-gains-votes-in-wisconsin-county-after-trump-ordered-recount
    • Yes Unicorn feed tax again, can't sue the keeper for more than the Original Charge, so any additional Debt Collection fees aka the £60 they add is abuse,iof process as per HHJ Harvey at Lewes county Court What lookedinfroinfo is indicating is that the main signage on entry and dotted around is merely an " Invitation to Treat", not the offer, the Offer and Acceptance occurs at the payment machine, so wording there is key.
  • Our picks

RBS Mastercard / MINT C/Card ppi question


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1877 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

yes

 

Thanks dx

 

My concern is that they have only given me a breakdown of premiums from May 2001 in which total £906.86. The missing statements prior from Feb 2000 they have used estimated figures in which I requested details yet they will not provide them ?

 

I have attached their calculations in which I requested a breakdown. FOS have looked at the way RBS have calculated my refund and believe it has been fair even though they are not able to provide details ?

 

I have also attached example of their loan calculations example bearing in mind that mine is a credit card.

 

I'm rather frustrated with the way this complaint has been handled and should I have been sent a settlement offer form to sign and agree to ?

 

Any further comments would be appreciated thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Thanks dx

 

My concern is that they have only given me a breakdown of premiums from May 2001 in which total £906.86. The missing statements prior from Feb 2000 they have used estimated figures in which I requested details yet they will not provide them ?

 

I have attached their calculations in which I requested a breakdown. FOS have looked at the way RBS have calculated my refund and believe it has been fair even though they are not able to provide details ?

 

I have also attached example of their loan calculations example bearing in mind that mine is a credit card.

 

I'm rather frustrated with the way this complaint has been handled and should I have been sent a settlement offer form to sign and agree to ?

 

Any further comments would be appreciated thanks.

 

Bump anyone :wink:

 

And thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

although their sheet is very basic

the process they refer to is correct

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
although their sheet is very basic

the process they refer to is correct

 

 

dx

 

Ok cheers dx but am I entitled to request a breakdown of the figures ? Example is for loan not credit card.

 

And what about receipt of offer acceptance for signature ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

companies tend now to simply pay it without acceptance........

 

 

ofcourse you are entitled to a breakdown.

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
companies tend now to simply pay it without acceptance........

 

 

ofcourse you are entitled to a breakdown.

 

 

dx

 

Cheers again dx.

 

Ok news to me - other offers with same bank I have received offers to sign as a full and final settlement.

 

I have again requested a breakdown of settlement figure from the bank. It's mainly the issue of premium amount that concerns me as they have already provided details from May 2001 but not the estimated figure prior to that since February 2000.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok cheers dx but am I entitled to request a breakdown of the figures ? Example is for loan not credit card.

 

And what about receipt of offer acceptance for signature ?

 

Sending you a Loan example when you claimed against credit card PPI is just another example of RBS slippery behavior, in my opinion.

 

I am still in 'contention' with RBS about my credit card PPI refund. I have been trying for about two years to get a breakdown from them. They will invariably say they do not keep individual calculations but... in line with FOS ... blah blah... They have underpaid me by £2000+

 

They also paid me without any acceptance form - just a text saying they had paid £xxxx.xx

Love your enemies - it drives them crazy.

Thanks to Bobby Thompson (1911-1988) for the user name:"Let them knock, the paint lasts longer than the skin".

nec temere nec timide

 

So far, all done free for friends:

Cabot - F&F reduced debt by £7700 (70%)

NatWest - PPI claim - £1,800

NatWest - PPI claim - £6,200

NatWest - PPI claim - £3,000

Co-op Bank - PPI claim - £5,200

Halifax - PPI claim - £2,800

NatWest - debt identified as statute barred - £1,900

NatWest - debt identified as statute barred - £2,700

NatWest - loan identified as unenforceable - £13,400

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks dx

 

My concern is that they have only given me a breakdown of premiums from May 2001 in which total £906.86. The missing statements prior from Feb 2000 they have used estimated figures in which I requested details yet they will not provide them ?

 

I have attached their calculations in which I requested a breakdown. FOS have looked at the way RBS have calculated my refund and believe it has been fair even though they are not able to provide details ?

 

I have also attached example of their loan calculations example bearing in mind that mine is a credit card.

 

I'm rather frustrated with the way this complaint has been handled and should I have been sent a settlement offer form to sign and agree to ?

 

Any further comments would be appreciated thanks.

 

Not with a FOS case, no. What happens is they offer a refund of premiums with interest in line with standard calculation methodology. FOS put this to you. I believe you would need to sign a FOS acceptance, which will be a blind one just accepting the full refund. FOS then communicate this to the lender, who calculate and pay the redress. Admittedly this can lead to frustration when trying to work out how the figure is arrived at, as you have found out.

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

Can some expert kindly confirm that "Associated Interest" is the same as "Compound Interest" ?

 

And would the interest rate used be the average of the variable Credit Card monthly rate for the period to date ?

