ken100464
-
Posts
379 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by ken100464
-
SR Just post it up without anything identifying you and anyone on this thread will be able to tell you if they have changed the method or if you are in the long line with us
-
Survin Miaspa 2010 has it. Your adjudicator is not up to it. Keep its simple keep it to the facts. These spreadsheets are PS10/12 minus the charges. if you can knock the enablers (M & F's) on the head the associated interest [problem] falls away. And if you have the statements use them. Perhaps anyone else who is with an adjudicator should be asking why MBNA is the only bank giving transaction logs out instead of statements. Could it be that the mins would be obvious even to a FOS adjudicator. Because they would be on the statements and may not actually correspond to what MBNA are inputting to the spreadsheets. How can FOS allow something that is fact be overturned by fiction.
-
Miaspa Totally agree. No justification at all. What do FOS not get. Its all made up but the sad thing its made up to allow the bank to cut redress.
-
Well GS the fulls are where the damage is done behind the scenes. But if you had a balance how an earth can MBNA declare a Full payment. All adds to MBNA doing as they please. Hope your reading FOS. Cant you see?
-
Survin You want to ask your adjudicator what is that surplus interest? Where is surplus redress in the example in the FCA handbook? We know what it is. Am sure your adjudicator wont. And seeing as these redress offers are supposed to be clear to everyone then why isnt MBNA being particularly clear hear. Oh its because they cannot say this is the amount removed from your notional balance which subsequently leaves a certain amount of associated interest in your balance which then compounds at the card rate.They could never say what it really is because its there to reduce the redress. And who benifits?. It certainly isnt the consumer.
-
WID As AC says we can check that they have followed PS10/12 app2 exp6. That will not be a problem. It is now for FOS and FCA to come up with a reason why one bank should be allowed to cut redress substantially across the board because that bank is using an alternative method to what the regulator wanted them to. We can prove the enablers are wrong. But because they are hung up on the enablers the powers that be cannot get their head around the trickery that is stopping associated interest still within the account from being fairly part of the redress. They are allowing the bank not to put the consumer back into a position they would be if the PPI wasnt there. FOS/FCA you really are being made out to be mugs here. Will only take one journo to get this and you really are going to have a rather lot of explaining to do.
-
Missing the fact that in real life the account would have been having associated interest at the card rate being applied. Therefore associated interest would be higher. This sum remains within the calculation to MBNA's benifit. Doesnt matter if they are messing about with minimums etc (which I am sure we can all prove MBNA have been making these up aswell) this interest remains within the balance and therefore compounds over time. FOS is getting hooked by the enabling mechanism and missing the magicians trick just as the bank wanted them too. Therefore the consumer has not been put back into the position they were before the PPI was added. Shame on you FOS. Your guidance and bleating about being fair are being taken to the cleaners by this bank. Yes the one that is continually being fined for being rather naughty. Come on FOS simple maths. If you really cannot get this then I am afraid you really are not fit for purpose and would suggest you are going to looking rather sheepish that you just dont grasp this bank is fooling you all yet again.
-
Sadly FOS are showing themselves up to be totally incompetent. As everyone is now starting to say this is becoming a very newsworthy story. After spoon feeding both the regulator and the ombudsman they just do not understand what the bank is doing. Basically short changing everyone who had the misfortune to be miss sold something the the regulator has said should be paid back. This bank has form. It was caught doing something similar a couple of years before. There appears to be evidence on here. We are only applying what both the regulator and the ombudsman is publicly stating the bank should be doing. If the bank is not doing what it is being told it should be doing by the regulator then it isnt just us the poor consumer being done over. Its the regulator still not getting that these banks are still at it and without proper sanction nothing will ever change in the public's view of the modern day money lenders. Someone with a beard and a sack cloth many years ago had the right idea. Mr Wheatley wants us to trust the banks again. Not when you have this behaviour still ongoing Mr Wheatley.
-
If we keep at them with the proveable eventually someone somewhere is going to twig this is just fantasy land redress calculations. FCA and FOS doing themselves no favours at all. Scandal on a scandal. They been told whats wrong but are leaving individuals to fight alone.
