MBNA turned down my PPI claim in the summer of 2012. After many months of waiting F.O.S have upheld my case. Thanks to this excellent forum i now have a SAR which give me details of every single transaction going back 11 years (when i took the card out) I am now awaiting MBNA's reponse!

Hi guys I've seen 'explanations' as how the FOS works out the repayment after a 'successful' PPI reclaim case - but I'm afraid it's beyond my simple brain! If I lay out the actual figures, maybe somebody could do the sums for me? Please? In June 2005 we took out a 25 year, £89,000 loan. To this was added a five year PPI policy costing £17,000. So we owe, in total, £106,000. Our repayments are c£730/month for the £89k and c£130/month for the £17k. So we pay, in total, c£860/month. As the PPI policy only ran for five of the 25 years of the loan it expired in 2010 but we continue to pay c£130/month. The FOS has found in our favour and instructed the PPI company to stump up. My simple mind puts the amount we are owed as at least what we have paid, ie £11,700 - 90 months (June 2005 to December 2012) at £130. The bits I can't work out are all the stuff based around the idea of "putting us back into a situation had we not taken out the PPI" (I've has this explained as indemnification - apparently one of the cornerstones of all insurance policies. If we hadn't had the PPI, the £11,700 we have paid would have made an enormous dent in the interest we are being charged on the loan proper. So, 8% of the £11,700 is an entirely inappropriate settlement. 8% on top of the £17k premium is closer to it but still not enough), plus the compensation for the stress it caused us (£130/month 'unnecessary' payments would have been a contributory factor in forcing us into a DMP a couple of years later). I understand the FOS will make us an offer which, presumably, we either accept or reject. If we had a ballpark figure of approximately what to expect we'd know if the offer is about right. Can anybody help me here please? If anybody out there is running an aerospace company and wants guidance on AS9100 compliance I'll return the favour! Cheers, Gaz

The FOS report that they are currently receiving 1500 PPI related complaints every day. In the August issue of their news they give some examples of cases they have upheld,and also those rejected.Worth a read. http://financialombudsmanservice.newsweaver.co.uk/Newsletter/1nqfti6z0ss1ejplibozya?rss=true

Hi there I've been advised to start my own thread ref my complaint about miss sold PPI with Lloyds TSB. We've been communicating with them verbally and written over the past two months or so. This morning we received a four page rejection letter. Now having read through a few other posts on here this appears to be a generic rejection letter. I'm currently drafting another complaint letter requesting they reassess their decision, failing that I would assume my next line of approach would be to the FOS? I'm posting this firstly to gather peoples thoughts on the above, secondly is there anything else I could put into the letter I'm currently drafting that would help my case? And thirdly am I taking the right approach here? sf.pdf

Hello! My mother recently reclaimed her PPI payments from Barclaycard (it was an old LPF card) and it was upheld. The only issue I have is when running the figures through the spreadsheets you guys provide. When I put the figures into the FosCISSheet I get one figure, but when I use the FOSRunningPPI sheet I get another amount. I'm just wondering which figure is more accurate as there is a large difference between the two. For the record the account was opened in May 2004 and the last PPI payment was made in January 2007. The account was closed only a few months ago, but no PPI was deducted as the balance was low enough for this not to matter (I think it was 9p). I assume the difference in figures is due to the interest not compounding, am I right? Thanks!

I raised a grievance in March 2012, to cut a long story short, I found out I was pregnant and the person involved on the day that I announced it, took me into an office on my own, tried to put me on a performance plan, not only that but backdate it etc. He was very rude and said some really inappropriate things. I went off sick, I raised a grievance. The compant was going through redundancies at the time and i was called while on sick to say that I had been made redundant, the grievance was held up because there were so many people getting made redundant that there was no one apparantly to hear the case. I have just been to the outcome meeting July 2012 and after all these months, I finally got my greivance upheld, though I had originally sighted discrimination, they have only upheld it as inappropriate behaviour, and said they would treat it really seriously, though the person in question now has a nice new job, and after being offered a demotion, i decided to continue with redundancy as I had then subsequently miscarried whilst off with stress. They cannot tell me what would happen to him, but there was talk of appropriate retraining. They told me they could not upheld discrimination as he had showed remorse and admitted that he had unintentionally acted inappropriately. So even though it has been upheld, i feel as if after all the months of waiting and pain and stress it caused me, that it will effectively be swept under the carpet with a slap on the wrist. I worked with a large worldwide bank. Any thoughts could I take them to tribuneral for damages ot to pursue discrimination?

I recently appealed my banding and have now been moved from F to E, a saving of about £255 per year. They tell me that they will backdate it 6 years which of course is very nice. They say in their letter that the band allocated to my house is based on what it was worth on 1/4/2003 and that the current tax bands in Wales came into effect on 1 April 2005. As I have lived in the house for 20 years I would have thought I could have gone back further than 6 years as surely I was in to high a band prior to 2005. Any thoughts please.

ASA Adjudication on Arnold Clark Automobiles Ltd Ad Claims on www.arnoldclark.com for a used car stated "2003 (03) Vauxhall Corsa 1.2 SXi 3 Dr. Sale Price £2988. Pre Sale price £3488. Save £500 ...". Issue The complainant challenged whether the savings claim was misleading, because he did not believe the car had been offered at the higher price for a sufficient period of time to avoid customers being misled by the price reduction. CAP Code (Edition 12) 3.13.17 Response Arnold Clark Automobiles Ltd (ACA) pointed out that they had been trading since 1954 and the Real Sale had been used as a marketing initiative for the last 20 years, which returned around 25,000 vehicle sales per year. They said this was the first type of complaint they had received. They explained that the car was on sale at the higher price of £3,488 for 10 days from 13 December 2011 to 23 December 2011, at which point it was reduced to £2,988. ACA admitted that they had not advertised the car at the higher price for 28 days, as recommended in the BIS Pricing Practices Guide. They said the nature of the motor trade industry, where in order to have a viable business model used stock needed to be turned over every six weeks, rendered the 28-day rule unviable and would be damaging to their business. They said they had been advised by their Primary Authority to display a notice on the car in the showroom if it had not been on sale at the higher price for 28 days, although they had mistakenly omitted to do this for the car in question. They provided a copy of the notice. They believed the price of £3,488 was a reasonable price at which to sell that particular model and age of car (2003 Vauxhall Corsa 1.2i 3 door) and they explained that the Manager had looked at how the rest of the company priced similar vehicles at that particular point in time. They provided a copy of a spreadsheet showing two similar vehicles at that time were priced at £3,488 and £3,988. They also provided copies of third-party ads for similar used cars which were being advertised for around £3,500. Assessment Upheld The ASA noted the BIS Pricing Practices Guide (the Guide) was not binding on traders, the Courts or the ASA, but that the Code stated that it should be taken into account. We noted the Guide recommended that a price used as a basis for a comparison should be the most recent available price for 28 days or more. We acknowledged that this need not always be the case and that if a comparison used in an ad differed from this advice, the basis of the comparison should be made clear. We noted that the car had been advertised at the higher price of £3,488 for only 10 days and that the website did not make that clear, for example, it did not contain the dates between which the higher price was applicable. We understood that this information was normally provided in the notice which was displayed on the car in the showroom, as advised by ACA's Primary Authority, although this information was not provided on the website. We also noted the Guide stated that price comparisons must be reasonable in terms of time and that prices used as a reference for price comparisons should be genuine retail prices, which included, amongst other things, that the item was on sale at the higher price for a sufficient period of time to allow consumers to become aware of the availability of the item, view the item, make up their minds whether to purchase them and, if so, complete the purchase. We noted ACA's comment regarding the speed of stock movement in the used motor trade industry, and considered that a consumer looking to purchase a used car would normally have a model, make and age in mind, and would realise that they would have to act quickly in relation to an advertised vehicle since there was only one item available. We therefore concluded that 10 days was a sufficient period of time to constitute a genuine offer of sale for this type of product. Nevertheless, because the website did not make clear that the car had been advertised at the higher price of £3,488 for only 10 days, for example by stating the dates between which the higher price applied, we concluded that the savings claim was misleading. The claim breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.17 (Prices). Action The claim must not appear again in its current form. We told ACA to take care when advertising sale prices to ensure that it is made clear where a car has been advertised at a higher price for less than 28 days. They say this is the first complaint, so where are all the complainents that have been here, it's no good just moaning, you have to go out and DO something.