 

Thanks for looking

Link to post
Share on other sites

typically its only at simple 8% rate

usually onc harges by GE money

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
typically its only at simple 8% rate

usually onc harges by GE money

 

 

dx

 

Ok dx but a little confused.

 

RBS have stated that no statutory interest applied as card was not in credit.

 

Monthly interest rate was 1.385%.

 

So you are saying that they have only applied 8% simple ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

from the FOS

 

redress for mis-sold PPI on credit cards

 

Where a PPI policy is sold alongside a credit card, the premium is added to the credit card balance each month and interest is payable on it.

our approach

 

Where a consumer was mis-sold PPI alongside a credit card, and the policy remains in force, we will tell the business to cancel it. The approach we tell the business to take to compensate the consumer fairly will depend on the consumer's circumstances and the current position of the credit card, but compensation will usually involve two steps:

• A hypothetical reconstruction of the credit card account to find out what the current balance of the credit card account would be if the consumer had paid the same monthly payments, but the PPI policy had not been added to it.

This will involve the business removing the PPI premiums, any interest that was charged on the premiums and any charges (and interest on those charges) that would not have applied if the PPI had not been added to the account.

The business should then pay the consumer the difference between the current balance and what the current balance would have been without PPI.

• The addition of interest (usually at our normal rate of 8% per year simple) on any credit balance for any periods when the reconstructed account would have been in credit.

In some cases we may decide to tell the business to pay compensation for any distress or inconvenience caused to the consumer.

other approaches taken by businesses

 

Some businesses take a different approach, or at least present their calculations differently to consumers. Some businesses present their redress calculations as:

• a refund of the PPI premiums plus interest at the credit card rate; and

• interest at 8% per year simple (without identifying what they are adding this interest to).

An offer set out like this could indicate that the business has calculated compensation using a different approach to the one we would usually expect. But it could be that the business has carried out a full hypothetical reconstruction of the account and simply presented its results in a different way. In our experience, setting an offer out like that is likely to be confusing for the consumer.

communicating how compensation has been calculated

 

Calculating compensation for a PPI policy mis-sold alongside a credit card can be complicated. A consumer's spending on their credit card – as well as their payments and the cost of PPI – might be different each month. So the calculation can involve many variables, possibly over a long period of time.

It is helpful if a business explains clearly to the consumer how it has carried out its calculation.

Based on examples of good practice we have seen, the examples below show how a business might set out how it has calculated compensation for a mis-sold regular-premium PPI policy added to a consumer's credit card in three common scenarios:

• where the credit card and PPI policy are still in place;

• where the credit card and PPI policy have been cancelled; and

• where the credit card account is still in place, but the PPI policy has been cancelled.

See above for guidance on what we expect businesses to set out when they add interest to compensate the consumer for the loss of use of their money.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

Any help I am able to give is from my own experience only. Should you have any doubt you should contact a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites
from the FOS

 

redress for mis-sold PPI on credit cards

 

Where a PPI policy is sold alongside a credit card, the premium is added to the credit card balance each month and interest is payable on it.

our approach

 

Where a consumer was mis-sold PPI alongside a credit card, and the policy remains in force, we will tell the business to cancel it. The approach we tell the business to take to compensate the consumer fairly will depend on the consumer's circumstances and the current position of the credit card, but compensation will usually involve two steps:

• A hypothetical reconstruction of the credit card account to find out what the current balance of the credit card account would be if the consumer had paid the same monthly payments, but the PPI policy had not been added to it.

This will involve the business removing the PPI premiums, any interest that was charged on the premiums and any charges (and interest on those charges) that would not have applied if the PPI had not been added to the account.

The business should then pay the consumer the difference between the current balance and what the current balance would have been without PPI.

• The addition of interest (usually at our normal rate of 8% per year simple) on any credit balance for any periods when the reconstructed account would have been in credit.

In some cases we may decide to tell the business to pay compensation for any distress or inconvenience caused to the consumer.

other approaches taken by businesses

 

Some businesses take a different approach, or at least present their calculations differently to consumers. Some businesses present their redress calculations as:

• a refund of the PPI premiums plus interest at the credit card rate; and

• interest at 8% per year simple (without identifying what they are adding this interest to).

An offer set out like this could indicate that the business has calculated compensation using a different approach to the one we would usually expect. But it could be that the business has carried out a full hypothetical reconstruction of the account and simply presented its results in a different way. In our experience, setting an offer out like that is likely to be confusing for the consumer.

communicating how compensation has been calculated

 

Calculating compensation for a PPI policy mis-sold alongside a credit card can be complicated. A consumer's spending on their credit card – as well as their payments and the cost of PPI – might be different each month. So the calculation can involve many variables, possibly over a long period of time.

It is helpful if a business explains clearly to the consumer how it has carried out its calculation.

Based on examples of good practice we have seen, the examples below show how a business might set out how it has calculated compensation for a mis-sold regular-premium PPI policy added to a consumer's credit card in three common scenarios:

• where the credit card and PPI policy are still in place;

• where the credit card and PPI policy have been cancelled; and

• where the credit card account is still in place, but the PPI policy has been cancelled.

