ken100464
-
Posts
379 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by ken100464
-
Thank you Herman and well done on your re calculation. With this evidence and the claims company on Angry Cats post it does make you wonder how many accepted these heres what we calculated heres your cheque letters? Still makes you wonder if the Regulator/Ombudsman was/is actually getting its calculators out or was it just relying on those words " Calculated in accordance with the FOS guidelines" Clucking bell I thought we were being done over. That initial award is 28% of what Herman eventually got. Interesting the one thing they never mess with is the one thing most people can add up. The actual PPI premiums once they have the SAR.
-
Post 220 by Angry Cat in the original thread also indicates something was amiss and was spotted the same time as Herman decided his redress was incorrect. As always I am sure CAG would like me to indicate they do NOT recommend this company its more of an indication that MBNA might not have been calculating things by the book back then.
-
Herman This is helping no end. When things like this happen there is nothing like having facts to back you up when trying to work out a process. MBNA seem fond of methods that do not treat the customer fairly. Your information plus Angry Cats link to the claims company proves that. People like your goodselves must have felt like we were doing early on but followed it through and seem to to some extent been given the redress due. I hope in time anyone following this thread will also be successful. But what are the regulator's doing????????????? This is their job. This is what they are here for. If MBNA have been caught once surely a second time being creative is a big no no. Early on in this thread we were asking people to email the regulator. I still have my reply so they cannot say they were not aware.
-
If as we suspect something really is remiss then the regulator/ombudsman would be hard pressed to avoid anybody asking for this to be looked at again even if they settled yonks ago. As the regulator I think I would be asking MBNA to recalculate every claim back to whenever they can prove they were doing it as per the regualtors rules. Just my view tho. Scandal upon a scandal. Press would love that. And the banks wonder why no one trusts them as far as they can throw them. GS your post about a new thread picking up any caggers. Suggest as site team (citizen B) is watching then they would be the best to advise you on that idea. I have a feeling and have seen site team referring to this thread on other MBNA PPI threads. And yes Herman thank you for the kind offer most appreciated.
-
Herman Welcome to the thread and thank you for the reply. Sight of your letters minus your id's would be most welcome. I believe with your permission if you allowed them to be part of GS reply to FOS they could be the factor requiring the adjudicator to look very closely at her reply, not wanting to be the person to be in the firing line if this starts to ballon into another scandal. This would I think help in where AM was going with the idea for GS. To point out to the FOS adjudicator that we the consumer are aware of what MBNA are up to, that we the consumer are talking and spreading the word and that GS could be the start of another bank scandal that will not just engulf the bank but it could be seen to engulf the ombudsman service. Are they really impartial when they are activley shielding a bank not following its own guidance or the regulators rulebook so that that the bank can avoid paying out all what it has taken via a discredited insurance [problem]. We are telling the regulator, we are telling the ombudsman what to look out for and indeed pointing them, leading them to the point where this bank is not following what they are saying the banks should be doing. What more can be done. Press? Legislators, court action? Why would FOS wish to cover this up? Only one reason in it for them and that would be a strong allegation to make. This should not be for the unsophisticated consumer to be having to do this it should be for the well paid regulators/ombudsman staff to not always side with the banks. Here is where Herman's letters would be useful. Evidence of an adjudicator who we as consumers trust siding with the bank who then years later has to admit that they calculated wrongly. The proof in the letter that the FOS didnt do its job. If as the evidence is stacking up that this bank was up to something before and were doing it with FOS backing which then by the evidence now starting to appear has been proved to be wrong it beggars belief that 1) the bank has the cheek to attempt it again and 2) the regulator/ombudsman would trust anything other than a PS10/12 calculation from this particular bank. Again thank you Herman for your post. As you say a pity this thread wasnt around in your day. Knocking ideas back and forth has been most helpful for me.
