ken100464
-
Posts
379 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by ken100464
-
Good Afternoon WID. I think this will be the hardest part for us all waiting for the first indication which way the authorities jump and we are not going to know that until FOS start to talk again. And that wont happen other than holding letters until the higher management has decided what to do. Yours and GS's claim appear to be the furthest forward so I would expect one of you to get the first indication something is happening. Until that time am not sure there is much more we can comment on.
-
Kate. The interpretive calculations will probably come into its own when/if you get an uphold as it deals with redress. However there are some bits within it of use. Transaction log. It has the data you need however not in a user friendly or way consumers normally see this information. Sadly I believe they may have complied with your SAR but they might also be witholding vital information for further down the line. Is well worth asking them for statements and if they decline perhaps ask the ICO to intervene. Dont take no for an answer with this lot until basically someone independant says your wasting your time. They are as slippery as they get and are quite arrogant with it. dx has given you pointers as to why it was missold. Join the big thread once you get that and we can take you through the maths side. Personally I wouldnt go down the road of any spreadsheets yet. Get the uphold first.
-
GS I would do as WID has said and you have alluded to if that is what you wish to do. It would seem the letter may have had an effect and maybe we will all get swept up in a general calculation Fingers crossed eh. Keep fighting but would suspect you may have to wait if all claims have now been stayed.
-
Hiya Matt. Without seeing their spreadsheet calculation it is very hard to see what they have done. But a sneaky feeling is they have not followed PS10/12 exp 6 as they should have done if its a credit card. Why? OK in PS10/12 exp 6 8% is payable on credit balances only. So look at your balances. No credits there until Apr 13 with your settlement in Jul 13, 3 months later. Not alot of time to build up the 8% Ok but if the account was reconstructed properly its when your notional balance goes into credit thats when you get 8%. So look at your total claim and subtract that off your balance. But the bigger sums will be towards the end as the premiums and interest rate builds. So when you balance was in the £14k level even with the redress included you cant have been in credit because your full redress at the account end doesnt cover that. Finally I have seen accounts running the same length as yours with much less PPI where the associated interest was much higher than that. Seems very low. So unless this is a mega low contractual interest card that associated dont look right. But your never gonna know without their figures to look at. So if it was me I would challenge your adjudicator to challenge Halifax for the computer spreadsheet that made up those figures. And perhaps tell your adjudicator consumers are just starting to rumble the banks are at it again.
-
WID. They are drawing the reconstruction method from those guidelines just posted before to GS. IN LINE WITH SERVICE GUIDELINES. Means in line with FOS guidlines. Financial Ombudsman SERVICE You have got that the notional balance is too high because of the reconstruction. But your getting confused and then not coming across clearly. You dont need to explain why or how all you have to do is rubbish it. Get the adjudicator to rule which he has that he wants it recalculating. Then we will look at what MBNA come up with. So to your questions. Though the method calculation shown to me by the fos (page 18/19 on the thread letter dated 21st August 2013) does not include any reference to the reconstructed payments column and how it fits in with their method of calculation. This is because the Adjudicator doesnt understand MBNA have departed from the normal way of calculating. The statement from MBNA also says this use of the reconstructed payments column is in line with service guidelines. I have seen nothing on this so I do not know where this comes from. From the FOS guidelines link posted 4/5 posts ago to GS. In addition to the false minimum payments MBNA made I have asked the adjudicator to get MBNA to answer the method of calculation that you showed me keeping the reconstructed balance high by not removing any surplus balances or redress.(as well as the fact that surplus not part of FCA/FOS guidelines should not be used in the first place) The very fact that they advised the reconstructed payment columns are used to reconstruct the balance shows surplus assumptions are not removed and enable the recon-balance to remain very high. A very complicated thing to describe. I know what your trying to say but its quite hard to understand. An adjudicator wont. IMO dont push to hard here. The adjudicator has ruled on a recalculation. IMO I would see what they come back with but demand the calculation before you make a decision. But over doing it now could lead to you losing the adjudicators goodwill. You got what most of us are dreaming of. A recalculation.
