Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3161 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Brief summary/history

Other half's card.

 

Commenced 1998, defaulted 2006 with interest frozen from that date.

Default card balance was £6,500 - progressively paid/reduced to just under £5,000.

PPI claim made October 2012 - initially refused but upheld by the FOS on adjudication.

 

March 2014 NatWest credited £4,664 to the card, leaving a balance of £323.

By my own (spreadsheet) calculations the payment should have been some £1450 more than they paid.

 

Their payment was arrived at as follows:

Refund of payment made 1998 to 2006 £2334.14

Compound interest based on rates charged £ 712.36

Sub total £3056.50

Gross interest at 8% £2010.43

Less income tax at 20% £ 402.09

Net interest £1608.34

Net offer £4664.84

 

It is their compound interest figure that I cannot agree with.

During the 8 year life of the card, monthly interest rates varied between 1.385% and 1.620%. The average card balance was about £3200.

My calculations show the compound interest figure to be about £2077 rather than their figure of £712. This would also increase the 8% gross interest amount due by about £1000. I reckon we want about another £2500 from them (before tax)

 

I have written to them several times asking for a breakdown of their compound interest figure and have been stonewalled each time. They say they cannot provide these (complicated) calculations but that they are in line with the FOS and FCA guidelines.

 

Their last reply even went so far as to 'explain' to me how compound interest works. I can scarcely believe the content of it.

 

Here is the relevant paragraph from their letter:

As a basic look at the compound interest aspect, if you compared the monthly balance of the credit card with and without PPI and the difference was £20, then the interest element would be determined from this figure. If the monthly interest rate was 1% and 12% per annum, this would mean that the starting figure for the compound interest is 20p (1% of £20.00) if your card then ran for 5 years, the compound interest on this PPI premium would accumulate as follows, year 1 = 22p, year 2 = 25p, year 3 = 28p, year 4 = 31p, year 5 = 35p. Therefore the total amount difference in balance of £20.00 in this example would be 35p.

 

So, this 'expert' from RBS thinks the compound interest would be 35p. Well, I calculate it to be £16.33. She seems to have worked it out at 1% per annum rather than 1% per month.

(I am not a mathematician so if I have got this completely wrong and she is right, please, someone, tell me I am making a numpty of myself).

 

So, ladies and gentlemen of CAG, where do I go next with this shower?

Suggestions and comments most welcome, thanks.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

so what spreadsheet did you use.

 

 

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

ideally you should be using the fos running

or the fosCIsheet

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?330996-Latest-Spreadsheets-PPI-Claims-and-Charges-Claims-Dec-2011

 

 

and converting your avg monthly int rate to apr using this

 

 

http://www.stoozing.com/calculator/apr-rate-converter.php

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

find the avg of your monthly rate

then use the stoozing site

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

pers I think they are talking bowlarks..

 

 

unless the account goes into credit compounded int is still being charged every month

 

 

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

pers I think they are talking bowlarks..

 

 

unless the account goes into credit compounded int is still being charged every month

 

 

dx

 

Totally agree. The underpayment of £1450 or so plus the resulting statutory interest comes to best part of £2,500. I just cannot get them to accept they have got it wrong or to send me their calculations.

 

I am lost as to what to try next.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

you cant have both

either:

you get compounded int if the account is in the red [minus the PPI refund running total to that date]

or you get stat 8% on any credit balance in that month only

that's why the FOSrunning sheet is the best one to do but very hardwork to enter all the info.

 

 

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

you cant have both

either:

you get compounded int if the account is in the red [minus the PPI refund running total to that date]

or you get stat 8% on any credit balance in that month only

that's why the FOSrunning sheet is the best one to do but very hardwork to enter all the info.

 

dx

 

I obviously have not made myself clear here.

 

The account was terminated in 2006.

 

We have received the PPI premiums paid plus £712 in compound interest.

 

We are still some £1400 short in compound interest (as per the above calcs).

 

Stat interest will be due on this £1400 underpayment from 2006 until the date of payout. Hence, about £2500 in total.

