My email was hacked and now my CAG user account is frozen. I am not Derek Richards. I am unable to access CAG except via this one post which was stored in a secondary email account just before the hack. I cannot contact anyone offboard so cant ask them there to look at what happened. Hope someone can look into it otherwise I can no longer add to this thread.

Nothing I can add as I dont really know how you have put the complaint across. When I spoke to you on another forum my complaint had been in for over 4 months. You did not seem to indicate that your complaint was in with FOS then. However not one of us on here have yet to hear a peep from FOS as far as I know. But what I do find interesting is no one seems to be complaining about MBNA redress now. Surely others with a better grasp of figures than me would have smelled a rat unless MBNA have started to calculate redress properly again. Dont forget they were 1 month before After midnight first felt something was wrong.

I would read that letter quite carefully then go onto the MBNA board and read the interpretitive calculations thread. You will be ok if they follow the FOS method of calculation. You wont be to happy if what you accept is the MBNA method of calculation.

Hi GS. Been 10 months now I think since with the FOS. Like I posted a few posts back I think you should sound out some of the more legal bods on here. Maybe DCA board or legal board to see what they say. I sway from one minute thinking a debt that is proved to be all missold PPI and the recon balance is a credit not a debt then it cant exist to be sold. This must be particularly true if they issued a default to the CRA's or took you to court. The figures would have to be oh so wrong. But then I think if the OC kept the debt and you won PPI then they would just offset your redress to the original balance thus reducing the debt to zero but reducing your redress too. So it doesnt take a great leap of faith to say the debt did exist, the OC compensated you and the money wasnt used to pay off the debt. Therefore we made a choice. And the choice was to use the redress for something other than paying the debt which did exist because the OC has actually compensated us for the PPI. So if the debt did exist then the OC has every right to sell it which it did. Therefore we do owe the DCA. And perhaps selling onto the DCA is a way to hide all the other stuff they did at the time of the default/sale which now looks a tad wrong. Like I say I would really sound out others on this. Because I think if the second case is true then you will be wasting your time. But am very interested as it could be where I will go if we win more out of them so you will be advising me. Not pouring cold water on it just rather confused in my own mind that a debt that wasnt a debt is still a debt.

Hi GS Still stuck in the FOS with mine. However will be very interested how you get on with the DCA as this could be something I have to do if I win. My plan was first to do what you have done and write to the DCA telling them that now this debt was not legally sound when they purchased it and maybe they should take it up with the OC and refund me all my payments plus interest. To a layman you cant have a reconstructed account which is supposed to undo all the wrong that the missold PPI did (FCA and FOS guidance are saying this is the whole point of the redress to put you back to a position as if the PPI had not been sold) which allows the debt to stand as if it was the original account. The debt should be adjusted too. If the reconstructed account went into credit then there cant be any debt. Therefore one would like to think if the DCA doesnt cough up and give it you all back plus interest then they would be in a very tricky situation in court. Demanding money for a debt which subsequently has been proved doesnt exist. Yes they acted in good faith when they purchased the debt but subsequent events have proved this debt doesnt exist. Not really a very defendable position one would think. The DCA should accept they have been stitched up by the OC and take it up with them. The actual monetary cost to either the DCA or OC will be negliable anyway as we know these debts are sold for peanuts. Depending on the DCA's response you may need to pose the question on the legal board as you may need to issue a claim to get the money back. But would certainly run it past the legal brains on there to see what they think. Good luck.

The letter looks good you have got the jist of what they are doing. Remember this is more about avoiding them paying silly billys due to time. It will go to sleep I expect for some time now after they have logged it at FOS. The problem is in them removing notional monies from the balance which is accuring contractual interest and putting it into a pot that attracts simple interest. So you have this in the letter. But in real life the money stayed within the balance and attracted contractual interest. They will argue we would if we paid a minimum in real life still pay a minimum in this pretend world hence the transfer across. I am sure they will argue the PPI is paid off first but again as aftermidnight said right at the start the same amount is left within the balance as the PPI premium. As this money is removed it does two things both detrimental to us the consumer. 1) you lose the difference between contractual interest and the 8% simple and 2) they leave the reconstructed balance artificially higher which you have quite clearly shown in your letter. Because they are not removing the surplus amount aswell as the card redress. Both are monies due to you so why they suddenly think some of it doesnt count towards your recon balance. The claim award you recieve is basically the difference between the original balance and the new reconstructed balance. Inflate the recon and therefore your claim will be less by the same amount. But this is why keep it to the method and not the figures. They havnt followed the regulators/adjudicators preferred method. They can use another way if they wish as long as they clearly advise the consumer how they did it. I think you are fully aware a letter saying that in calculating your redress they have followed the regulators/adjudicators guidelines closely they should just do that. So let them explain what they have been up to.