-
GS. Not quite sure what you mean in post 221 but everything you are picking up is where this movement of monies into the suplus redress and out of your card redress is happening. Your correct as per FCA disp 3.7/8/9 FSA PS10/12 annex 2 example 6 and the FOS way of doing things, when your account is in credit then thats when you get 8%. So very quickly that would be mar 02, Jan 05, Aug 09 onwards. Rest of time you were in debit so shouldnt be any 8% but there should be the associated at the card rate. However at end of account you seem to not be paying interest so was it frozen? If so then there is no associated interest at this time. Was the £3000 a balance transfer?. Not sure how that works as I didnt do any. Seem to have a few of these sprinkled through your account. Why the recon balance disappears is a new one on me. You obviously went into credit on their figures. Is this when they sold to the DCA? Your next point is IMO very important. How can it be fair £55 is a minimum payment on the original balance so we going to mess with it and take some of that £55 off you and hide it away (Aug 10 £1907) then say £55 is a full payment when the balance is £806 (Feb 12) But what we will do is take the reconstructed balance now and use that and take all the money away into the surplus account. Also on this point how can £55 be minimum some months then next month it isnt then it is then it isnt when all you are doing is paying the balance down. It either is or it isnt. Seems to me they are using whichever figure suits them best. And of course we all know the reconstructed balance is nothing like what example 6 would have. It doesnt start dropping in Sept 2007. Everytime there is a M or a F they are taking money out of the Card redress (The one where you get associated interest at the card rate) and pop it into the surplus redress the one that gets 8%. Hence why you lose the difference between card rate and 8%. At a guess you should have been getting associated interest on £2500 (card + surplus) to jun 2007. Presume you then had your interest frozen. PPI stops. Your recon balance should be £3900 - £2500 (of course this should be higher but I cant work that out for you). Recon balance is £1400. You pay down at £55 per month. When thos £55's get your recon balance to zero the 8% should kick in as the credit starts to grow. Which just on their figures is Aug 2007 Like the start of the thread there are so many assumptions going on when right infront of them is what actually happened. What you actually did and a method the regulator wants them to use. The question is why has MBNA decided to start assuming things we did and throwing out the regulators chosen method so then can use a method which cuts the payment. Now is this what the regulator means by being fair when calculating redress? Again can only stress you are trying to get an adjudicator to understand. Actually the more you look at this the more pants it becomes. Think I have answered that post now making my hair grey just trying lol
-
Which spreadsheet are you talking about the Cag one or MBNA one
-
I would use anything you feel would help your case. Shame the NWNF firm didnt say what they had found but it certainly was a healthy increase indeed. Interesting link from AC
-
Your post 209 GS just re read. Sorry was in a hurry in answering your question about are you accepting their balance in question a). No I dont think so. What you are saying is at this moment in time this is the figure you have off the bank to work to. You dont agree with it and think the balance if you win that the way they calculated is pants will actually be smaller and therefore more olimits could be affected. But at present what you are showing is that they have not taken into account charges like they should do to put you back into the position you would have been. The more thats wrong with their method the more likely a complete re calculation is going to be ordered which at the end of the day is what we want. And done according to FS10/12 example 6 which comes from Disp 3. 7/8/9 as per AM's post. Its the method not the amounts. Get the recalculation and then thats the time to really drill into the amounts IMO. Got to remember you are trying to get an adjudicator to get it. For your o limits if it was me just say I dont agree with the balances used by MBNA because of (your reasons above) Have used their balances to show that another part of their redress calculation is wrong because they have just ignored charges that should come back. Dont forget lates or bounced DD's if the recon balance goes into credit (end of account if it happened is a good time to look) How can you be late if they owed you?
-
GS something else you also may wish to use http://www.fca.org.uk/your-fca/documents/thematic-reviews/tr13-7 Page 4 Background links into PS10/12 from the FSA and of course this is where spreadsheet 6 comes from. FCA are using this as the basis of PPI and its redress. Page 6 red box last para details what FCA think the firm should do when they uphold a miss sale. Page 13 onwards how FCA thinks offers of redress should be communicated. As this was just last month this is the FCA's most recent thinking on this and neatly ties in with all AM put in his post. Certainly food for thought. Interesting this is to do with the banks below the big six who are still being looked at and will be reported on later.. Of the 18 one has been referred for investigation. The big six? Barclays,Lloyds,HSBC,RBS,Santander and? Wonder which group MBNA are in.
-
AM The latest version I have seen is one where they have removed the tax due on the 8%. Other than that same old same old. This is the 8% artificially boosted by the way they are working stuff out. I think over time we have got pretty close to what they are doing. Even have a letter to someone actually saying this is what they are doing. Like you am still reasonably happy how I put my complaint across. Just have to see if its pitched at a level that an adjudicator can understand. Like I said at the start I thought we would still be on here in a year. Which year though. Be good if we can get GS through as am sure that will help ourselves.