 

But, the big question is...

 

How do I get them to accept they have underpaid me

 

or how do I prove it to them?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed ring the fos again

Tell them they are short changing you.

 

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

  • 4 weeks later...
I obviously have not made myself clear here.

 

The account was terminated in 2006.

 

We have received the PPI premiums paid plus £712 in compound interest.

 

We are still some £1400 short in compound interest (as per the above calcs).

 

Stat interest will be due on this £1400 underpayment from 2006 until the date of payout. Hence, about £2500 in total.

 

But, the big question is...

 

How do I get them to accept they have underpaid me

 

or how do I prove it to them?

 

This problem of 'associated interest' and underpayments is not just NatWest but many Companies

are short changing on PPI refunds. I am in the same situation as you but mine is with Barclaycard.

I asked the FOS to intervene on the subject of 'associated interest' some 18 months ago and i am still waiting for a result !

Link to post
Share on other sites

This problem of 'associated interest' and underpayments is not just NatWest but many Companies

are short changing on PPI refunds. I am in the same situation as you but mine is with Barclaycard.

I asked the FOS to intervene on the subject of 'associated interest' some 18 months ago and i am still waiting for a result !

 

Sorry to hi-jack thread but I am in the same boat with NatWest.

 

It's taken me a nearly a year to get a breakdown of their estimated premiums but still awaiting further explanation regarding associated / compound interest calculations. Same original response from Bank regarding complexity in which the FOS adjudicator agreed with and quoted the banks comments word for word when I spoke to them :shock:

 

I will be subbing this thread with interest as find it so frustrating in the way the banks just quote a figure without any concise breakdown.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I last posted I have complained to the CEO of RBS. My complaint was passed to the 'PPI Executive Concerns Team' in Manchester. (Yes, I know, another desk in the same quagmire).

 

I received a reply a few days ago, as always, telling me I am wrong and they are right. With it was a print-out of PART of a spreadsheet. It has five columns:

1. Statement date

2. Monthly PPI

3. Monthly rate of interest (1.39% - throughout the 8 year life of the card!!)

4. Compound interest on premiums.

5. 8% interest on surplus redress.

 

Naturally it showed very similar final figures as the PPI payout I am disputing.

 

Interestingly, from August 98 (the start date) until July 2001, their monthly PPI premiums are totally different to the actual ones on my statements. They total £52 under the actual premiums charged. They have no excuse for this as I have previously supplied them with copies of my early statements.

 

I have reconstructed the account on two (different) spreadsheets found on here and they both show I have been underpaid some £1600, which I suspect is to do with associated compound interest, a matter I have some difficulty getting my head around.

 

Please can anyone point me towards any relevant threads where I may learn more?

 

Thanks all.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I last posted I have complained to the CEO of RBS. My complaint was passed to the 'PPI Executive Concerns Team' in Manchester. (Yes, I know, another desk in the same quagmire).

 

I received a reply a few days ago, as always, telling me I am wrong and they are right. With it was a print-out of PART of a spreadsheet. It has five columns:

1. Statement date

2. Monthly PPI

3. Monthly rate of interest (1.39% - throughout the 8 year life of the card!!)

4. Compound interest on premiums.

5. 8% interest on surplus redress.

 

Naturally it showed very similar final figures as the PPI payout I am disputing.

 

Interestingly, from August 98 (the start date) until July 2001, their monthly PPI premiums are totally different to the actual ones on my statements. They total £52 under the actual premiums charged. They have no excuse for this as I have previously supplied them with copies of my early statements.

 

I have reconstructed the account on two (different) spreadsheets found on here and they both show I have been underpaid some £1600, which I suspect is to do with associated compound interest, a matter I have some difficulty getting my head around.

 

Please can anyone point me towards any relevant threads where I may learn more?

 

Thanks all.

 

Would suggest you havea read of the following MBNA Interpretative Calculations

 

consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?372400-MBNA-PPI-Award-%93Interpretative%94-Calculations

 

If the FOS don't understand whats going on then we have no chance of getting

proper PPI redress refunds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...