Hi GS. So clearly FOS are indicating that if you do delay this then a timebar would/could be used against you 6 months after the final rsponse/award/go to FOS letter. You still have time but just goes to show how this could have ended up. The asking the DCA for your money back is an interesting point and one outside my knowledge. I would be very interested to know the answer but would suggest you ask the question on either the DCA or legal sub forums. Think you really need someone with more legal knowledge than me. But on the face of it if the PPI reclaim wipes out the debt at the point of sale/assignment you would have to come to the conclusion that the debt cant have existed and therefore was sold fraudulently?? Its no good the creditor saying well you can use your PPI reclaim money to pay the debt back when actually it didnt exist at that moment in time?. You have your spreadsheet below. You know when they transferred the debt. Its easy on their figures to work out what the reconstructed debt was at the moment in time they sold it by just subtracting what happened after the sale from your award. If the new award is more than the reconstructed balance then bingo one would have thought.

GS. Thought about this abit more last night. Your getting stressed because of the deadline. But what is it a deadline for.? Its one to get the complaint accepted by FOS. You can add to the detail of the complaint once its accepted and once they start to look at it. Your struggling with the figures and the time limit is making the understanding even harder to come by. If you are really at the stage of walking away then maybe I could suggest this. Get a FOS complaint form filled in and where they ask you what the complaint is about then just put something along the lines the claim has been miscalculated to your detriment as the FCA/FOS preferred method of redress has not been used (The CAG spreadsheets follow this method). You are aware of FCA rulebook particularly disp3.7 and also the method that FOS uses for calculating refunds on its publically viewable website. Say you are aware that if the bank wishes to use another method of redress then it has to clearly explain to you how they came to the amount they offer. The fact that its been the devil to get anything out of them isnt clearly explaining and a spreadsheet after threatening them with FOS is not sufficient to most normal people unless an explanation is attached. Which in this case it wasnt.( Put in actually what you did and include copy letters if you have them) Finally say you have no idea why or how money is being transferred to another pot outside the main balance which attracts contractual interest so it attracts the much lesser simple interest. This goes against what actually happened as the money didnt do this in real life as it remained within the balance thus attracting contractual which is a loss to you the consumer due to the mis-sold PPI element. Attach your MBNA spreadsheet so they can see for themselves it aint following what they say the bank should be following. Also point out that the MBNA recon balance bears no resembalance to what its should be. Easy to do as at any point when they transfer money to the 8% pot then they reset the recon balance. Therefore recon is much higher than it should be. And this is how you ended up still owing money even though the PPI settlement should have paid it all off plus some. Remember they are using a notional reconstruction of how you would have used the account in order to lower the redress. All well and good but the actual monetary loss to you the consumer is quantafiable and is due to a mis-sold policy. The fact as we have now worked out they go on about min payments and so forth doesnt matter. The PPI is contained within the balance and is attracting contractual interest. As aftermidnight so rightly puts at the start even if the PPI was paid off first a sum equal to the PPI element remains within the balance attracting contractual interest. If the PPI wasnt there then you would be paying interest on a lower balance. Therefore you were paying more contractual than you should have been.Therefore it is this that you the consumer has lost not 8% simple on money they say they have witheld from you. That comes in only when the recon balance goes into credit. Do this in language you understand not mine as you may eventually have to explain it to an adjudicaor. Finally dont attach your CAG spreadsheet. Work on this once you have got the complaint in and registered. This will sit with FOS for a year or more. That gives you all the time in the world to get your head round it. Also all the time in the world to re work your CAG spreadsheet and actually see how much they really are short changing. Dont forget a few of us have had our complainnts registered 6 months or more now so ours will come out before yours so this thread will come alive again. This isnt lost yet just dont count on having any nice surprise anyday soon. Just get the complaint in. Anything to get it registered. Post it signed for and chase it till you get a reference.

