FOS have responded. Holding letter.

Done twice once by me and once by OH. This needs to be done everybody. Not next week or next month but now

Just jumping in here. Do not accept any offer they make without satisfying yourself it is correct. MBNA are calculating redress in their own way with their own rules. This is just another example of them not doing what they should do. There is an awfully long thread called interpretive calculations in the MBNA section. Perhaps the first half a million posts are worth missing but some good info worth keeping eye out for now and shortly. Worth subscribing to.

1) If you can get hold of those statements they will have what your actual minimums where for those months. If they are less than what you paid then IMO you have blown all this M rubbish out of the water. Correct by removng the difference from your account then this affects your recon balance. Your redress award needs this figure. By suppressing this your award is cut. 2) This is where you need to read that bit in the FOS guidance and start thinking consumer CONSISTANTLY makes minimum payments. What does CONSISTANTLY mean to you? I know what it means to me and it doesnt mean gaps where some months you did something else. The gaps are actually where they say you paid more than a minimum therefore they cant apply this FOS guidance. The guidance that says you must CONSISTANTLY have paid minimums. Make of that what you wish but your wording is in the guidance. 3) My guess is MBNA dont want to really tell you what they are doing. Not in writing as that could come back to haunt them. The FOS plainly dont have a clue. Sad but true they are quoting what they are supposed to be upholding but then saying MBNA is allowed to do something else. Nowhere except this vague FOS guidance which says if the consumer CONSISTANTLY paid minimum is there any reference to any 8% being paid on any account that is in debit. Yours was in debit on your spreadsheet so FOS need to tell you where they get this gem from that 8% on a debit balance is possible. It certainly isnt within the regulators handbook. Ask them point blank to point you to the reference within the regulators handbook or in their guidance that allows this. Ok now your email response. Forget Full payments. You didnt do this and you dont need to worry about it. (Its another way of moving money out of the account. Much more damaging than minimums but you have none so forget it) Finally [naughty word] dont accept and ask for an ombudsman. That response is what we have wanted all along. They have put it in writing. We understand the method now (actually we have worked it out already). Keep at them and just keep coming back here when you hit a brick wall we can advise you. IMO get those statements. Refuse to settle. Ask the FOS to show you exactly where in either the regulators handbook or the FOS guidance it says the bank can pay you 8% when your account is in debit? Not what MBNA tell them but where in the rules does it say. Well done whatisdue you have done really well. I see you got your overlimits thats great news for me as still waiting for mine.

" MBNA apply 8% to credit and surplus balances. Surplus balance is the difference between the actual payment made and the reconstructed payments . I.E. paid £100 reconstructed payment £75 so £25 goes to surplus and earns 8% on a surplus balance rather than a credit balance. This one Whatisdue? Well yes that would be true if your account followed the FOS online guidance? Did it? Did you consistantly pay minimums? Did you pay minimum at all? Can you see where we are going? MBNA have assumed figures when you actually did something else. FOS says you should have actual payments used. So why havnt MBNA done that? To reduce your redress maybe? I dont know maybe its a good idea to ask FOS what right MBNA have to use assumed payments when there is nothing in the rulebook or guidance that permits this?

Whatisdue. Well all you have to get then is statements showing that you overpaid and therefore MBNA have no right to call these minimums from July onwards. get them and then the whole thing starts to unravel. Ask FOS if they can get them for you as MBNA are reluctant to hand them out just giving a transaction log. You can work out a consumer forum spreadsheet with the data from that but I was not really thinking. The statements would show these minimum payment requirements so the consumer would twig that actually you aint paying a minimum at all. Good for you another avenue to attack. Who gave MBNA the right to call these as minimums?????? When if your memory is correct you were actually paying more? An actual payment FOS says they should be using or a mythical figure they made up because it suits them? The fact the card was frozen is ok. Just means you have less figures to play with which in the web thats been weaved is no bad thing. After you had digested my post earlier I was going to point out these payments and minimums looked pretty steep and therefore not right.