See above for guidance on what we expect businesses to set out when they add interest to compensate the consumer for the loss of use of their money.

 

Thanks the oldrouge.

 

I did read that but what has been confusing is that I have had various offers from RBS but their Customer Offer calculations / presentations are worded different. They told me that it is based on an individual basis and as such the way information is presented may differ between cases and over time.

 

Some say "associated interest" or "compound interest" and also "Statutory and stay interest".

 

This one they have only stated Total Refund of PPI Premium and associated Interest paid to date figure and nothing else ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

so if the credit card ac, when reconstructed with the ppi removed, if it never went into credit, then only associated interest would be payable

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

Any help I am able to give is from my own experience only. Should you have any doubt you should contact a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites
so if the credit card ac, when reconstructed with the ppi removed, if it never went into credit, then only associated interest would be payable

 

Thanks again.

 

So therefore not in credit so only associated / compound interest applicable at credit card annual rate ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

and sorry for my answer I was on a small screen and scrolling jumps somewhat.

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
and sorry for my answer I was on a small screen and scrolling jumps somewhat.

 

 

dx

 

No worries dx

 

I am just trying to ascertain what the associated / compound interest figure used by bank. On reading some other posts it seems to be the latest issue with NatWest and their calculations of offers.

 

I raised the issue with the adjudicator but she did not seem interested and as previously mentioned they quoted word for word the bank explanation.

 

Again I have requested confirmation from RBS as I wasn't happy with their offer calculation presentation, no breakdown of premium or interest figure just one amount.

 

It's a pity as I have probably only 6 months statements missing out of 5 years and could have attempted using the FOS Running spreadsheet.

 

Therefore 1.385% monthly will be 16.62% Apr ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

1.385%monthly does equal 16.6 apr

 

Seems to be a growing problem with adjudicators accepting banks explanations

 

 

 

 

Very similar with capital one who have just introduced a new "fairer" calculator which laughably has been accepted as accurate by the fos

Despite years of using a previous version which was also deemed fair

The difference in calculations is massive in Cap Ones favour of course

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

Any help I am able to give is from my own experience only. Should you have any doubt you should contact a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1.385%monthly does equal 16.6 apr

 

Seems to be a growing problem with adjudicators accepting banks explanations

 

 

 

 

Very similar with capital one who have just introduced a new "fairer" calculator which laughably has been accepted as accurate by the fos

Despite years of using a previous version which was also deemed fair

The difference in calculations is massive in Cap Ones favour of course

 

Thanks theoldrouge.

 

Totally agree and finding it so frustrating. Surely I have a right to be reimbursed correctly and not what the bank thinks is acceptable and then FOS agree that they have been fair.

 

I even quoted to the adjudicator what they say about redress calculations (prem + interest breakdown) on the FOS website, in which I never had presented but she still agreed that the bank had done right ? :shock:

 

My complaint was originally up-held by FOS in April 2013, yet the bank didn't make an offer until November 2014 ? When I requested why the delay both parties have avoided an answer ? So I also requested further compensation for the delay but this has also been rejected by the adjudicator. :mad2:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks theoldrouge.

 

Totally agree and finding it so frustrating. Surely I have a right to be reimbursed correctly and not what the bank thinks is acceptable and then FOS agree that they have been fair.

 

I even quoted to the adjudicator what they say about redress calculations (prem + interest breakdown) on the FOS website, in which I never had presented but she still agreed that the bank had done right ? :shock:

 

My complaint was originally up-held by FOS in April 2013, yet the bank didn't make an offer until November 2014 ? When I requested why the delay both parties have avoided an answer ? So I also requested further compensation for the delay but this has also been rejected by the adjudicator. :mad2:

 

Further up-date received from Adjudicator regarding the estimated premium refund period advising that they agree with the banks figures ? How can I check that they are correct as I provided some of the months details in which I had and the bank did not.

 

I have requested breakdown on numerous occasions not only from the bank but also the Financial Ombudsman.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well seems my persistence is paying off.

 

Received breakdown of offer figure (originally requested in December 2014) including estimated period amounts. On checking my details I found that I had forwarded some of the statements regarding the pre 2001 period that had not been taken into consideration. They were actually more than what was estimated by RBS.

 

I again forwarded details via FOS and they are now recalculating the offer amount.

 

Just an afterthought, if my complaint was originally rejected by the bank then referred to FOS who eventually up-held my complaint what spreadsheet do I use to check that all is correct ?

 

This is bearing in mind that FOS advised that the bank would be making me an offer so therefore should it have been total premiums plus 8% simple interest ?

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

the only real true one is the fosrunning

but you need all the statements

 

 

fos ci will give you a guide figure

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
the only real true one is the fosrunning

but you need all the statements

 

 

fos ci will give you a guide figure

 

Cheers dx so is the one attached correct?

 

I am slightly confused as RBS have used associated interest even though it was FOS who up-held the complaint ?

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...