GS If it were me I would read through the following http://fshandbook.info/FS/html/FCA/DISP/App/3/7 as this is the regulators website then read up this http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/ppi/redress.html which is the FOS way of doing things. Finally read through this thread again and you hopefully will be able to grasp just what they have done and how trying to work out interest and the like could well be fatal to any further claim. But if you can get FOS or the FCA to act in your favour they will instruct the bank to recalculate. So simply put read Disp 3.7.2 Put the consumer back to a position they would of been if they had not purchased PPI. There are other methods they can use and its always useful to read up on what they could use. Then from the FOS link concerning credit card redress. "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." Get FOS to uphold this and then you should get all this nonsence wiped. Ask yourself why on the CAG spreadsheet if your recon balance goes into credit you get 8% but on the MBNA spreadsheet your getting 8% even while the recon balance is in debit. Ask yourself how you can be offered £xxxxxx as compensation. Then take that compensation off your actual end balance and you find their reconstruction is giving a much higher balance at the time they settle. Ask yourself what exactly is this pot where the balance is accruing 8%. Was there such a pot on your credit card statements that you were aware of and that you knew was only attracting 8%? The whole jist of this is they are moving PPI premiums out of the account to avoid contractual interest. 8% is much better to them than whatever your rate was. But the scummy thing is the money was in the account and it did attract contractual, whatever they say. By doing what they are doing they are cheating you out of the difference between your contractual rate and 8%. In my case my contractual was 34.9% at the end. They have done me out of 26% per month for years. And as we all know compound interest racks up horribly and this is why CAGs spreadsheet will bear no resemblence to the banks. But its why the bank is doing this. Its cutting its redress to us. But by using figures most people cant see it. Hope this is making sense. If you argue they owe you £2000 because your spreadsheet off the internet says so but you have calculated wrong (Say used a wrong % or havnt calculated 4 different % per day, or daily or if its a Balance Transfer etc etc etc) then your on the defensive with FOS straight away. But if you are showing FOS the money was in the balance it was attracting contractual and by them shifting money about then what they are doing is not refunding all the money they took off you which is not complying with the FCA's remit to return you to where you would be if the PPI had not been in place at all. If you can pick up faults on their spreadsheet and include them in your complaint then all the better. But its the method thats wrong and that is what the whole purpose of this thread. Sorry if any of that comes across off to you. Its just you will need to discuss with FOS why you think its wrong. The better you understand it the better chance you have of persauding FOS that you are right.

Hi GS Think your getting stressed on trying to get your CAG spreadsheet right but forgetting what you are trying to achieve. If we win then they will have to recalculate and that is the time really to get your figures right. Your trying to get FOS to understand they are not calculating redress the way FOS and the FCA say they should be. Make it complicated and FOS just wont understand.

Hi Ashley. I return you to the thread interpretive calculations in the MBNA subsection. What you need to do is all there and a bit of an explanation as to why and how we think they are doing it. Firstly you need to wait on your cheque then write back rejecting the offer but accepting the cheque as part payment of the claim. We all cashed the cheques. By the time this is over they will be withdrawn so whats in the hand is better than nothing imo. Tell them you want the spreadsheet they used to work out your compensation. There are various numbered spreadsheets on the thread. Demand it from them. FOS will order it given to you if they withhold it. When you get it post it on the Inerpretive calculations thread. I will be able to tell you straight away if they have changed the way they calculate. Looking at what you have just posted I would say they havnt. This is the part that will end up with FOS as MBNA will not pay up. Worse still they will try and timebar you from their final offer. The date on your letter above is your 6 months timescale for FOS. You must get it in before then or you lose that avenue. As to the account charges. I have a different view on these from the site team. If you can prove they are attributable to the PPI they should be refunded. In my instance nearly all can be proved if the recalculated balance is used to be attributable to PPI. A small proportion at the very start of the account couldnt. FCA/FOS rules state these should be paid back. So use the PPI claim to get them back. I say this because check the MBNA success thread. You will find tumbleweeds in it. That tells a story. A story that people are not being very successful in getting them back. Just my view and the reason I am claiming mine back via the PPI claim just as the FCA/FOS want you too. Good luck and just remember you are on a timescale now if you want to fight them via FOS

Arrow paid 0.5p in the £ for some non performing portfolios last year. Thats £5 for every £1000 book value. Its in their results just posted. It dont take much to turn a profit on a portfolio like that. Even the £1 a month brigade will put them in profit quickly.

Bettingmad. Your situation is somewhat different to the OP's situation. Barclaycard have changed what they are reporting sometimes. In OP's case there is no arrangement in place as the lack of payments indicate. So well worth a complaint to see if it can be adjusted. In your case a DMP is an arrangement. Seen it many times where this then defaults 3,4,5 years later. Might not be ethical but totally different to OP's case. ICO only gives guidelines as to what it would expect creditors to do and is common practice. That said if they dont wish to default you they dont have to if you have come to some sort of arrangement. Hope you can see the difference here.

No one has any idea how FOS is going to approach this as none of us have yet to have an adjudicator. If you still have a live complaint ongoing I think I would demand from MBNA thier figures. Then go back to FOS and say that you dont believe the figures are correct and state why. Which is they are not following the FCA/FOS way of doing redress. If FOS agree with you then MBNA will have to re calculate your award. Hope that helps.

How you go about it could be difficult without the information But read the thread interpretive calculations on the MBNA section. Long and hard to follow without certain information. But gives you the jist. You join a happy band of people who realise what they are up to. Post on there if you need guidance after you have read it.

Suspect you both should ask admin to move you and seperate into different threads if you both have claims issued. Get more attention in the legal section.

Suspect your premiums will be right. Your contractual interest will be much less and your 8% much higher than the CAG spreadsheet gives you. There will be no charges refunded even though they should be doing. Overall you will get much less. This is what will be sent to you with a letter showing the redress as IMS indicated. The information is in the transaction log. Just say you have made 25 transactions that month. You would have to add them up to put it into the spreadsheet. So the 25 transactions become one number. Its simple to do just labourious. You could ask for your statements see what they say. But have seen threads where they ask you to pay for them. I am not sure if that is correct and they have to give you the data how you wish to see it or just the data. I personally think it will be the latter. Once you have done your spreadsheet you will see the size of the problem. Then you have to explain that to a FOS adjudicator. Do you just say here is my spreadsheet I want this amount or do you take the bank to task about how they did it. They calculate daily on variable amounts on upwards in my case of 4 interest rates. The CAG spreadsheet calculates monthly on one interest rate. Your figure wont be right and they can prove you are wrong. Your having to defend your claim when the reality is so much is wrong with their method. They will cloud the issue with allsorts of figures we cant hope to work out. The 6 month thing is dont think you have ages or can make a new complaint because you think its a new complaint because FOS are timebarring stuff that is related. And this is related to the original complaint. just make sure you have something in before the 6 months is up even if its not everything. This is not easy and you will certainly need an aptitude for figures. I suspect many are just settling as they cant be bothered and are happy they got something. The thread I pointed you to will show you how we have got to where we have. Its long for sure but will give you a flavour of what to expect.

See your other thread Yes they are

Clothears. You do have the data in that transactions log just they have not made it easy for you. I have seen people trying to get it in a more easily readable format but think there are two problems with this. One bank is trying to charge you to adapt the format into something you find more easy. ie statements but DPA doesnt say it has to be statements its says all data on you. Right or wrong not sure but it feeds into the second reason. To delay you. And see below why this is important By having the data I mean you have to add everything up per month to add it into the very useful spreadsheets on here. All spends, payments ppi etc. Use when the charges and PPI is added as your start/end of months. It will be nearly right. Long and labourious I know but as IMS says you need the full story and you are going to have to fight for this one. Suggest you might be here in 2/3 years time. However your spreadsheet will be nothing like what MBNA will offer you. But it will give you a ball park figure for what they are up to. The whole story is on a thread called interpretive calculations on this forum. Finally your 6 months has started running from when they offered. They will try and timebar you if you do not complete this in 6 months. So my advice is get cracking as most of us on the thread have only just squeezed into the FOS because of being messed around. Your complaint will not be a simple FOS sheet when you get there. Mine was over 400 pages long and the size of a novel. The PPI changes frequently in name on the transaction log. You are correct posted credit insurance fees is PPI. Good luck

Think you have to go with 14th July tbh. I have read on a couple of occasions and seen a video clip where FOS are timebarring stuff on their own volition with a connected complaint. Seems a strong thread coming out of FOS over the last few months, why I dont know but there you go. What I have seen makes no sense as they are different complaints but because they are difficult and connected by the same account FOS have said tough. And that is exactly what we have here. Not going to be easy to rule but is the same account. This is going to be difficult enough without FOS deciding they are against you too. I think the possibility of offering MBNA a second look at it before going to FOS is precluded by the risk of the above now. But least you have the date and at least its 6 weeks away. But I would be making sure your complaint is in before that date and they have either signed for or some sort of confirmation that they have at least got it. A technicality time bar could be expensive indeed if we win.

PS to the above. Thinking about it you cannot risk it as a seperate complaint. You aint got 8 weeks to play with anymore. End of Jan gives you end of July. Depending on the exact end of Jan date the offer was made even if you complained today they can spin it out to 26th July without giving you a final reply then refer you back to the original. If FOS ruled it is attached to your first complaint then MBNA will try and timebar you.

I took a very distinct view on this and complained again to MBNA as a seperate complaint. I went the 8 week cycle and obtained a naff off go to fos. But they backdated me to when they first offered/admitted the missell. Which strangely enough was just as I expected. I had the complaint already to go to FOS which was lucky as they had spun the second complaint out. It was evident from their reply they would be using time barring on me. Sad to say for them FOS have accepted it and its now in line for being assigned to someone. But up to you how you do it as you already have someone at FOS to talk to. We didnt. Is it a seperate complaint or just the same one. I dont really know. I took the view its seperate and therefore gave MBNA the chance to sort it before it went to FOS. Because for me that is part of the complaint. They knew exactly what I was on about and exactly what I wanted. They know its about the method not the amount. Indeed they were nice as pie till I showed them the FOS/FSA web pages. Then they became very shirty. So if FOS rule against them then they can offer us compensation over and above the settlement for MBNA jerking us around. They had a chance to sort it. They didnt. If they had then I wouldnt be here. Golden opportunity for the bank to settle just like everyone on here. They wouldnt lose because we wouldnt be sharing what we know. But to your question yes I do believe the clock is ticking and yes I do believe they will try and time bar it if they can and yes they will try January.

Pretty standard GS. At line May 00 why is money starting to be withdrawn from the pot attracting contractual interest and being placed in stat interest? See below why they will argue this. Same line your original balance is £3551.49 and the recon is £3419.29. Yet if you subtract the premiums and associated interest you will find the surplus redress and simple 8% isnt in your recon balance therefore this is higher than it should be. They will argue you paid minimum hence the M and therefore if the lower balance was used ie the new recon balance you would have still only paid the minimum so they remove the difference out the sum. Thats your £2.22 plus its 8% This £2.22 keeps on getting added to. This surplus does not attract contractual but heres the nub of the problem. They are saying this is what would have happened IF the recon balance was less. However it wasnt and you have actually had to pay contractual interest on the money as it was contained within the balance. They want to plead something that might of happened if the balance was lower as to an actual loss you have incurred because the balance was actually higher. They should be returning you to the position you would have been if the PPI had not been added, not to the position they think you might have been if they are able to guess what you might have done if the balance had been lower at that moment in time. There is an actual sequence of events but they wish to make up something to suit them better!!!!!!! Ok now go to line jun 07. I want to avoid where you seem to have been credited PPI premiums. Not entirely sure what happened there. Your actual balance was £3901.31 and by that time your card redress and this surplus redress is £2567.96. This is the amount by their figures they admit they owe you. In addition they would owe you the 8% added up which is about £422 to that date.. So £3901.31 -£2567 -422 = 912.31. On their own figures the reconstructed balance is actually £912.31 not £2562.46 By overstating the balance they get to hide so much because your redress is actually the original balance minus the recon balance in very crude terms. If the recon balance is higher then your redress is lower. The basic premise of this PPI scandal is they are supposed to be reconstructing your account. But by clever jiggery pokery here they are masking things in figures. But again would suggest you are scratching your head here cause the figures hence the advice to refer what they are doing against what FCA/FSA/FOS say they should be doing and forget figures it just bamboozles people. Get FCA/FOS to rule in our favour and they will have to recalculate. Thats the time to really go over the figures. Till then its just finger in the wind stuff. The final thought is if your balance was about £912 in june 2007 then again very roughly by using your payments on their figures of what they owe you even if its been calculated wrongly this account went into credit when you paid the £110 in Feb 2009. By the FCA/FSA/FOS method this is when the 8% kicks in because they owe you. Strange that you have been getting 8% all through the life of the account near enough. Probably only two other times it should be attracting 8% and this was when you paid the balances down completely Again sorry for the length of the post. Hopefully you will see what are doing is no where near like what the regulator or ombudsman on their websites is saying they should be doing. And if they choose to do another method they are supposed to be open with us. And that they aint.

Your doing well. The thread I pointed you too before now is where you are at once you get your calculations from them. When you do the thread will make more sense. But suspect we will be still chatting next year about this. Good luck

Haha sorry for the brain freeze. I would personally get hold of the FOS PPI calculation examples. Then see how their figures dont or do follow. Alot of the above if you get to immerse yourself in the spreadsheet will start to make sense. MBNA know this and know most people wont or cant be bothered. If you post your MBNA spreadsheet up I will try and see if I can point you to where you need to look.