Reading that again not so sure you want to be asking for this to apply in addition. Think you want to argue that you didnt CONSISTENTLY pay minimums so want a PS10/12 exp 6 calculation. Hopefully some bedtime reading for you. Good luck

To help you here is the FOS guidance again. 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 have calculated if you had instead taken out your credit card without the PPI policy, your credit card balance today would be £2,642.94. We know this because we’ve looked at your credit card account from the day it started until now and worked out what the balance would have been without the cost of PPI and any interest and charges you paid as a result of PPI being included on your account; and the payments you have paid have been slightly higher than the payments we have assumed in our calculation. The difference between the payments you have paid and the payments we have assumed you would have paid to your account without PPI is £518.73. what we will do We will cancel the policy for you and will pay to you the difference between your credit card balance today (£5,832.91) and what your credit card balance would have been without the PPI policy (£2,642.94), which is £3,189.97. In addition we will refund to you the extra monthly payments you paid as a result of having PPI added to your credit card and we will also add interest at 8% per year simple to compensate you for the loss of use of that money. That adds up to £518.73 plus interest of £127.60. In total therefore we will pay you £3,836.30 compensation (£3,189.97 plus £518.73 plus £127.60).

Whatisdue. Good no time scale so gives AMN time to look in also as I value his view. Please could you be so kind as to post what you adjudicator sent you re the 8% AFTER they had contacted MBNA again. Lets see if the wording is still compatable with PS10/12. Just to get you started tho look at your line 22 May 09. You paid £75 that month. Thats what really happened and that is what FOS are saying the bank should use to construct your notional balance. So the figures on the left are what really happened on your account. You have to take MBNA's word on this because without statements or a SAR you cannot prove or disprove these figures. (My SAR agrees with this side of the spreadsheet so dont be fretting too much here) But what do MBNA do.? They say that you paid a minimum that month so it is their right to now work out what you would have paid if there was no PPI on the account and therefore your balance had actually been lower. (They will say they are following FOS 2013 guidelines. The ones we have posted. The ones that say they can do this if you the consumer CONSISTANTLY paid minimums. But what does CONSISTANTLY actually mean and what did FOS mean by CONSISTANTLY.) My definition of consistantly means what most peoples would be. That a string of repetitive actions occur. So MBNA by doing what they are doing are saying you are CONSISTANTLY paying a minimum payment. Its up to you if you agree by looking at your spreadsheet if you feel that you have consistantly been paying minimums. All other spreadsheets I have seen have full payments on aswell so yours is slightly different but it does mean we are only talking of one sum they are doing wrong not two like all the other spreadsheets. I personally think although there are alot of minimums on the spreadsheet anyone would be hard pressed to say that you were consistantly paying minimums. Ok back to line 22 May 09. So MBNA have decided you paid a minimum amount off the account that month. (Perhaps this is why statements were never forthcoming in MBNA SAR's? Because it would be easy to check wouldnt it as the minimum payment has to be on a statement to give the consumer an idea of what to pay. Otherwise we wouldnt know. How convienient MBNA.) Right so what do they now do. Simple they work out what the minimum payment would have been if your account had a balance of £5513.97 (very right hand column) which is your notional (recon) balance. They say a minimum payment on this notional balance would have been £73.28. Surprise surprise this is what is under the column AMOUNT in the centre under reconstructed payment. Next to this is a sum of £1.72. The difference between what you actually paid and what MBNA are saying you would have paid if they hadnt miss sold you PPI. (Nice to know an assumption is worth more than what actually happened. And interesting one of your FOS letters stresses this is what they expect the bank to use. Actual payments) Now here is the trick. What is the point of applying arbitory maths to an account, dressing it up as something FOS seem happy for the bank to do if a particular consumer behaviour applies and then leaving the bank with a sum of money which doesnt seem to have a home. (The £1.72) And this is where you lose your money (associated interest). The FOS guidance seems to indicate that where the bank decides you CONSISTANTLY are paying minimums and the bank decides to work out what you have overpaid because they think you would have continued to pay minimums with the new balance then the bank should compensate you for having your money. They do this by awarding you 8% simple on this sum of money. But what FOS guidance doesnt say is that the bank is allowed to remove this money from the account/notional balance. This 8% simple on this sum is in addition we think to the PS10/12 exp 6 sum. ie the bank is going one step further and compensating you more than PS10/12 exp 6 would have. But what do MBNA do. Back to your line May 09 . In April 09 your redress was £130.47. (this is made up of PPI premium and associated interest over the preceeding 3 months) Now take your original balance for May 09 £5688.55 subtract £130.47 =£5558.08. Now subtract both the ppi premium and associated interest for that month. £5558.08 - 45.37- 0.46 = £5512.25. On PS10/12 exp 6 compliant workings out this would be your new notional balance. Now what do MBNA have ??? £5513.97. A difference of ??? oh yes £1.72. Your notional balance is £1.72 more than it should be. Why does this matter? Its where the trick is. Well that £1.72 because it is still in the notional balance attracts interest at the card rate for the lifetime it is in the account. Indeed that £1.72 unless you closed the account has been busy attracting associated interest since May 09. In return they are giving you 8% simple on this £1.72. You are losing the difference of interest at the card rate applicable at the time and 8%simple. As each month goes by that they declare a minimum then the amount they have shifted becomes bigger. By the end of your account they have moved £776.86 this way. That is £776.68 that is not having its associated interest removed from the account and therefore why your calculations and MBNA's dont match. Come back if you dont understand any of that. The trick is fiendishly well hidden. Concentrate on that one line. Accept all their figures as correct for the timebeing. Your actual account is what happened on the left. Your acual balance is under balance. Thats what actually happened. The reconstructed payment is the method they use to find sums to remove from your account. It sorta follows FOS guidance except FOS says the consumer must CONSISTANTLY have paid a minimum. FOS guidance seems to allude to the fact they should if they are using this be paying the 8% in addition to the PS10/12 exp 6 method not as an alternative. I can only say once you get it then it all becomes simple and you will be able to use your own words not mine to bring FOS to account. But concentrate on that one line. Get that and every other line with a M on that spreadsheet does exactly the same. From everything I have seen in your correspondence so far FOS think PS10/12 exp 6 is what MBNA are following. But I would bet my house they are not actually running the figures so are relying as we have found out on the banks positive assertion that they are following what they should be following. Method keep it to method and you should eventually get a recalculation hopefully.

