Latest opinion from my adjudicator edited " There are variations in the way most banks calculate redress. Our approach at the Financial Ombudsman Service is not to make all banks calculate offers in the same way. Although there are of course some basic guidelines they do have to follow. Instead we look at the individual systems and say whether we think they are fair and reasonable. That means two banks can operate differently but both be fair. We would say that MBNA’s approach is fair. However I can understand your concerns, especially if you have had offers from banks that do it differently." So.... the monkey is telling the organ-grinder how things should work. FOS have had years to define the rules and now it seems that anything goes. suvin50

I don't have any statements, in fact the PPI payments for 1996-1999 are estimates as MBNA could not even supply transaction details. I did not miss any payments before 2005 and I cancelled PPI in 2004.

Got my "judgement" from my adjudicator today: As agreed I have included below a response to the complaint points we have discussed so far. The exception being the fees and charges issue. If I have missed anything please let me know. Your complaint is about an offer made by MBNA on 10 April 2012 for the payment protection insurance (PPI) policy attached to the credit card ending 0323. This offer was for £7,644.95. You were unhappy with this offer because it did not take into account the period from when you took out the card in 1995 to 1999. You also stated the contractual interest was incorrect. You then brought the complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service and MBNA made a second offer of £7,879.64 that included the missing period of 1995 to 1999. You have said you are unhappy with this second offer. You have stated that the calculation is too low. You are also unhappy that MBNA have not included penalty charges in their calculation, that the monthly interest rate is incorrect, that the business has not applied statutory interest when you defaulted on the account and how they have calculated the minimum repayments model. I have spoken to MBNA to query why when they recalculated the first offer to include the missing four years, the final figure did not increase significantly. I have previously explained that MBNA have told me that when the original calculation in April 2012 was completed, it showed that your account defaulted in 2006 with an outstanding balance of £13,833.86. The calculator used in 2012 to create the offer contained a fault. This meant that the outstanding balance amounts were treated by the calculator as a customer payment. This caused the reconstructed balance to go into credit and 8% simple interest accrued on this amount when none was due. MBNA have said that if the calculator had been correct then the redress due in April 2012 should have been £5,383.77, and not £7,644.95. The calculation in July 2013 for the second offer was worked using a new calculator that fixed the original fault. Therefore while it appeared the offer had only increased by a small amount, because the original figure was wrong it had actually increased by a significant amount . I hope this has gone some way in explaining why it appeared that the second offer had not been calculated correctly. You have raised a number of concerns about the second offer. You have stated the monthly rate of associated interest is incorrect. You have raised the point that the 2012 and 2014 calculations provided by MBNA in October 2014, and that I forwarded to you on, show contradictory associated interest amounts. You have also said that the associated interest rates on the 2012 calculation do not reflect the interest rates you believe were charged. I have explained that the 2012 calculations did not include premiums for the period June 1995 to July 1999, however an average premium was used in the 2014 calculation. Therefore the associated interest would differ for both calculations because the premium amounts that the associated interest accrued on were different. The 2014 calculation included a larger amount of premiums and so the associated interest was higher. I have also stated that monthly card rate figure on the 2012 calculations are not actually the annual percentage rate (APR) of the card. The card rate figure on the 2012 calculations is actually the proportion of interest to the overall balance and not the APR. This figure is then applied to the total amount of PPI premiums in each month to give the associated interest figure for the PPI. With regards to MBNA’s minimum payment MBNA will assume at points that if you make a minimum payment with PPI, you would have also made a minimum repayment without PPI. This minimum payment would have been less. They will then take the difference between the two payments and pay 8% simple interest on this. The purpose of redress in relation to credit cards is to place the account in the position it would have been had there been no PPI added on to the credit card. This means that when the account is still open, MBNA should do the following: · hypothetically reconstruct the account by removing any premiums and interest associated with the PPI premiums; · if that produces a credit balance for any period, add 8% simple interest on that balance for that period. Having looked at the offer made by MBNA I am so far satisfied that is has been made within our guidelines and therefore is fair and reasonable. This is includes their minimum repayment model and that MBNA that have not applied 8% simple interest to the balance of the account while it was in default. Another whitewash