-
Answer is easy. We have proof of full's that are not full's and minimum's that are not minimum's. We know what the shuffle does and we know what the full and minimum's are hiding. To the uninitiated the calculation looks exactly like it should do. Reasonable. And as you are reading this thread FCA/FOS you are very trusting of a bank that is using figures that we have proof did not happen. Not investigating WHY a bank is using such an unusual method of calculation for normal claims is appalling. Being told it is reducing claims by at least a third across the board and you have not looked at the mechanics nor the maths but just asked the bank to assure you they aren't up to anything. The fact this bank appears to have been caught out before by a CMC doing something similar. You are being hoodwinked big style. Basically we know what the bank is doing. The bank could have written to each and everyone who seemed to be close to an understanding of their methods and brought us off so to speak with enhanced payments thus closing this thread down or they could follow a path where both the regulator and ombudsman could and will get a rather rude awakening to being asleep yet again. This bank has not changed its spots. It isn't cleaning up it's act. And the regulator wonders why the public doesn't trust banks as far as we can throw them.
-
AC & AMN Well said both of you. Both organisations had the chance and the time. Disappointing they did not take it. This has not ended. A scandal upon a scandal while the Regulator and Ombudsman looked on. That is a good press story. Martin Wheatley knew about this as we wrote to him.
-
Keep the faith. Remember the F & M's are just the enablers (the actual things we can all prove didnt happen on the paperwork we all have) to allow the maths to swipe the fair redress. If FOS have taken 6 months to not understand the problem then so let then be seen to be not fit for purpose that they really are. They have not understood the maths behind the veneer of what the bank says is acceptable calculating. Schoolboy maths. The PPI is within the account. By not taking it out as they are supposed to do with this creative accounting they are not placing the consumer back into the position they should be if the PPI had not been sold. The bank is not doing as either the regulator nor the ombudsman says it should. Therefore if neither the regulator nor the ombudsman can see this then lets get someone who can and then let the regulator explain why it has been caught sleeping again (remember what this bank said about overlimits in the press not 4 months ago) and let the ombudsman explain why people who are obviously so pro bank are allowed to operate within what is supposed to be an impartial ombudsman service. Let battle commence.
-
AC Press? No reason to protect either the regulator or FOS now.
-
WID I am not party to FOS or FCA thinking. I tend to agree with AC that this is over 6 months and what we are cribbing about is simple maths which we have pointed them to. Its either wrong and MBNA should be getting a battering for what they have done or we are wrong and FOS should be politely telling us we have got it all wrong and this is why. This limbo doesnt do the regulator or the poodle much good.
-
Hi GS I knew we would be still messaging on here 2 years after the thread started. Is this a reply as in a holding minion reply or is it a high born reply with all the bells and whistles? My personnal experience of FOS is they try and get you to accept the least they possibly can away with. Hence why everyone is seeing them in such low esteem. They dont seem to fully understand the complaints and this one will be no exception. What have they said you can do? I cant remember if you have pushed this to an Ombudsman yet.
-
I think reading AC's link you would have to think FCA/FOS are starting to understand the banks have been at it again. But hiding behind the FCA/FOS when saying they are doing it correctly. So perhaps could be why they are extending the provision once again,
-
Baz. Yes you can claim all the way back but you have to think before you start about why you are claiming. Just because you had PPI does not mean it was missold. So as others have said its best to read up on reasons why people get upholds and make your initial contact with the bank as strong as you can. Once you get the uphold hopefully then its well worth looking on the big interpretive calculations thread in the MBNA section to see what awaits you. With charges you need to look at did the PPI trigger them. MBNA have publicly stated that they add PPI last to the account each month so it cant be the PPI that caused the charge. However FOS seemed to contradict that statement straight away. They have nicely sidestepped the fact that they are supposed to reconstruct the account without the PPI in it and then deduct ANY charges that become due because the reconstruction means they cannot of happened. Thats in the FCA rulebook, the FOS online guidance and to most people would seem fair. You will find if you reconstruct your balance via an online calculator that overlimits should become suspect very quickly ie your reconstructed balance falls below your limit and therefore should be paid back. (In MBNA world they like to work in a single month and not think that they should be accruing the damage they did to people over time.) Late payments and unpaid direct debits and the like you should treat a bit differently. If your reconstructed balance is still in debit when you incurred a late then you would have still probably incurred it. But if your account goes into credit then you cant have had a late fee for when they owed you. Good luck
-
MBNA PPI - partial payout.....
ken100464 replied to AB1979's topic in Payment Protection Insurance (PPI)
Oh just to add and not sure if you had any overlimits in your account. If you did and your own calculations indicate your account was not over limit at the time then claim them also MBNA are sticking to the line that they applied PPI last each month and therefore it cant have caused the PPI. But the whole point of a reconstruction of your account is to show what it would have been if the PPI wasnt there. Very quickly and over time most accounts will dip below the limit if you went over it. So many of us will have an account reconstruction where sometimes the reconstructed balance is in credit to us but MBNA still want to charge us an overlimit fee. They have actually gone to press to say these charges should stand because they are applying the PPI last so it wasnt the PPI that caused it completely ignoring in their favour the months and months of PPI and associated interest that shouldnt be in your account in the first place. Even the FOS spokes person seemed to think charges should be coming back to us. -
MBNA PPI - partial payout.....
ken100464 replied to AB1979's topic in Payment Protection Insurance (PPI)
AB1979 If you already have a FOS complaint in I would just write to them no point wasting your time with MBNA. Just send something along the lines of you are now aware MBNA's calculations are under investigation by the regulator and Ombudsman and you would like to add your claim to the many who already have complained that MBNA are not following the regulators rulebook but instead seem to be using a vague Ombudsman bit of guidance which has nothing to do with the way your account was operated. But dont expect a quick result as we have been stuck in this for nearly 2 years now. However the more people who pick up on this then hopefully no sweeping under carpets can happen. Good luck -
Just got another two letters from FOS. They are still looking into MBNA's method of calculations. Have to hope the delay is because we are right and the regulator/ombudsman has a sniff of wrongdoing. If they had found nothing one has to think we would have been dismissed by now.
-
Obviously in relation to MBNA this isnt the only thing they are up to The big interpretive thread within their subsection on CAG details what we understand to be a somewhat strange method of calculation of redress. So this bank doesnt repay charges even though the FCA/FOS say they should, it uses a method of calculation that is not the prescribed method as set down by the FCA/FOS. Why doesnt the FCA if it wants to be the shiny new regulator that is going to clean up this industry just say ok MBNA you had your chance. You show arrogance to the consumer to FOS and to us your regulator. Because when given an inch you take a mile you will reopen every single PPI admitted case, recalculate as per the rules set down by us including everything you have to and contact every single consumer again and pay them what you should have if you had followed what you were instructed to do. Yes MBNA return the consumer properly to where they would have been if your shabby PPI had not been miss sold.
-
Totally agree with AMN here. The MBNA response is one of we know best so dont bother us little plebs. Sadly for them I suspect the powers that be are now starting to work out they have been had by them aswell. The more that is uncovered then the less the FCA will believe them about anything. The point raised in the article is separate from the issue raised within this thread. But FCA guidance explicitly states these charges should be returned. An overlimit that was even a few hundred over the limit at the end of the account (when normally most people were suffering financial meltdown) cannot possibly be correct if the reconstructed balance is below the limit at the time. To let such a penalty stand doesnt put the consumer back to where they would have been if the PPI wasnt there. Indeed I am sure many late fees towards the end of these accounts are also wrong. If the new reconstructed balance goes into credit how an earth can a late fee have occurred. The card was in credit MBNA. No wonder we had a banking crisis if you cannot work out that a penalty charge cannot be levied against a credit balance. This thread started nearly 2 years ago. We know exactly what they are up to. Hopefully a great big fine and an ordering of them to look at one and every claim they have ever admitted too should now be on the regulators mind. This isnt chicken feed they have once again [problem]med the consumer of this is millions. To [problem] once is bad enough but then to [problem] many more times after you have been caught shows the real face of banking. And interestingly everyone of those named and shamed is on my personnal list of under paying banks. No surprise there. Keep the faith everyone. Think even the powers that regulate this crooked industry are waking up to dont trust them on anything.
-
ditto twice as one for me and one for OH
-
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.
-
That is the problem calculation. Interesting they don't want us to know the build number anymore. If we are right as per the big thread You have been shortchanged. I would reject it and ask for a ps10/12 exp 6 compliant calculation as they are not following fos guidance at all. What they are trying to apply is guidance meant for if the consumer always paid full or consistently paid minimums. The f and m in the middle of that spreadsheet indicate when they declare that event happening. But that is not always a full or consistently a minimum on the way that account was operated. They are occasional events and the fact both occur in the same account makes a mockery of the English language used in the fos guidance. Am sure u will.be rejected and they will use a timeline of when the cheque was sent as the timeline for your 6months. So I would if it were me write back asking for a compliant calculation but prepare your case for fos who are looking at this very thing right now..