Whatisdue. Read both did letters. Both are quoting ps 10/12 and then go on and try to justify MBNA figures. Both letters are wrong in their understanding of MBNA figures. As you have pointed out how if your account isn't in credit are you getting 8%. Not possible when they actually quote you get this when in credit. Mate seriously method method method. Quote back at an WHAT they are saying should happen and ell them that it isn't happening. Tell emergency.to put their name to that decision an they could be seriously embarrassed soon because they didn't check. And if they feel they don't have the maths skill to deal with it then let's have a.maths ombudsmen. Because this is what this needs. Keep on at em your doing great. But quote their letters back to them and say this isn't what MBNA are doing. Perhaps ask when was the last time a consumer's claim was actually checked maths wise by either FOS or FCA. Because they may well be surprised here.

WHATISDUE Thanks for this. Your adjudicator doesn't understand the problem. They quote what the bank is supposed to do then accept what the bank is telling them is correct. Basically the adjudicator isn't questioning the sums just accepting them.on face value. They are describing ps 10/12 exp 6. The banks spreadsheet looks like ps 10/12 so it's all good. But the adjudicator is being hoodwinked. Far from me to say what to do and it is late and I want to look at your spreadsheet closer. But you can take it from me what the adjudicator is saying at the start of his letter and then what he is allowing MBNA to do is not the same thing. So it's clear FOS do think the bank is doing it right. But they ain't so hopefully when it dawns on them that they are being taken for mugs this is really going to blow up. Drop you interest rate arguement and focus on methodology is my advice. If it was me I would be refuting the argument that MBNA are doing what the adjudicator in his letter says they should be doing. And if he doesn't believe that he is being taken for a mug he needs to run your figures through a computer model he knows is compliant. He might be in for a nasty surprise. But also he could make a name for himself for uncovering a brewing scandal. For if that letter is really what Fos think is happening then trouble is brewing. Just give us a day or two to.look at your spreadsheet. Do you have a date to reply by?