-
Evening AM As usual how I understand it. And put so well. It has to be novel length because what they are up to is so complex. Problem always will be getting an adjudicator/ombudsman to see through it too.
-
Hi GS. a) Yes and perhaps add some of this? http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/ppi/redress.html b) Hence why it starts to get difficult to quote bank says this we say that but we dont have a computer model which will actually follow what the account actually did. Hence the reality of attacking the method not the amount. c)Possible but dont forget it will be daily and will be based on your different rates and balances at the time. We just cannot calculate to that degree. hence b above reply. d) Yes thats what the 8% is. They should only pay 8% if your in credit. They are saying the surplus is a credit and have removed it from the balance. However in real live its still within the balance and attracts associated. You got it now. Good luck on your OH's account. I suspect it will either follow the preferred method or they will tell you too long ago you accepted the cheque. But good luck
-
GS. I think you need to go onto the FCA web and look up PPI redress. Thats what FOS should be using. The little passage on the FOS website about this surplus redress is not to clear in my mind. I cant quite work out if they are saying its allowable or if actually the Bank should be paying this in addition. The words arent at all clear. So quote the FCA handbook. After all thats the regulator and everyone should be following that. FCA seem quite keen to point out that firms should follow the preferred method as stipulated but where they do want to use an alternative method then it should not be just to cut the consumers redress to the benifit of the bank. Ask FOS the question. Why is it ok to assume what you would do if PPI was not sold. No one knows so shouldnt we stick to facts. And the facts are you want all associated interest relevant to the PPI premiums repaying not just the bits MBNA want to give you back.
-
GS. Not far off. Basically in real life your account was operated as it was. Sometimes you paid it all off and sometimes you paid a minimum amount. Fast forward to the reconstruction. MBNA know you paid full and minimums on certain months. Therefore they are assuming that this is what you would have done in real life if there had been no PPI. So what they do is work out your reconstructed full and minimums for these months. The difference between what you actually did and what MBNA assumed you did is then removed and becomes the surplus redress. But in real life the one you have just experienced the one that matters the higher balance attracted higher interest at the card rate. By removing this money from the balance and paying you 8% they are removing the need to pay you back the interest at the card rate. Your loss and hence why the consumer forum spreadsheets dont tally with MBNA is the difference between interest at the card rate and this 8% simple. Now if the card rate was below 8% then actually you win. Basically they are substituting what happened in real life with what they assume you would do if PPI wasnt there. The question how do they know what we would do?????? .
-
Reading that response from FOS GS they are just starting the process and getting what the complaint is in their head. For me they are doing what I just suggested which is spliiting the complaint into more sizeable chunks. I would do the same thing. They have split it down into 4/5 points and seemingly have not really taken onboard the interest side of it. If it was me I would be going back to them and saying not only is it not calculated as to their guidelines but not to the regulators FCA disp handbook. Quote it at them. Ask them why MBNA are not using it???? Unless anyone else has suggestions I dont think that bit needs calculations yet. Quote what the regulator says, what FOS says as good practice and ask the question. What allows MBNA to decide what you might have done when infront of them is what you did do? Second para yes they are allowed to use alternative method if the explain to you in terms you understand so would suggest as you rightly put, a spreadsheet which is sent only after you ask for it by name isnt really telling you what they are doing. Indeed its taken alot of people alot of time to work out what they are doing. Next bit I tend to think I would have left out. You dont know when you went into credit because you havnt had the redress calculated via FCA disp rulebook. Until that happens you cant really say what is what but its allowing FOS to move away from the real points which as you can see he has brushed over. Same with the selling to the DCA. Dont brush it away but vice versa dont major on it. The one bit you can do is as I pointed out above with your penalties. Lots of photocopying and spreadsheets to do proving which penalties are and arent valid to re-claim. No easy way round this as they have asked. This is where you work is IMO. The rest is asking the questions and quote that rulebook.
-
Before the attachments come up, the bit about your OH and if it was correct. We do know in June 2012 they were calculating much closer to the FCA disp method. But we now have to be aware there is this passage in the FOS examples which seems to be saying this method is possible or is it? I am struggling with what it exactly means as one moment I think MBNA have it right the next I actually think FOS meant that there was additional redress to be made on top of FCA way if they decided to use this alternative method of redress. But the passage in the FOS examples is at odds with the regulators rulebook. So make of that what you will. What is quite clear is from both FCA handbook and FOS is charges should come back. So if you have a reconstruction of your account then look at your limit when each penalty happened. Just be careful though as Penalty Overlimits right at the start of your account might actually not be claimable under the PPI claim(anyone reading thats not to say you cant under a charges reclaim just not the PPI) because the the PPI and associated interest hasnt built yet in the balance in order to bring the reconstructed balance below your credit limit. Secondly lates and bounced DD charges when you reconstructed balance goes into credit should also be fair game IMO. But once again if in doubt if the balance is or isnt in credit then leave them out. I found when I did my claim to FOS that for ease of my head and perhaps the adjudicator it was best to split everything up and deal with each point alone. So deal with your charges first. Then do the interest side of it. Go along with each point you feel that is wrong. Give examples on their spreadsheet if you see any. Either way keep on quoting Disp and the FOS examples where they seem to support your claim.
-
Think you will find more and more of this appearing. Just been offered a fix of my insurance premiums for 3 years as long as I dont prang my car. All on a reasonable interest free monthly payment. All seems good until you realise its a 3 year credit agreement with Creation Finance where you sign a full blooded CCA. On digging, the insurance company if you decide to up sticks and go somewhere else wont pay Creation back. Its classed as a penalty and its in the T&C's. They tell you on the phone they will but guess what you wont get that undertaking in writing. So if you decide to stop paying Creation for whatever reason there is a perfectly valid CCA. But its a debt that is nothing to do with the insurance. Full blooded CCA not being paid because client thinks its the insurance company they have cancelled with, gets sent/sold to DCA who has a post 2007 compliant CCA to play with. I wouldnt be so sure that court isnt an option. Not saying that is what happened just relating what I was offered last month and therefore wont be just one company offering this sort of product in hardened times.
-
assumptions about the payments a consumer would have paid to the credit card account without PPI When a business hypothetically reconstructs a consumer’s credit card account to calculate compensation for a mis-sold PPI policy, it needs to decide how much money the consumer would have paid towards their credit card account if it hadn’t had the cost of PPI added to it. It is difficult to know for certain how much a consumer would have paid if their credit card balance had been slightly lower each month. But in most cases, we think that what the consumer actually did provides a good indication of what they would have done if things had been slightly different. We think this is the fairest approach in most circumstances. We find that a lot of consumers pay what they can afford to pay off their credit card each month – and that this would still have been the case if their credit card balance had been slightly lower. So when a business calculates compensation for PPI policy that was mis-sold alongside a credit card, we will usually say it is reasonable for the business to assume that the consumer would have paid the same payments to their account without PPI as they paid to their account with PPI. 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. and here is the relevant bit from the FOS. Make of it how you will but for me they have got that completely cocked. There will still be PPI and interest within the balance if they allow the bank to mess around with payments.
-
From another forum to a user who is asking the same questions as we are MBNA, wrote: "The redress calculation is intended to put you in the position you would have been had you not bought the PPI, it does this by refunding your PPI premiums, historic interest where relevant and 8% interest on any periods where your account would have been in credit. In addition to this we include additional 8% compensation for any surplus payments that were made through the period of the insurance contract. We determine these sums by applying the FOS guidance of reconstructing the account and assuming the customer made the same payments each month. To do this we identify full and minimum payments and ensure that we apply the same type of payment in the reconstruction as was applied to the account with PPI. In cases where the customer payment behaviour cannot be clearly interpreted, no reconstruction of the payment takes place. If any surplus payment is identified within the reconstruction it is remediated and an additional 8% interest simple per annum is credited along with it in line with FOS technical guidance published March 2013." So seems to me its about the method as we thought. Get the second point overturned and they will have to recalculate. The first point details how they should be doing it If I was GS I would be asking FOS this. If in real life PPI is added and the interest accrues at the card rate and therefore the balance is higher by the PPI premium and the associated interest why are they allowing MBNA to adjust payments because the bank believes we would do x y and z when what we actually did was how the account was run. They are saying if we paid a minimum amount in real life then its fair to say we would do it in this theoretical account. And the difference between the two minimum accounts is the surplus. This is removed from the account into a seperate pot. The surplus redress pot. And this receives the 8% simple. But what they dont let on is this money is now out of the account even though in real life it was still within the inflated balance and was therefore in reality still attracting the card rate interest. This really goes back to AM's very first post. Whatever the payments, the money equal to the PPI and card interest is still within the balance and therefore attracts more interest at the card rate. FSA/FOS method although allowing other methods of calculation is quite clear. Put the consumer back to where they were. This method certainly doesnt. PS welcome back AM
-
Think the thing is to rewind back to the start and work out what you have and havnt got. Firstly you obtained a SAR from MBNA and also the spreadsheet calculation from them? The build number I cant quite remember off the top of my head.
-
Hi GS. Does indeed seem quick. Not a peep from mine except a letter to say they had got it. Silence ever since. Should think the lack of activity on the thread would indicate everyone else is same place. So what do you need to know?
-
Unless anyone would like to guide you further I would suggest the penalty charges as part of the PPI claim is pretty dead. They offered and you accepted the offer. Its also too late IMO to ask the FOS to take a look see as MBNA are known to be asking and winning claims to be time barred at the FOS. So again unless anyone else is going to add this is a pure penalty charge claim. Look in the MBNA section. Penalty charge reclaims against them are as rare as hens teeth. And wins are bit like unicorns. So unless you have every intention of taking them to court and are happy to do this then IMO writing is a wasted stamp. If you do intend to take them to court then there are people on here who would guide you I am sure. But would suggest you ask to get your thread moved from the PPI forum. Penalty charge claiming via court is not somehing I would wish to advise you on as totally beyond my knowledge. Good luck on whatever you wish to do.
-
MBNA will not pay out penalty charges unless you take them to court or you have them over a barrel at FOS but to do that as IMS says you need to reconstruct the account and show FOS that mainly overlimits could not happen. Some lates also at end of account could be possible if you go into credit due to the PPI being in there. One thing that worries me is that spreadsheet was run in Feb. You are 8 months on from when this happened. Did you get the cheque in March and have you cashed it without raising another dispute back then as soon as you got it? If you have I would suggest the PPI reclaim would be pretty dead in the water now and FOS wont want to touch it with a barge pole. Think a bit of history would be good. Bit of a timeline.
-
My only thoughts are why are they giving you 8% simple interest when you owe upwards of £5000 on the card. That is only supposed to kick in when your account goes into credit. You have paid associated interest on your premiums at the card rate but they are subtracting money from your account which attracts the associated interest and only paying simple 8% on it because they say this is how you would have operated the account if there had been no PPI present. Beggars belief they know you would have operated the card differently if the PPI had not been present when the regulator suggests the way the card was actually operated should be the way the card company should reconstruct the account, not how they think it might have been. Everytime you see a M or a F on that spreadsheet they are messing with the reconstruction by pretending that as you paid Minimum or Full in real that they can work out a theoretical Minimum or Full for the reconstruction and remove the difference. But heres the problem. In real you owe associated interest at the card rate. Thats real associated interest on the PPI premiums. Thats in your account balance. In this theoretical account you get back 8%. So ask yourself how is that returning you to where you would have been if the PPI wasnt there? It isnt as they are retaining the difference between the card rate interest and the 8% simple interest. The effect of all this is that the balance remains higher as less money is removed from it. Surprise surprise its to the banks advantage. Simply put your redress is the difference between the original balance and the reconstructed balance. Make the reconstructed balance higher than it should be and your redress cheque will be less. Your loss is the difference between what you paid in compound associated interest and what they paid you in 8% simple. Plus if they keep the balance artificially high then over limit penalties are harder to justify to claim back via the PPI claim. Finally because your 8% simple refund is higher than it should be because the associated interest refund is lower, then you are also paying more tax on this element. But as IMS says if your spreadsheet corresponds to the cheque they sent you then there is no complaint. But that MBNA spreadsheet is the same as everyone elses. Only difference is you have got your spreadsheet to correspond with theirs. If its a CAG spreadsheet then I cant see how you would have attracted 8% simple on balances of £5000. If you get all the above and realise what they are doing then please please complain to both FOS and the FCA.
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS