Good job too as the cheque arrived today Very impressive turnaround time - 6 weeks. Well done MBNA

Yes, I'm definitely sticking with it to be fair.

Woah, that's interesting - that's pretty much near enough what they came up with Using 22.95% in the FoSrunning sheet = 3368.61 (PPI 1681.44 Compound interest 1687.17 Their offer = 3354.57 (PPI 1568.40 Compound interest 610.05 SI at 8% 1176.12) So really my query is how they've come up with 8% SI when my account never went into credit as clearly I'd need to declare this to the taxman, when I would argue SI shouldn't even be part of the offer.

Just seeking a point of clarification. I was charged two separate APRs - from 29Nov99 to 7Jul03 it was 15.9% From 8Jul03 to 31Aug05 (termination date) it was 22.95% Should I do two separate FOSrunning spreadsheets, one for each period, carrying forward the totals from the first spreadsheet (29Nov99-7Jul03) to the start of the second spreadsheet ?

So for me it looks as if their compound and PPI figures are wrong, and their SI is too high. They're about £1,400 out.

Ah right, okay - so I need to write back to them with my figures then, you think ?

I've added the final figure of PPI plus compound interest which I make 3063.35 to the statint spreadsheet and the date of the last statement 8 Aug 05 which adds a further 1680.12 at 8% However, I thought the 8% would only be added if I took the matter to Court or if the balance went into credit (which it never did) ? My figures from using the FOS running spreadsheet (using the last statement date of 8 Aug 05) were : Total cost of PPI = 1681.44 Compound interest = 1381.91 Stat interest = NIL TOTAL = 3063.35 However, MBNA have come up with completely different figures Total cost of PPI = 1568.40 Compound interest = 610.05 Statutory interest = 1176.12 TOTAL = 3354.57 I don't know for the life of me where they've got that statutory interest figure from. I may re-do my calculations and take off the charges they reimbursed me in 2006 - I suppose that may make a difference, but it would never have been enough to go into a credit balance as far as I can see. But my point remains - if I'm following the FOS guidelines, then would I even have a claim for the statutory interest ? I thought this only came into play if I went to Court ? Help !

So I can't claim for any interest from the date they sold it then (August 2005 to date) ? I suppose it makes sense, but I feel a little bit deflated about that....

The account was sold by MBNA to Wescot in August 2005. It is unclear whether MBNA terminated the account at that time, but I assume so as I have had no statements since that time.

Anyone ?

The account defaulted and was terminated (allegedly - I never got a default or termination notice) in August 2005 and was re-assigned to Wescot. They tried to pursue me for the debt through County Court, failed to comply with the Court's direction and the claim was struck out. They have since confirmed the case has been closed and they will not be pursuing me for it again. So would I not have a claim for interest from August 2005 to the present day, because the offer only includes interest up to August 2005 ?

Mind you, it doesn't explain how part of their award includes £1.1K at 8% unless they took into account the account charges they refunded to me in 2006. I suppose that's possible.

Aha, using FoS running v101 spreadsheet I get near enough the same as them. Darn it, if only the other spreadsheet I had used had been accurate - got my hopes up there ! Oh well, at the end of the day £3.3K is still a result, and they are sending me a cheque (rather than offsetting against a debt they sold)

I've had a letter this morning confirming MBNA have upheld my PPI complaint, but their calculations seem a bit skew-wiff. They have calculated an amount in the region of £3300, but the amounts are all wrong. The total amount of premiums they state is about £100 short, and the interest is way out in comparison to the figures calculated using the bezzycap1 spreadsheet, about £5000 out (this is a very old PPI claim going back to 1999). Interestingly they have added 8% interest on some part of it. They have offered me the amount in full and final settlement, but clearly I don't agree with their calculations. Is it worth me asking them to justify their calculations, and send copies of the spreadsheets I have used. Or should I refuse their offer and just head straight to FOS ? Whilst £3K is not be sniffed at, I think they're way short

Complaint upheld, apology received for the two letters sent in error and, more critically, 'the decision was then taken that the account would be closed on our system and no further contact would be made to you'. They didn't actually tell me that any time, but this is the outcome I wanted, so I'll stick with that, thanks They also stated that the account defaulted in August 2005 (I wasn't ever told this by anyone) so that should have dropped off the record now (I'll do an Experian check). Result. Right, now for my PPI reclaim then.....

Got an acknowledgement at last - their policy gives them 4 weeks to respond or to ask me for more time up to a maximum of 8 weeks.... Ho-hum - this one will run on a bit longer than anticipated, but I do need to exhaust their policy before escalating.

Andyorch posted this in my topic about Wescot/MBNA if it's any help

This topic may help - essentially, my understanding is that if the claim is identical to the one already dismissed then Res judicata applies - but I'm no legal expert, so don't take my word for it.

Yes, unluckily for them my day job is dealing with complaints for a housing association

Final complaint (1) Background Wescot SPV Limited (‘Wescot’) brought a claim against myself in Northampton County Court Bulk Centre on 29 September 2011, case number xxxx The proceedings alluded to certain documents which Wescot intended to rely upon in support of their claim. Despite requesting sight of these documents, and mutually agreeing a timetable with Wescot enabling them ample time to provide the documents, it became necessary for myself to apply to the Court to issue a General Directions Order to seek possession of the documents in order that I could prepare my defence to the Court claim. The Court issued an Order on 6 December 2011, directing Wescot to produce the documents by 20 December 2011 (copy enclosed for reference). Wescot failed to produce the documents within the timescale and on 21 December 2011 the Court struck out Wescot’s claim. (2) Details of Complaint My complaint relates to three letters issued by Wescot Credit Services Limited on 10 December 2011, 22 December 2011 and 31 January 2012, copies of which are attached for your reference. The two letters issued in December 2011 contain information which is a direct breach of the OFT Debt Collection Guidance. The letter issued in January 2012 contains inaccurate information about the legal standing of Wescot in this matter. I shall now expand further, looking at each letter in turn. (a) The letter of 10 December 2011 notes in the opening paragraph : As you have failed to respond to our attempts to contact you and agree repayment of the above account, a County Court Judgment (CCJ) is now registered against you for the full amount shown above. You should have received a copy of the CCJ from the County Court. This is factually incorrect as the Court has never issued such a Judgment, and confirmed this with me. This statement is a direct breach of the OFT Debt Collection Guidance, namely Section 3, Unfair or Improper Business Practices: False representation of authority and/or legal position, which states 3.5. Examples of unfair or improper practices are as follows… … (e) falsely implying or stating that action has been taken when it has not (For example, stating that civil action has been taken when it has not or that a court judgment has already been obtained when it has not been.) (b) The letter of 22 December 2011 notes in the opening paragraph You have failed to pay in accordance with the terms of the County Court Judgment. Unless this default is paid within the next 7 days, the claimant may commence enforcement action…. …Further, an application may be made to the Court for an Order for Questioning. This would result in court documents being personally served on you, ordering your attendance at your local County Court… Again, these two statements are factually incorrect and are a direct breach of the OFT Debt Collection Guidance referred to at (a) above. You will note that the dates of both letters relate to the period just after the Court had issued the General Directions Order of 6 December 2011. By the date of this second letter, Wescot had in fact already failed to comply with the Court’s Order of 6 December 2011 and by definition their claim had been already been struck out by the Court, which gave them no legal right to pursue the debt. I do concede that both of these letters are apparently computer produced but they are ‘signed’ by S de Tute, who I understand is a solicitor and also the President of the Credit Services Association. I find it incredible that Sara de Tute would be putting her name to such letters, which so clearly fall foul of the OFT Guidance. © The letter of 31 January 2012 encloses the documents which were Ordered by the Court on 6 December 2011, over a month later than the deadline date. The documents are now purely academic as the Court claim has been struck out. The letter notes that We have the option of an Application to the Court to have the action re-instated or issuing a fresh Claim exhibiting, in evidence the Documents we have enclosed On the first point, this is factually incorrect – it would not be possible for the Court to reinstate the Claim. The General Directions Order of 6 December 2011 clearly states that This order has been made without a hearing under the Courts case management powers contained in the Civil Procedure Rules Part 3. You may within 7 days of the service of this order, apply to the Court to set aside or vary the order under Part 23 Rule 10… As no such application was made within 7 days, the option for Wescot to apply to set aside the Court’s General Direction Order has long passed. On the second point, whilst it may be technically possible for Wescot to issue a fresh Claim, the claim would be vigorously defended by myself under Res judicata, in that it is not possible for a Claimant to bring the same proceedings again when a decision (in this case, the first claim being struck out) has already been made. Once again, Wescot have breached the OFT Debt Collection Guidance namely Section 3, Unfair or Improper Business Practices: False representation of authority and/or legal position, which states 3.5. Examples of unfair or improper practices are as follows… …(b) falsely implying or stating that action can, or will, be taken, when legally it cannot be taken   (3) Resolution I propose the following resolutions to this complaint : (1) With reference to the letters of 10 and 22 December 2011, I seek your written assurances that you will review your procedures to ensure that other customers are not issued with the same erroneous computer-produced letter(s) whilst legal proceedings are still underway (unless of course a County Court Judgment has actually been issued by the Court) (2) With reference to the letter of 31 January 2012, I seek your written assurances that : • Wescot will not be pursuing this matter in the Court in the future • Wescot will be closing the matter • Wescot will be removing any adverse information entered by them on any Credit Reference Agency records about myself during the time they were assigned this debt Should this matter not be resolved to my satisfaction, I shall have no alternative but to escalate this complaint with the Office of Fair Trading and the Solicitors Regulation Authority, which could result in financial penalties being imposed upon your organisation. I trust this will not be necessary.

Complaint sent today by recorded delivery, with a few minor amendments to the text (and additional references to escalating to the SRA) but nothing major altered - light blue touch paper and stand back...

I reckon I'll stick with what I've got then, although I might just add a reference to the SRA on there too when I mention escalation

Does this mean what I have written is incorrect then ? Has that time under 3.1(2)(a) now passed or is it open-ended ?

This is the substance of my complaint (the covering letter sets down a reasonable timeframe for their responses - acknowledge by e-mail within 2 working days giving name and contact info of person investigating, formal response in writing by letter within 10 working days or if unable to achieve this an e-mail within 10 working days stating when they intend replying and advising what information theyt are seeking (taken from my own employer's complaints policy) This is the substantive complaint : (1) Background Wescot SPV Limited (‘Wescot’) brought a claim against myself in Northampton County Court Bulk Centre on 29 September 2011. The proceedings alluded to certain documents which Wescot intended to rely upon in support of their claim. Despite requesting sight of these documents, and mutually agreeing a timetable with Wescot enabling them ample time to provide the documents, it became necessary for myself to apply to the Court to issue a General Directions Order to seek possession of the documents in order that I could prepare my defence to the Court claim. The Court issued an Order on 6 December 2011, directing Wescot to produce the documents by 20 December 2011 (copy enclosed for reference). Wescot failed to produce the documents within the timescale and on 21 December 2011 the Court struck out Wescot’s claim. (2) Details of Complaint My complaint relates to three letters issued by Wescot Credit Services Limited on 10 December 2011, 22 December 2011 and 31 January 2012, copies of which are attached for your reference. The two letters issued in December 2011 contain information which is a direct breach of the OFT Debt Collection Guidance. The letter issued in January 2012 contains inaccurate information about the legal standing of Wescot in this matter. I shall now expand further, looking at each letter in turn. (a) The letter of 10 December 2011 notes in the opening paragraph : As you have failed to respond to our attempts to contact you and agree repayment of the above account, a County Court Judgment (CCJ) is now registered against you for the full amount shown above. You should have received a copy of the CCJ from the County Court. This is factually incorrect as the Court has never issued such a Judgment, and confirmed this with me. This statement is a direct breach of the OFT Debt Collection Guidance, namely Section 3, Unfair or Improper Business Practices: False representation of authority and/or legal position, which states 3.5. Examples of unfair or improper practices are as follows… … (e) falsely implying or stating that action has been taken when it has not (For example, stating that civil action has been taken when it has not or that a court judgment has already been obtained when it has not been.) (b) The letter of 22 December 2011 notes in the opening paragraph You have failed to pay in accordance with the terms of the County Court Judgment. Unless this default is paid within the next 7 days, the claimant may commence enforcement action…. …Further, an application may be made to the Court for an Order for Questioning. This would result in court documents being personally served on you, ordering your attendance at your local County Court… Again, these two statements are factually incorrect and are a direct breach of the OFT Debt Collection Guidance referred to at (a) above. You will note that the dates of both letters relate to the period just after the Court had issued the General Directions Order of 6 December 2011. By the date of this second letter, Wescot had in fact already failed to comply with the Court’s Order of 6 December 2011 and by definition their claim had been already been struck out by the Court, which gave them no legal right to pursue the debt. I do concede that both of these letters are apparently computer produced but they are ‘signed’ by S de Tute, who I understand is the President of the Credit Services Association. I find it incredible that Sara de Tute would be putting her name to such letters, which so clearly fall foul of the OFT Guidance. © The letter of 31 January 2012 encloses the documents which were Ordered by the Court on 6 December 2011, over a month later than the deadline date. The documents are now purely academic as the Court claim has been struck out. The letter notes that We have the option of an Application to the Court to have the action re-instated or issuing a fresh Claim exhibiting, in evidence the Documents we have enclosed On the first point, this is factually incorrect – it would not be possible for the Court to reinstate the Claim. The General Directions Order of 6 December 2011 clearly states that This order has been made without a hearing under the Courts case management powers contained in the Civil Procedure Rules Part 3. You may within 7 days of the service of this order, apply to the Court to set aside or vary the order under Part 23 Rule 10… As no such application was made within 7 days, the option for Wescot to apply to reinstate the original Claim had long passed. On the second point, whilst it may be technically possible for Wescot to issue a fresh Claim, the claim would be vigorously defended by myself under Res judicata, in that it is not possible for a Claimant to bring the same proceedings again when a decision (in this case, the first claim being struck out) has already been made. Once again, Wescot have breached the OFT Debt Collection Guidance namely Section 3, Unfair or Improper Business Practices: False representation of authority and/or legal position, which states 3.5. Examples of unfair or improper practices are as follows… …(b) falsely implying or stating that action can, or will, be taken, when legally it cannot be taken (3) Resolution I propose the following resolutions to this complaint : (1) With reference to the letters of 10 and 22 December 2011, I seek your written assurances that you will review your procedures to ensure that other customers are not victims of the same type of computer-produced letter whilst legal proceedings are still underway (unless of course a County Court Judgment has actually been issued by the Court) (2) With reference to the letter of 31 January 2012, I seek your written assurances that : • Wescot will not be pursuing this matter in the Court in the future • Wescot will be closing the matter • Wescot will be removing any adverse information entered by them on any Credit Reference Agency records during the time they were assigned this debt Should this matter not be resolved to my satisfaction, I shall have no alternative but to escalate this complaint with the Office of Fair Trading, which could result in financial penalties being imposed upon your organisation. I trust this will not be necessary. Thoughts ?

Cheque has now been received (donation on its way) and I'm now drafting a complaint with them about their conduct (sending letters saying I had a CCJ entered against me when I did not) and advising them strongly that if they intend to pursue this matter again I will defend it 'vigorously' - the resolution I will be seeking is them closing the case (and if possible getting them to remove records from credit ref agencies, tho' that might be pushing it... Will post up my draft in the next day or so.