Whatisdue. I suspect all the adjudicator is saying is it's too complicated for him so he is passing it up the line. Nothing more.nothing less.Now it is time to get you head really around the method and get any additional information you can into FOS. Don't delay now as this is live and your decision good.or bad is imminent. GET THAT STUFF POSTED ASAP otherwise we won't have time to help you.

Further to the good advice from Stig. When did you take this card out. Crucial bit of information we need to know

Whats its due. If you post up your MBNA spreadsheet either AMN or myself might be able to see a Full that blows all the above rubbish to your adjudicator out the water for you. Up to you if you wish us to look. Just mask everything applicible to you. The spreadsheet number is of course of use to the overall cause as it shows an evolving MBNA mind and therefore not a simple mistake. My humble apologies if you already have but this thread is soooooooooooooooooooooo long now it is war and peace on steroids.

whatitsdue. Further from AMN's answers above my comments are as follows. By allowing yourself to be sidetracked by the interest part you are in AMN's words allowing the opposition to field a 17 man team against you. To get to disprove the banks interest calculations you are going to have to have access to a banks mainframe computer and all your data for the life of your account. If you get a SAR, within it will be a transaction log. Its about here that you realise that you need a much better computer model to prove or disprove anything. But what about the 17 man team. Read this go to about halfway down. Pays the account off in full or pays minimum. Thats the two bits you need to study and quote at your adjudicator. Its his guidelines built from the regulators rulebook. It isnt our rules its his own. http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/ppi/redress.html Now read it closely and see the words ALWAYS and CONSISTANTLY. Is that what your account did???????????????? If you did then the bank IS allowed to do what its doing. But crucially if you didnt then they shouldnt. So what is this 8% additional payment. Yes thats what it is. An additional sum to compensate for having your money. But this is the 17 man team. The bank is SWAPPING the contractual interest for this 8%. You lose. And lose big time. This is the difference. Your adjudicator is being misled and being lazy and a fool. He is allowing the bank with fancy words to mislead him to a position where he is disregarding disp 3.7, PS 10/12 exp 6 (both regulators rulebook) and FOS own guidelines. Just because the bank is saying its giving you an extra 8%. Yes its giving you an extra 8% after missapropiating the same amount at your contractual rate at the time. That is the 17 man team. The adjudicator (the ref) is a homer and will allow blatant fouls by the home team. Appeal to his rulebook until the ref is in such a corner he cant rule anything but for you. Your interest thoughts although interesting and probably right are without a mainframe unproveable. The 8% additional (swapped) is proveable and has a rulebook and guidelines to back you up. Point the adjudicator to this and point out ALWAYS AND CONSISTANTANLY are not possible if both types occurred within your account. And if your spreadsheet has F and M's that is exactly what they are saying. That the meanings of ALWAYS and CONSISTANTLY do not mean what the dictionary says they mean. Funny old world I actually understand ALWAYS AND CONSISTANTLY to mean something different to MBNA. So ask your adjudicator who should he rule for. You a consumer who just wants your redress calculated by the regulators preferred method (a method MBNA were doing till summer 2012 after being caught doing something similar to our complaint before) or a bank who isnt using the regulators method, isnt using the ombudsmans (his own company) guidelines and is abusing meanings of english words to short change a consumer yet again after they have been caught miss selling. ????? They are supposed to put you back into a position you were as if the ppi hadnt been applied. By not removing the full contractual interest that accrued over the accounts lifetime from the PPI premiums then how are they putting you back to where you should be??????? Lazy adjudicator.

Whatitsdue. My reading of your post above is exactly where arguing interest and not method would I feared lead you. Alternative methods when fair is allowed I believe under disp rules. You then have to ask yourself is a daily rate fairer than monthly if they have this information. Sadly I would think it would be as this is actually what happened. And obviously interest is payable up to when you paid into the account and the payment clears. Therefore interest will vary and therefore IMO your rate will appear to vary considerably. The devil is in the detail on this and the bank are hoping everyone isnt noticing the sleight of hand on these spreadsheets. There are just so many factors which will change the interest paid back to you. We cannot ever replicate this totally so consumer forum spreadsheets can only ever give a ball park figure. What however isnt fair is the methodology they are using after they have calculated the original interest payable per month. This bit doesnt follow FCA rulebook or FOS guidelines. And that is where this thread has been useful. In discussing what they seem to do after the original calculation to get the monthly interest.

If you have penalty charges (overlimits, late charges) that you can prove would not have happened if the PPI wasnt there then I would attempt it either as your PPI claim or a stand alone claim. But those charges above you have listed are normal interest with the exception of two I mentioned. The special cash interest is the interest rate applied to cash advances you made on the card.

Hello there. If you have obtained a transaction log off MBNA then you are correct posted credit insurance fee and payment protection cover are PPI. All the others are just interest rates on purchases or cash depending on what you were doing at the time. These are normal interest and are not reclaimable unless you are after a hardship type claim. But seeing as its 2008 and before the bank will just no way to that. Good luck with your PPI though

Cant add anymore GS. Its all same same and indicates just what a fantasy the later spreadsheets are.

GS. 1) The way I have phrased my claim is to say I want x OL's repaid. I have used the CAG spreadsheet to list these not MBNA's. The reference to MBNA's spreadsheet is just confiming even on their figures, which you dispute, then these OL's were not OL's because your recon balance was below the stated limit. Therefore there can be no dispute on these OL's as both your figures and MBNA figures BOTH say you are below the limit. 2) I would just ask for it GS. Part of the complaint is MBNA are not being clear in what they are doing which is against disp 3.9.4. They should be explaining to you what they have done not hiding. How can you judge if if the redress is acceptable if the bank explains diddly squat. And if the adjudicator doesnt disclose this then just shows who side they on.

My other problem is that according to bank statements I was paying cap quest after 2006 when marlin bought the debt. Would marlin have let cap quest carry on collecting payments on their behalf. Mould Post 26. Lorryman Are you still paying Capquest and if not when did you stop. This will be crucial to SB.

Hope you feeling better GS

Magic lol thats how, MBNA magic. But seriously well done there in getting a revised figure. Only advice is do what your doing and get hold of that spreadsheet. You have the latest calculation that I will have seen and I am interested on how that 8% has fallen so badly. I doubt they will let you see both spreadsheets so it will be difficult to ever say how. But it dont look good does it. But this spreadsheet is key to going anywhere with it and they must and will be ordered by FOS to release it to you. So good luck. Keep posting all valuable stuff

Yes well done Survin and always good to know where we are all at with things. Least you got a recalculation which I always thought could be the hardest thing to get FOS to order. Be interesting to see what version they come back with. Just holler if you need anyone to have a quick glance to confirm what version they have used. I would demand FOS demand a copy of the workings out for you to check. Be very good if you were able to post which version you had first and which version gave you the extra £250. Dates would also be good to see if they confirm what we think the timeline was for all this. Since I last posted I had a closer look at my own claim and lo and behold I have occasions where they apply a Full because the recon goes into debit but the actual balance did not. They are not even following that very tenious paragraph in the FOS guidance. Thank you Matt merry xmas to you also. Welcome back to the thread. As you will see its probably moved on from where were at before. My claim seems to be stuck in same pile as AM's at FOS.

That would indeed be very interesting to find out. One has to suspect that it wasnt the regulator because if a regulator found wrongdoing then you would hope the result would be a blanket re calculation of ALL accounts settled or in the pipeline. Think we would have heard about that if that happened. If FOS report this back to FSA then you would also have to think that perhaps there were not so many complaints to get the FSA interested and hence this is why so few have been reported. Perhaps individual consumers hadnt quite got it and it was particular CMO's chasing. Get one client paid then they all would. Which leads you to the cynical view. Bank knows the CMO's are homing in on it. Bank coughs to the CMO's. Cant afford to have big publicity so easy to pay small (CMO clients) to avoid big (everybody who ever got missold PPI). Herman just happens to ask at the same time. Goes to CEO who agrees add Herman in. Go clean for a while throw the CMO's off the scent then start again at some time in the future. Our future. Of course this would never happen on the FSA watch would it. Oh thats the same watch that allowed a non banking methodist minister with political ties be in charge of a mutual bank that nearly went bust. Nah couldnt ever happen could it.