Just received this from my adjudicator: Sounds a bit more promising. I have spoken to my colleague who is dealing directly with MBNA about their offers. He has told me that they have developed a system that they putting forward for the fees and charges. We are currently looking over it in relation to cases where they say no fees and charges are due. If we are happy with it we will then ask them to extend to cases where they agree some fees and charges are due. Your complaint would fall into this category. I have asked for timescales and he couldn’t say exactly but said it could be a little while. What I thought was that I would send you something next week looking at all your complaint points except the charges. You can then look at this and agree or disagree and we can continue our dialogue until it is resolved to your satisfaction or it will have to go to an ombudsman. This will mean everything except the fees and charges will be ready. By the time that is all done the fees and charges may be resolved or close to resolution and we can deal with that then. Please let me know what you think.

OK thanks, thought that was the case.

Hi After a gap of 3 years I sent a SAR and received all my statemenats. There are several hundred pounds in charges. As this was a mortgage account, does the 6 year rule apply in claiming charges back?

A few weeks ago I sent a query to my adjudicator: In the details of the reconstructed accounts, the 2012 versions show the monthly interest rate but the 2014 version does not. Take for instance the entry for 30/09/1999. The 2012 version shows a monthly interest rate of 1.5% (which equates to an APR of 19.56%) and associated interest of £0.70. The 2014 version does not show any monthly interest rate but the associated interest is £10.41. Every entry has a similar discrepancy. Also the APR on the card was 18.9% when it was taken out in 1995, rising to 24.9% in 2002. Using the monthly interest rates provided by MBNA the APR varies between 20.84% and 11.48%. This is his reply: The 2012 calculations did not calculate redress for the period June 1995 to July 1999. This was then rectified in the 2014 calculations. This meant that in the example you gave of 30 September 1999 for the 2012 calculation you received associated interest on approximately £46 in premiums and why the figure was only £0.70. For the 2014 figures they have incorporated the estimated premiums June 1995 to July 1999. Therefore the associated interest would take into account all of these premiums wrapped up in the balance and why the associated interest figure was higher and this would then show in all the following months. With regards to the interest rates the figure of 1.5% isn’t actually the APR. The 1.5% is the proportion of interest to the overall balance. So for September 1999 the balance was £3,574.58 and the interest charged on this was £53.62. Therefore £53.62 is 1.5% of £3,574.58 (3,574.58 divided by 100 times 1.5). MBNA then take the figure of 1.5% and apply it to the sum total of PPI charged of £23.78 + £22.38 to work out proportionately how much interest was applied to the PPI. Therefore 23.78 + 22.38 is 46.16 and 1.5% of this is 0.69p. I queried why this percentage rate was in the 2012 figures and not the 2014 figures. They said the 2014 just doesn’t show this figure and so it can’t be included on the print out. I hope that answers everything. If you have any further queries please let me know. I think he is out of his depth.

T&Cs from 1995

I have converted monthly rate to annual rate for 36 months and the annual rate varies from 11.48 % to 20.84 %. APR on original T&Cs was 18.9% for purchases.

I don't have any statements but do have a lot of info from the mainframe logs. I will trawl through them.

Thanks for that dx

The calculations for my complaint provided last November (posts #597/#599) don't seem to have the same headings as any of the versions in post #736. The monthly interest rates shown appear a bit iffy as well. What is the formula for converting monthly rates to annual rates?

Good post Miaspa ( got that right). I am away now till the new year but will be pressing this in January. Thanks for all your input.

Latest response from my adjudicator: Thank you for your email. I know when we originally corresponded you were unhappy with the discrepancy between the two offers made in April 2012 and July 2013. I hope I have gone some way in explaining why the figures differed and the fault in MBNA’s original calculator. In light of that information, apart from the fees and charges issue, could you briefly explain why you think the offer is too low and not within our guidelines. He still believes that there was a fault in the original calculations. I know that they are just clerical workers but they should not be allowed to offer opinions without proof to back them up.

Hi wasn't sure if I would get anything. When the card defaulted LTSB deducted all PPI contributions from the outstanding balance. There is a CCJ still in force but I haven't made a payment for 18 months as SCM, who the payments went through, did not really exist. I am happy with what I received, which was a 4 figure sum. I had a letter from LTSB yesterday saying that the account has been passed to Moorcroft as there is no payment plan in place. Can they do this when there is a CCJ in force?

Finally got a cheque after 3 years. Didn't offset anything even though there is still an outstanding CCJ

You should be able to work out for yourselves how to find the full judgement. It is here: https://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2014_0037_Judgment.pdf Not rocket science suvin

No.link is here http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/sitesearch.do?querystring=plevin+&p=tto&pf=all&bl=on suvin

Interesting PPI article on page 84 of the Times today.

Hi Miasma The payments you have highlighted were an agreed plan with MBNA. I have pointed this out to the adjudicator and await his response.

Latest email from my adjudicator explaining why the interest rates vary so much: The variable interest rate is due to the fact you would have had different interest rates for different uses of the card. So the interest rate for a purchase would be different to the rate on balance transfers or cash withdrawals. Because of this difference they are unable to put one interest rate down. Therefore as you stated they work out the average interest rate using the formula you mentioned. suvin

Latest guess from the adjudicator: Thank you for your email. I think I have got to the bottom of it. The figure £5,361.76 is the PPI premiums and associated interest you paid. However it doesn’t take into account the surplus redress which would form part of the PPI. If you add the figure of £5,361.76 and the surplus redress figure of £1,522.15 you then get the total in the updated offer letter. suvin

Hi No, don't have any statements. All the SAR provided was the transaction history. suvin

I've just received my reconstructed account spread sheet. Can this be used to get MBNA's defence thrown out as it clearly shows that I have never been over my credit limit with PPI taken off. It also shows that they have been aware of this since I first complained in 2012.

Hi This is the email I sent to FOS asking them to check MBNA's figures: There are a few anomalies in the spreadsheets MBNA have provided. In the 3rd S/S October 2014 there is a column "Surplus Redress". Can you find out from MBNA what these figures represent? Based on the S/S they are figures plucked out of nowhere. Why does the reconstructed balance not receive 8% simple interest when the balance on the card is zero? £5,361.76 @ 8% simple interest Feb 2007 to November 2014 is 35.75 x 94 which is £3,360.50. MBNA can say all they like about default status, but, as at 2007 they owed £5,383.77 without the missing 4 years PPI. This has to receive 8% simple interest per FOS guidelines. They have denied me access to that sum for 7 years. One last question: Why, in the corrected 2007 calculation, is the refunded PPI and associated interest £5,383.77, whereas after adding 4 years PPI(£504.99), the balance due in PPI and associated interest is only £5,361.76? Anyone who uncritically accepts these figures is being credulous. I am taking MBNA to court over the erroneous penalty charges. My complaint regarding these charges has been on-going for almost 3 years so I decided to see what a District Judge would think about it. Just had a reply from FOS Thank you for your email. I will address your queries in order. The surplus redress column is in relation to minimum repayments. So when a minimum repayment is made MBNA assume if there was no PPI on the account and therefore your balance would have been lower, you would have made a lower minimum repayment. They then work out the difference from what you paid and what you would have paid without PPI. This figure is added to the surplus column and 8% simple interest is paid on this figure. The reconstructed balance will receive 8% simple interest if it is in credit. However looking at the figures provided by MBNA the only time the reconstructed balance is not an outstanding amount is when it is at zero is for the estimated period. The nature of the estimated period is that assumptions are made about premiums made and you are refunded for these premiums and associated interest on the premiums. However because it is estimated data the business does not know what your actual balance on the account was and therefore if your balance went to zero or was in credit. Therefore no 8% simple interest is given for the estimated period. As stated above 8% simple interest would be paid by MBNA on the surplus balance and on a positive reconstructed balance. Looking at your reconstructed balance I can’t see has gone into a positive and therefore 8% would only be due on the surplus balance. Please can you clarify the last question. I am unsure where the figure of £5,361.76 has been reached.