-
Maybe 3 things to comment on GS as an outsider (your adjudicator) First section clear as day. They have assumed something that didnt happen and you have proof. Second section not so clear. Yes if they are same amounts but remember as the account changes (payments, transactions etc) so will the minimum. So IMO a min one month might pay the account above min for next month. If you paid exactly the same amount every month and your balance was declining then one would have to suspect only one minimum is possible. The moment(month) it transited from you paying the arrangement below the minimum to the moment where you were now paying over minimum. But the problem on your spreadsheet is there is no balance to see that and you are paying different amounts therefore it is difficult to see. This is not clear to me at all. Finally your string of Fulls. Think about this. Did you pay your account off? Every month? Or is there a balance remaining here? As you continue to pay down the account? Then rationally think how an earth can I have a Full payment declared when a balance remains? Without seeing the balance I have to guess that your recon balance (MBNA spreadsheet) right hand side goes to zero. Hence why declared at Full. But again think along the lines they have to use actual figures not assumed. FCA/FOS rules not just it suits us. They are using the notional assumed recon balance when the actual real life balance did nothing of the sort. So if you want my opinion section one is good to go. Section 2 I would think you need to either show what the mins on your statements were, like section one to show there is a difference or you need to show balances very similar being declared differently. Section 3 think you need to show the actual balance. ie if you had a balance of £1000 and paid £200 for 5 months. The first 4 cant be Fulls as you would have a balance of 1000, then 800 then 600 etc etc. Dont forget the guidance. Always paid your balance in full. How can you have paid it in full when there is a balance remaining?
-
WID Reading what your FOS person sent you then they have missed actually what MBNA were saying. They are not following FOS guidance at all. They are twisting FOS guidance.
-
WID Yes they are quoting the link I just posted to GS. Scroll down towards the end of the link and find the two sections classed as paid in Full and minimum payments. Read them and this is what these reconstructed columns are. However the two guidance notes are for very specific consumer payment behaviours. Now in your case you believe you paid more than the minimum amount and can prove it. FOS is explicitly clear on this. The company should use as figures what you actually did not what the company assumes you did UNLESS they can claim the two behaviours listed in that link towards the end. So as I read it they have to use actual figures if you can prove you paid more than the minimum (it also says consistently paid the minimum which I understand to be something different to MBNA's understanding) With the Fulls it says ALWAYS paid full. Thats quite simple. Always means always. And more helpful than that in PS10/12 exp 6 the example actually shows what the regulator deems should happen if a full occurs. So other than an account that was paid off in full every month (and I understand why FOS have done this) then it is quite clear what they should be doing. So. and forgive me I cant remember have seen so many now ,if you only have the odd full then that isnt ALWAYS plus the regulator has helpfully shown what they should do to occasional fulls.
-
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/ppi/redress.html GS just incase you want to quote exactly where this all comes from. The bits you are interested in are towards the end. Customers who pay in full and customers who consistently paid minimums.
-
GS. I am not a mod. I think dx and IMS are monitoring the thread maybe they know what the problem is.
-
GS. Quote this at your adjudicator as its from his own online guidance the very guidance MBNA seem to be using what we have assumed credit card interest at the rate charged on normal purchases applied to the PPI premiums added to your account; and you would have paid the (slightly smaller) minimum contractual payment to your credit card without PPI. If you do not think that these assumptions should be used in your circumstances, please let us know why not. Labour the last line and show that you paid more. If you did then they have to use actual amounts not assumed as per that guidance. As for any Fulls. consumers who clear their credit card balance in full each month Some consumers always repay their credit card balance in full each month. If PPI had not been added to their account, their credit card balance would have been lower each month. So it seems unlikely that they would have made the same payment as they actually paid – because they would have paid more than was necessary to repay the balance. Again from the guidance. Notice its says ALWAYS. Not occasionally once in while or irregularly but ALWAYS. If you then say PS10/12 exp 6 actually shows an occasional full payment and what the company is supposed to do when there is such an event. Pop them in your complaint and then demand a PS10/12 exp 6 recalculation. Hopefully that will set things in motion for you.
-
Wid. This quote? MBNA has confirmed why it has paid you 8% simple interest when it does not look like you went into credit without the PPI policy on the reconstructed balance. The 8% interest is applied to credit and surplus balances. Surplus balance is the difference between the actual payments made and the reconstructed payments i.e. Actual = £100, Reconstructed = £75 therefore £25 goes into surplus and earns 8% interest. In your case, you have accrued 8% interest on a surplus balance, rather than a credit balance. I would very closely look at your 8%. I think the only column this 8% is being applied to is your surplus column. Notional balance where it should actually be being applied to is a red herring. Card redress is the combination of PPI and associated so isnt a column they would attempt to work 8% from. More to the point if there are no M's because you can prove you paid more than, then there should be no surplus. If there is no surplus then there will be no 8%. But on the upside the money remains in the card redress attracting contractual. You win. Keep pushing for the PS10/12 exp 6 redress solution. Your really doing well.
-
WID No you done grand. If you have got the statements you have more than most of us as we got transaction logs mostly. The interest rates will be on your statements as will things like PPI, balances, individual rates. The only thing that sometimes reveals interesting information is the comms logs from these firms. To calculate what your are due (lol I had to get that in oneday) I think you have it all. I think now its a matter of waiting for what MBNA do??? See if they wish to argue these minimums. If they dont I would be very interested to see their recalculation spreadsheet. We can I am sure help you with that when they come back to you. Well done your really doing well.
-
WID Think what they are saying is they aint going to sit there and number crunch for you, But if you bring up something like you have done then they will happily tell the firm in question to number crunch on their behalf. Not really surprising this. I cant recall if you ever got a SAR off MBNA? If you havnt and do not have all your statements I would suggest for you to really get to the bottom of all this you will need to pay the tenner and get it. Without it you wont be able to check what now they cant use mins in your case what they do come up with is any better. And seeing as your adjudicator actually seems on your side I would insist whatever claculation spreadsheet MBNA do use should be part of the revised offer and that you should be given time to check it before making a decision to accept or reject. Must say your doing very well and dont think the adjudicator is against you. I think they being pretty fair tbh.
-
Got the same letter for a Cap One card today Survin50. Seems we on the back burner with this.
-
Looking at the post we missed. If you have proof the minimum (on your statement) was £105.76 then as per FOS own guidance you can dispute this method. From the PPI resource on the FOS guidance Consumers who CONSISTENTLY pay minimum consumers who consistently make the minimum payment each month Another example where a consumer might have paid a different amount to their credit card account is where the consumer consistently made the minimum contractual credit card payment each month. In that case, it seems likely that instead of paying the same amount to their credit card account without PPI, the consumer might have paid the (slightly smaller) minimum payment rather than the amount they actually paid to their credit card with PPI. Based on examples of good practice we have seen, the example below shows 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 where the consumer consistently paid the minimum contractual payment: what we know you took out your credit card in January 2003 and took out the PPI policy at the same time; your credit card balance today is £5,832.91; and you have consistently paid the minimum contractual payment to your credit card and no extra payments. what we have assumed credit card interest at the rate charged on normal purchases applied to the PPI premiums added to your account; and you would have paid the (slightly smaller) minimum contractual payment to your credit card without PPI. If you do not think that these assumptions should be used in your circumstances, please let us know why not. If it were me I wouldnt go into all the this was moved here and that was turned into this etc. If you have proof that the minimum isnt what MBNA declared then that is sufficient to ask for a recalculation. They have lied on your redress calculation and with the statement you have proof. Keep it simple. Now turning to the rest of your post. Your not a million miles off at all. But as you can see its confusing to put across. I know what they are doing. You have a good idea now. But the way you put it comes across is confusing. An adjudicator wont get it and will frustrate you. So IMHO if you have black and white proof like this minimum on your statement then use FOS guidance against FOS. Quote it at them. Say this is why MBNA should not be allowed to use this method because actually they are making it up. So you want the normal PS10/12 exp 6 calculation. Get a normal PS10/12 exp 6 calculation and your redress will increase. But my advice keep it simple. One final thing that AMN pointed out before is that the min payment for that month will be on the previous statement. Because you need to know what you had to at least pay the following month. So May's minimum payment would be on April's statement.
-
Whatisdue. I think you will find the difference this time was via Kate we were a few over a length of time. Not saying its right but the way FCA operates. Plus we didnt really grasp what they were up to fully. So yes frustrating but please dont be disheartened. If the FCA finally get it then none of us will be worrying about adjudicators or ombudsmen. So keep the faith your doing well. Sorry about the previous post. The replies from the FCA has diverted my attention. I will read it now and come back to you
-
Dx Indeed you would help. New claims have gone remarkably quiet so either they have changed again or people are just pleased they settled not thinking something could be wrong. The sheets are starting V20D_ then series of numbers. The latest I have is V20D_BO38. Its called the "PPI redress calculations results". MBNA have to give it to your friend because if they dont FOS will order they do. Good Luck
-
Hi Dx. Am sure we can advise. If unsure of the quantum you need that calculation sheet off them. AMN or myself can tell in 1 sec flat if its right or wrong but we need to see it. We have all cashed the cheques but stated it is as part payment of our claim. Then complained again to MBNA been rejected then gone to FOS where we are at now. If your friend has to do this be careful as the 6 months runs from date of redress letter. They will try to timebarr if they dawdle. There was a calculation sheet till summer 2012 that seemed to be about right. We havnt seen a calculation sheet just lately (last 6 months) so unsure if they changed again. We have a handle on what they are doing so cant hide it anymore. Hope this helps. But that MBNA calculation spreadsheet is key.
-
Got mine too
-
Aha Yes thats how I would see it also. If you have T&C's for your account that will show what you minimum should be. But as you say a rough calculation should reveal what is it is. Good luck hope it gives you more ammunition and hopefully its clear and simple for the adjudicator. How can the bank assume something which didnt happen over something that did happen. If indeed that is what you find out.
-
As AMN said the payments will probably be the month after what your statements say. Not sure by what you mean by working out the minimum? As the minimum as in the real minimum should be displayed on your statement. Otherwise we wouldnt know what was the least we could pay when the account was actually running. But again as AMN says the Min on say April's statement will relate to what you paid in May. So what you need to compare on your own spreadsheet is the M's on your MBNA spreadsheet against what you paid the same month as the MBNA spreadsheet. Then you will need the previous months Min from your statement. If you paid more than the previous months Min then IMO they have used an assumed payment figure over an actual payment. Therefore the adjudicator should be able to see they have not used correct figures before they even start with the rest of the calculations. If indeed that is what they have done.
-
GS Reading you post are you saying you have statements that show the minimum payment required and these minimums don't tie up with declared minimums on the spreadsheet? I hope I understood that right. If you got that then even the dimest caseworker should be able to get the assumption is incorrect and therefore should not be used.
-
Good. Quite a few come back now. Well we have warned them something is wrong. Lets see what they do now.
-
I am not sure leaving the proof out that you did not pay minimums, because the statements you have show what were the minimums at the time, is the best course. Personally if you have proof that on xxxx date your minimum was £xxx as per this statement you have and you paid £xxx plus £yyy and this figure is used on the spreadsheet MBNA have sent me. But then they have declared this as a minimum so it cannnot be true because you have a statement showing what was the minimum for that month. I dont think its a good idea to leave this evidence hoping for an ambush the next level up. The adjudicator is being lazy. You cannot change that or they havnt understood that the complaint is that the sums are wrong and the only way to get the correct sums is to stick the figures through a compliant computer model. The FOS system is at fault here. Its allowing the bank to positively affirm it is calculating correctly. Once an adjudicator gets that then the idea the bank is not doing what it says is beyond the realms of the adjudicator. He just wouldnt believe a bank would do that. So to recap I would send proof if you have it, that dispels one or more of these minimums. So MBNA is assuming something that didnt happen. Then as AC suggests explain what consistently pays means. Does that cover your account conduct. Finally I would point out this has been brought to the attention of the FOS top dog. So perhaps he might want to have a real close look at this one because his name could be on a decision that could come back to haunt him. Maybe not those words but something like.
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS