Think your adjudicator is being an ass tbh. But I understand they are the people you have to convince first. The evidence is stacking up across the board that the bank is up to its old tricks again, tricks that were found out once before and re calculations were obviously ordered once before indeed by FOS themselves. This bank has form. The beef is not about how much in penny's or pounds thats owed just yet its about the method. A method that is using an obscure paragraph on the FOS online guidance, which is about a very specific consumer payment behaviour being bent and changed to suit the banks inate greed to reduce our redress. All we are asking is for the FOS to tell the bank to calculate as per PS10/12. Not as per MBNA's warped view of the world. Its as simple as that. We dont trust the way they are calculating so lets have the method the regulator has proposed in its rulebook. The rulebook that says the consumer should as far as possible be returned to a position they would have been if the PPI had not been sold. So leaving associated interest in the account is ok????? The regulator specifically says remove the PPI premiums and associated interest. Not PPI premiums and a bit of associated interest and add a bit of 8% interest which the bank can calculate as it sees fit. Surely even a dim adjudicator could see the fairness in asking for a PS10/12 compliant redress calculation vs a vs a bank attempt. A regulators stipulated version vis a vis a bank who has been caught miss selling, caught short changing before and generally being arrogant about what it has to do. We must not forget yes its money to us but its actually going against what the regulator has stipulated must happen. Its going against what the FOS says it stands for. We know FOS has a software contract to calculate redress. Why not give it a wirl? We know the FOS just ask is the redress calculated in a compliant method to which the bank just presumably ticks yes no or dont know. ( Have they ever had a bank say errrrrrrrr no guv we didnt calculate as per the rulebook) Not exactly grilling the bank here are they. We know re-calculations have been ordered in the past by FOS for the exact same bank. We know when they seemed to be compliant (just after the re-calculation ordered by FOS) and when they seemed to want to be naughty again. We even have the name of the ombudsman now who ordered this. Perhaps we should point the adjudicator to her saying perhaps he might wish to consult before making the consumer wait even longer. Perhaps he might like to make a name for himself in working out that a bank isnt being truthful yet again and therefore helping all his collegues and the company he works for. Or perhaps he just doesnt like work/hassle and knows when all this is over a nice salaried job in the city beckons. Whatisdue. Ever thought about asking your adjudicator to give you his managers name? They have to. Perhaps along the lines that the adjudicator just isnt getting what the complaint is about and you would like to escalate it to someone more senior before it goes to the ombudsman. Tell him there a good few of these compliants in the pipeline following yours so they arent going away so perhaps a more senior collegue might like to have a look or even speak to that Ombudsman who ordered the re-calculation last time. We have her name. Just a thought. Try and lead you adjudcator to see the fairness in comparing a PS10/12 calculation with the bank version. We are saying MBNA's version is flawed because the associated interest due to PPi is being left in and replaced via a very convoluted method with 8% interest. This convoluted method appears to come from the FOS online guidance. Its about a very specific consumer repayment behaviour. Not about a general consumer who may pay full and minimums occasionally (with the minimums i suspect for most of us coming when we were in trouble at the end of the account caused by this predatory lender) Good luck whatever you decide but I am sure that once one adjudicator gets it they all will. We just have to make sure one of them does.

The MBNA one is very interesting indeed and would suspect its via a CMO (Mrs H representative) and fits in nicely with the dates we know as being from about when they started playing ball ie back end of 2011. Think anyone who believes they been short changed needs to bring that decision to the attention of the adjudicator/Ombudsman. All we want is a recalculation as per PS10/12 or even as per the spreadsheet they were using prior to July/August 2012. Why should because we were calculated as per AM's and our case 4 weeks later that we have our redress cut. That dont seem fair at all. One has to wonder if the FCA should be informed of that decision. Just think of the number of people who just havnt questioned this at all.

Its perhaps worth mentioning CL Finance are the debt buyers of Lewis Group just purchased by Hoist. Robbersway is the DCA purchased by Hoist last year. We have a single post on here saying all of Lewis, CL Finance are just about to be sacked by Hoist with the intention of moving all the accounts to guess who. Yep Robbersway. Think Brig has been saying Hoist are run by some rather unpleasant geezers one of which is the ex head honcho of 1st Credit or whoever they are now called. He also said they are likely to be more persistant than we are used to. If the single thread on here is correct then this is likely to be seen alot more over next couple of months.

Whatsitdue. I for one dont think anything you are doing or thinking of is wrong. Indeed and anyway to skin this cat should be investigated. What the FOS if they were being impartial and fair should be doing and what in reality they are doing is what is letting the bank get away with not using the regulators rule book. This thread deals with where we think we are up to in our understanding. It always revolved around FOS getting it and actually growing some when it came to slapping their paymasters. As the thread hopefully puts across its all about leading your adjudicator to a point where they either get it and think wtf or you have asked so many akward questions they have been forced to ask the same of the bank. Tell the adjudicator/ombudsman what you know. Tell them how its done completely at odds to how the regulator has stipulated it should be. Advise the FCA you know the bank isnt using the PS10/12 methods but some obscure way that they dont explain. (Which again is against Disp) Tell them it reduces the redress by x% and all you are asking for is why. Whats the math behind it? Whereas all the consumer spreadsheets are saying this amount. This corresponds to what the majority of banks are paying MBNA's spreadsheet says this lessor amount. Why? The bank has admitted its miss sold a product and has to offer redress to put you back in a position to where you were. It isnt. Ask the adjudicator if he is willing to put his name to a document covering the ass of a bank who has already 18 months before been caught and sanctioned for doing the same thing? All you are asking for is a redress calculation as per PS10/12 and not as per imaginary MBNA world. We know there are instances where this F and M are wrong. They apply a full payment when in real life the balance didnt clear. They move the money when even the FOS obscure paragraph isnt met. The are assuming things on assumed figures. An assumption on an assumption when in reality the balance didnt clear. So how can they apply it? Get your arguments clear in your head and ask the questions. Lead your adjudicator to a place where only a recalcualtion is the right thing.

Whatisdue Totally agree with Angry Cat on this. However if you are still wanting to progress with your idea then just pm/ask one of the site team to pass your request to Bankfodder. As AC states an sure there are connections to the FCA here aswell.

Never know if the grass is greener when these sort of things happen but a few debt collectors suffering from that life event that could bring them in contact with a debt collector is always poetic justice. Maybe they will reflect on what they did in taking the salary. I am hoping you have inside knowledge as I so want CL Finance to go. But reading the net this is the most recent article http://www.credittoday.co.uk/article/16057/online-news/staff-facing-job-losses-at-lewis-group-office. Even local news who you would think would have it are not reporting yet If its inside knowledge then you have a scoop there.

Interesting to know the source. One site was up for the chop but nothing about the others. Here is hoping for sure shysters that they are.

For the forum and threads sake I would suggest you address the questions of another forum owner/poster in chief being asked to help to the site team and in particular to this forums owner. I am grateful they are hosting this thread for us and would wish to have their blessing for something like that. Indeed we never know this forum could have connections we know nothing about and perhaps could assist in a way you are suggesting. However that said I do believe the thrust of you post is correct and I have always thought the press is another way of skinning this cat. Must admit hadnt thought of Mr Lewis. And indeed if the press start sniffing you can sure as hell expect FOS to pull its finger out.

With your interest rate just remember you could have different rates all wrapped into one. The one that does seem to make a big impact is if you did a 0% balance transfer teaser at anytime. Say at start of card. This will bring your overall rate down and because things are/were paid off first/last as per your T&C's it might not seem quite like what you think you were paying as the headline rate is what we remember. Hence why early doors on this thread the maths just became impossible to recreate unless I suppose you had the actual statements and knew which each rate was and what you were paying off first. Yeah the inputting is a joy to do lol. I thought when doing mine that the hourly rate could be well worth while if we are right. Sadly thats the bit there is no easy quick way round. Good luck and if I am not about sure someone will comment for you.

U2. I cant really say without seeing it as I dont have a V20_B017 copy which to advise you on. Up to you if you want to post it and I will compare to what I have got I have a V20_BO20 which seems to have the same headings as you have. Also your redress was May 12? We think the problem started July 2012 which is just after the V20_BO20. This V20_BO20 when worked through was NOT a million miles out from the CAG sheet and therefore appears to have been using PS10/12 as its inner workings. The column surplus redress third in from right is the big give away and this seems absent in your spreadsheet. So can suggest one of two things. 1) Post up and I will compare with the version I have seen. If its same good chance yours is ok 2) Spend a couple of free hours inputting into the CAG spreadsheet. Pretty boring but worth it to find out if you are thousands out or just a couple of hundred. If its thousands we could have another look for you. But I am thinking you could be lucky here and be just before the changeover o the new system which the thread is all about.

Sorry think we miss understood. Where the lines across start half way down there is a set of column headings. This should be directly below your total amount they say they owe you. The third in on the right hand side says surplus redress?

Top right hand side of your spreadsheet. Third column in. Is it named surplus redress?

Good summing up AM of where we are indeed at. For your own interest I have come across a July 2013 reconstruction with the tax taken off so must be nearly the latest version. Interestingly the actual account did not have a full payment one month but there was a couple of hundred left within the balance. However the recon balance did go negative. So MBNA have decided this is a full payment and done their calculation and everything that goes with it. So they have made an assumption on an assumption when actually there is an actual event which did not fit in with what they want. Scary if the regulators and FOS dont get this.

Grumpy what build number is your spreadsheet and where abouts in the saga are you. FOS? Paid out? Just got you cheque? or just realised by reading this thread something isnt quite right

Further to everything that has been written. Perhaps if you insist the adjudicator/ombudsman insists MBNA calculate using their model V20_B022. Then let them compare the results and see if its fair to the consumer????? Especially if MBNA in its reply to the FOS just happens to have ticked that box " an offer in line with the Financial Ombudsman Service’s guidance (full redress)" I say this cautiously because it says FOS not FCA. But FOS should be drawing that guidance from the regulators handbook and not making it up. See post 9 above A very simple way to resolve a complaint on calculations. Compare the two ways. MBNA way we are complaining about vs a vs a FCA PS10/12 way. Its simple because we also believe MBNA have such a computer model indeed we have copies of this computer spreadsheet. This doesnt need the adjudicator to have massive math skills because the bank will do it for them. All they have to then decide is after we have rechecked MBNA havnt messed with V20_B022's internal workings is to compare both answers and see if MBNA's method gives anything like the method the regulator wishes to see. So wouldnt a simple way to resolve this would be to insist FOS insist its run again in a fully compliant FCA PS10/12 model one of which we know MBNA have or had on their system. Tell FOS you are aware of this computer model, a model which apparently complies with FCA PS10/12 (the regulators understanding) and not this mythical world of assumption now being trotted out. An assumption which seems to be bending a vague paragraph in the FOS guidelines of two very particular consumer behaviours to the very limit. An assumption which the paragraph before seems to strictly prohibit as does all the other FOS guidelines contained within the guidance. For anyone reading this V20_B022 is the computer model they were using back in July 2012. The model which comes very close to the result when the CAG spreadsheet was used to compare and its the model where the surplus column is absent. Which indicates the CAG model is a useful guide (which we all knew) to what you should be getting. Again can only say complain to the FCA, complain to your MP, complain to the press if you feel the need to be a celeb. This is now at the point where FOS are activating these claims.

Whatisdue Why not ask your adjudicator for a copy of the company response as AM has posted. Lets see what MBNA are saying they are doing? Lets get it once and for all from the horses mouth so to speak. GS if you are reading ask your adjudicator the same thing. Start asking the adjudicators searching questions. We know that form is there. So lets ask them.

And again bring to the attention of FOS that they have been found out in the past to not have followed the FOS guidelines after a FOS adjudicator has signed it off. That adjudicator was conned and the FOS was conned and they didnt act fairly to those people. But if all the bank has to do is tick a box and say yes guv we did it right. Then unless they were being checked and the penalties were high then the bank has every incentive in the world to do this. Herman and the people who engaged the CMC are proof of that. On one side the banks say the CMC's are the **** of the earth. But the banks dont see where the blame lies. Be honest and then the CMC has no where to draw its nourishment from. The banks by their greed spawned that industry one they dislike as much as we dislike the two of them.

What is due For what it is worth I totally agree wih you. The reason PS10/12 is there is to give redress for what is quite frankly an appalling scandal. Now you would of thought the regulators and FOS would since the scandal has happened and is out in the open they would be hovering over the redress like a hawk to ensure the wrong doing is righted. But they seem not to be very interested in the calculations. Wonder why? Yes the maths isnt easy and yes there are some people who just wont get it. Hence why early doors I came to the conclusion fight the method not the figures. If the method gets over turned in our favour then the only viable option is the ordering of a recalculation to PS10/12 and nothing else should do. Indeed it should be our right as the people shafted by these firms to expect if we would rather to have the redress calculated as per the regulators view of the world and not some bank who has been caught out miss selling insurance. I do think as you are saying get onto everyone you can. The only people who havnt been notified would be the press. Perhaps this is a way forward. I havnt done that as at present my MP has said its at FOS and they wont do anything until the FOS avenue is exhausted. But my MP is well aware of this. The FCA as the regulator is well aware of this and perhaps the pressure needs heating up more. Then perhaps the regulaor will look at the method and push FOS into looking harder at this. You are quite right to be angry. Imagine what Herman thought and then what he eventually got back. Money they were originally wanting to keep until someone pushed them into what I suspect was calculating correctly. One thing I did pick up on is I dont think FOS ask them to carry out a hyothetical calculation. I think its more of MBNA are seeing an inch of wriggle room and making it into a full blown box of wriggling maggots. FOS is at fault for not looking closely or answering your questions. But they have done it before so that is worth pointing out. FOS have missed it before so how can that be fair. MBNA are making the FOS look like monkeys.

I have sent another complaint into the FCA with my more rounded understanding of what they are doing. Suggest everyone else does. Quite agree with AM. This has evolved because of new evidence. An adjudicator is just someone off the street who just happened to get your case file infront of them. They may be good at maths they maybe pants at it. Sadly the bank will always be in pole position unless you can actually ask the question that sparks the understanding or questioning that something doesnt quite add up in the adjudicators mind. For me the bit in FOS which seems to be what MBNA are doing says EVERY MONTH. It doesnt say when it happens OCCASIONALLY. And dont forget this isnt in the FCA's rulebook. They are the regulator not FOS. FOS just take the regulators rulebook and turns that into real life guidance. Going right to the start of the big thread. Its the method we are after, get that over turned and a re calculation as per PS10/12 exp 6 is the only possible outcome.

Perhaps another round of complaints to Kate is in order? Last time we werent really sure what they were up to now we are.

Whatisdue. I had the same reply from Kate so if they are or arent doing an investigation then I am sadly not party to this. That said they did mention in a recent press release that they are looking or have looked at the next tier of providers under the big 6 and found serious flaws within the systems of many with one company being referred to the FCA investigations team. They are also now looking at the big six and will report back in due course. If MBNA is one of these I have no idea. Would be nice if FCA would tell us though. TBH I dont expect any adjudicator to understand what is going on. They should but like many of us they wont be sure so wont take the bank on. Like the thread states they are using the FOS line that if you the consumer paid a min or a full then they will notionally calculate the new min or full and remove the difference out of the account and into this mythical pot attracting 8%. Thats mythical and has alot of assumptions built in. What actually happened is what PS10/12 ex 6 is supposed to strip out. The PPI and associated interest and any charges due to the PPI. ie as it states quite clearly in the FCA handbook to return as closely as they can the consumer to a position they would have been if the PPI had not been sold. If you look at the spreadsheet then it is calculating as per PS10/12 I think for the most part just these blasted M and F amounts. The FOS guide to redress states that the bank should assume the consumer would have paid what it did in real life. So that all sounds good and therefore they are following PS10/12 ex 6. But then they cloud the issue and say if the consumer always paid off the full balance or always paid a minimum then it would be safe to assume that this is what you would do. And this is what MBNA are using to strip out the difference IMO. The FCA states that the bank can use an alternative method of redress as long as that method is not for the sole purpse of reducing the redress paid to the consumer. In Hermans case above it reduced it by 72% They expect the redress to be very similar to the amount calculated by PS10/12 even if the maths behind it is different. So you have to ask yourself and the adjudicator/ombudsman why is it safe to allow the offender to decide what to assume and what not to assume when calculating the compensation?? Its like the judge (FCA/FOS) asking the thief what sentence they want. Of course the thief will go for the least they can get away with. On one hand you have facts what you did and an actual balance, payments PPI associated interest charges etc. Something that happened in the real world. PS10/12 exp 6 strips out the PPI and associated interest in order to return the consumer to the position they would have been if the PPI hadnt been sold (miss sold lets not forget this). On the other hand we have a spreadsheet built by the bank (who miss sold the product) which has seized upon a paragraph within the FOS guide (NOT THE REGULATOR REMEMBER) that says and I quote But we recognise that different people use their credit cards in different ways. For example, some consumers clear their credit card balance in full each month, whereas some consumers make the minimum payment each month. These consumers might have paid a different amount to their credit card account if they hadn’t had PPI. If the consumer had paid in full or paid the minimum EACH MONTH So yes MBNA can do this if you did either of the two above. But what it seems to me is they cannot do this if you didnt. Every account I have seen Minimums and Fulls are sprinkled through the account as you would expect in a normal account. Normally if your account got into difficulty there is a culster of minimums at the end as it went bad. Now if PPI and the associated interest wasnt there or MBNA hadnt rate jacked just when we were in trouble maybe we wouldnt have paid a minimun maybe we could assume we would have paid more. And thats the problem on one hand they are assuming we would do this. Is that safe? Maybe we should assume we would have paid more than the minimum and maybe we would have purchased a sofa instead of paying our credit card. Maybe its safer to assume we wouldnt have done what we did because the balance was different. If an adjudicator cant see that then sadly they shouldnt be one. You cant assume something when you have cold hard facts of what happened. The para MBNA are relying on in the FOS guidance relates to two specific types of accounts where a certain behaviour is present EACH MONTH. And we know why. Its because it reduces the redress. And the FCA (THE REGULATOR) states that if an alternative method of redress is to be used it is not to be used IF the sole purpose is to reduce the redress to the consumer. It has to be fair and they expect the redress to be similar to if they had used the PS10/12 exp 6 Keep on at then what is due. Keep us updated as there are many many following behind across all the forums. I wouldnt like to be the adjudicator/ombudsman who gets this wrong as this a scandal upon a scandal which could engulf the bank, and as already been seen an adjudicator missed Hermans redress, missed the the claims companies redress so could be about to engulf the FOS as they are not getting this right.

The only effect it will probably have if you are as dx says not in debt is to make you hate the company so much that the last credit card you would ever have again would be an MBNA one. They have a Ryanair attitude to the consumer.

I would have to agree with Dx this is going to revolve round what BC actually did. What worries me would be that BC said they would do x for you then you assume they did x when the payment comes to you. If they didnt do x and actually paid you the full 11k which was the full settlement then no set off happened. Therefore the debt exists still and its that debt MKDP are after. I have learnt that to assume a bank will do anything it says it will tends to lead to trouble. Took me some time to get my head round it but its simple really. Bank pays you PPI in compensation direct to you. That is the compensation and allows the account to stay the same for them. Therefore debt exists still. Bank pays compensation direct to account by means of offsetting. You dont get money but balance is reduced. If you got full compensation and they also reduced your balance(offset) then the claim would have been paid out twice. IMO the answer lies with what Barclays actually did in the summer. Not what they said they would do. In the first instance above you have a very real and very live claim against you. In the second instance you have the fictious debt you believe you have.

Up 2. Can only echo Getting Sorted. The thread follows our thought processes. We know there are these spreadsheets. We now very recently (in the last few days) know they were up to something before. We know between end of 2011 and June 2012 that they seemed to be calculating correctly when challenged but certainly seem to be doing something strange again now. First stop methinks is to ask for how they calculated your redress by getting hold of that spreadsheet. Thread tells you what you are after.

So very quickly using the new evidence emerging MBNA were up to calculating their own way up to late 2011/early 2012. They were challenged and eventually started to calculate correctly. They did this until about June 2012 when they decided they would have another go and calculating the way that suits them and hence the big thread. So anyone reading this unless your award was calculated between start and June 2012 there is a very good chance you could be a bit light. And FOS/FCA if your reading this. This has got through FOS and adjudicators dont seem to have done their job according to your rules. Perhaps you could decide to closely look at whats going on before another scandal engulfs a bank but could also engulf FOS. Perhaps if you can work out what we have worked out that you could instruct this bank to follow PS10/12 as it should be doing but not only that make it recalculate everyones claims. Makes you wonder if this was why MBNA was thinking it might leave the UK. It knew it was sitting on a ticking timebomb.