Very good friend -v- MBNA

[Shelley181146]

Realising that the above attachments are too small I have tried another option below.

[AfterMidnight]

Hi Shelley

 

 

Good-ish news on your friend's offer. Has your friend asked for a SAR Subject Access Request for data held on them by MBNA?

 

 

While you have (some of anyway - goes early enough?) the transaction history, if you really wanted to estimate well, what you would also need is the comms log if you wanted to accommodate for interest rate changes.

 

 

You mention a mini-breakdown from MBNA - is this a calculation sheet? MBNA, as mentioned widely, will very much do "their own thing" with calculated values which will bear absolutely no resemblance to anything you do or could do in style or produced value (and the firm are currently being investigated on that by FOS on group consumer request). The bank themselves will in my experience ignore any value claim you submit as an alternative to offer, and may well automatically (with no further acknowledgement/agreement/mention form your friend) pay their version of your friend's claim very shortly indeed by cheque - it is less of an "offer" and more of a "here is what you are getting". The argument is actually less of a match or arithmetic one, and more to do with legitimacy or otherwise of using methods which are rather non-standard and "creatively accommodating" and make a big difference. Your friend will then need to take that up with FOS, if pattern follows same as the very many cases I have seen. The whole process of receiving proper redress therefor can currently take a couple of years after claim submission to MBNA - and subject to the authorities recognising the bank's calculation was murky and flawed. Calculating things yourself is usually best done on as much information as possible - hence the SAR question.

[Shelley181146]

Hi Shelley

 

 

Good-ish news on your friend's offer. Has your friend asked for a SAR Subject Access Request for data held on them by MBNA?

 

 

While you have (some of anyway - goes early enough?) the transaction history, if you really wanted to estimate well, what you would also need is the comms log if you wanted to accommodate for interest rate changes.

 

 

You mention a mini-breakdown from MBNA - is this a calculation sheet? MBNA, as mentioned widely, will very much do "their own thing" with calculated values which will bear absolutely no resemblance to anything you do or could do in style or produced value (and the firm are currently being investigated on that by FOS on group consumer request). The bank themselves will in my experience ignore any value claim you submit as an alternative to offer, and may well automatically (with no further acknowledgement/agreement/mention form your friend) pay their version of your friend's claim very shortly indeed by cheque - it is less of an "offer" and more of a "here is what you are getting". The argument is actually less of a match or arithmetic one, and more to do with legitimacy or otherwise of using methods which are rather non-standard and "creatively accommodating" and make a big difference. Your friend will then need to take that up with FOS, if pattern follows same as the very many cases I have seen. The whole process of receiving proper redress therefor can currently take a couple of years after claim submission to MBNA - and subject to the authorities recognising the bank's calculation was murky and flawed. Calculating things yourself is usually best done on as much information as possible - hence the SAR question.

Hello AM,

Apologies for the delay in responding but had an emergency with dog at vets.

Yes a SAR pack has been received but does not provide info from start of acct. I will have a look to see if it includes a comms log.

I agree with your theory on MBNA just offering what they like and I have been trying to convert the transactional information to pdf as ims21 has offered to recalculate for me.

If cheque arrives but my friend wishes to go to FOS what do you suggest they do with the cheque? Send it back or just accept as part payment?

[AfterMidnight]

Hi Shelley

 

 

Advice under usual circumstances, from most people, as you would seem to be aware, would be not to cash the cheque in case this is seen as an admission of acceptance. However, given timescales now operating, and the fact that your friend's argument will not really be directly with MBNA if the values do not equate to proper (Example 6 - like) redress, but be through FOS, I would actually advise IMHO to take cheque and accept as part payment. Most people working through MBNA claims where they feel the firm is calculating wrongly have done the same. I sent MBNA by registered post a letter vey clearly labelled to that effect and waited one month to input the cheque to allow sufficient time to make sure they had time to record that fact. Cheque will I believe be valid for six months. Your friend also really-really needs to ask for the calculation sheets they have used...and do so very pointedly...and this should arrive within a couple of weeks if not had yet. This will summarise payments (albeit in a limited defined period sometimes like 6 years) but may well go back further than your friend's transactions history, perhaps to origination. Making head or tail of that seemingly "presented as fact" calculation is something though that has taken a lot of time for a number of people.

 

 

So - ask for a calculation (not necessarily covered under SAR as will likely post-date that), and that should make inputting those collated premium values into something more conventional (such as CAG spread sheets) easier. Or, input from transaction history what you do have. Perhaps eventually post up (suitably made anonymous by blanking personal data out in Microsoft paint or similar) any received spread-sheet for opinions if in any doubt if it is "fair" or not versus your own reckonings...

[slick132]

Hi Shelley,

 

If a cheque is sent and you're not sure it's for the correct amount because of the lack of calculations, or if you think the amount paid is wrong according to your calc'ns, I would bank the cheque but send the bank a letter saying :-

 

I refer to the payment made by you on xxdate in respect of PPI redress.

 

As you have not yet supplied the necessary figures showing how the refund was calculated, I am unable to verify your figures.

 

Accordingly, the cheque will be banked as a payment on account of the final sum agreed as PPI redress. It is not accepted in full settlement of the PPI claim.

 

You can add that you require sight of the calc'ns, or that your own figures suggest the refund should actually be £xxx.

 

[Shelley181146]

In the offer letter MBNA only state mini breakdown of

"PPI premiums paid" £xxxx.xx

"Interest 8%" £xxx.xx

"Tax deducted" £xxx.xx

"Refund due" £xxxx.xx

Therefore, I do not accept this as a 'proper' breakdown because they have not disclosed a itemised breakdown of premiums paid or dates from-to etc. Not sure what EXAMPLE 6 is though?

Based upon the spreadsheet figures I have done on the transactional info, this certainly is NOT sufficient to settle the claim. However, until I have been guided by ims21, I am not sure that my calcs are correct perhaps ims21 will drop in to have a look for me shortly?

 

Hi Slick,

Thanks for dropping in ))

Thank you for the suggested letter - you've never let me down with those, lol.

At what stage do we get FOS involved in a situation like this?

 

I'm experiencing some technical difficulties with my equipment at the moment (not virus based) so apologies in advance if I am unable to get a response within a reasonable time folks.

Thank you all.

[ims21]

Hi Shelley

 

I'll have a look tomorrow afternoon for you.

[Shelley181146]

Really appreciate that ims21.

I'm a little fragile at the moment so any response can you draft in 'idiots guide format' please?

 

Cheers

[AfterMidnight]

Hi Shelley

 

 

That kind of "four line" breakdown is usually what is received from MBNA unless they are specifically asked for their calculations, whereby they will, in the experiences of a number of people, after a time and perhaps a reminder, supply you with a few pages of printed copy of what is primarily a spread-sheet, but is built by MBNA for MBNA as a template, and does not (so far to my knowledge to date) remotely follow the methods we would all use. Essentially the methods we would use as "the proper alternative" to the firm's bespoke method, hold to the principles of what the Financial Conduct Authority offered in their previous guise as the FSA, give as worked examples of PPI mis-sale redress calculations, for which the most relevant (to explain my earlier reference, sorry) example is "Example 6" of Appendix 2 of FSA Policy Statement 10/12. Basically MBNA use a different (more complicated, widely questioned) method, which produced different results, so their version is likely to be somewhat adrift from your friend's value as will be calculated under a more acceptable method. In order to produce your own alternative, the more info the better, going as far back as possible helps, which is usually best supplied IMHO by obtaining that calculation, which I would expect to be called by the firm a VO37 or similar....and needs to be asked for.

 

 

In any case, you are doing the right thing, some people choose in similar circumstances with MBNA to complain to FOS in huge detail contradicting MBNA's calculation philosophy, while others do so simply on the basis that they believe it appears wrong, therefore without going into detail, which gets complex quickly, and providing your own version can do no harm. In order to get FOS involved, you need first to complain to MBNA and give the firm themselves eight weeks to sort for you, which after they do not, gives you the right to approach FOS. There is an argument that if MBNA's wording in their letter to your friend states something akin to versions of "this is our final communication", this gives scope, if there, to approach FOS eight weeks after initial complaint...that is when the "complaint" in its first "I believe I may have been miss-sold" form was first ever raised with MBNA.

 

 

I would be aware though that although there are signs that MBNA being creative has now been eventually latched onto better by FOS, typically a complaint takes something like 18 months plus, unless perhaps swept up with similar complaints in a wider ruling (something that many people are currently hoping for).

 

 

Finally for now - MBNA's own calculations use interest rates as applied throughout the account - i.e. as applied in any given month, so knowing those rates over time would be very useful to create an alternative calculation to their own if seeking detailed accuracy, which may not be necessary though if the account was a simple one with a fixed rate, or one without different rates for different things being used, etc. In any case, it would not take detailed-detailed rate knowledge to show something is likely amiss in the "offer" in comparison.

[ims21]

Hi Shelley

 

I have had a look at the attachments you have posted.

 

It appears that the first statement you have is for October 2002 and this shows a balance payable at the end of £67.69. It also seems that you have a transaction history for the account but that this starts from May 2000. Given that the account started in 1997 there is a period of about three years for which there is no data at all.

 

So, given that you have statements from October 2002 onwards, the data entry is not a problem from that point forwards, it is the reconstruction going back from that point which is the issue.

 

The billing cycle for the account appears to be the 9th of the month and generally speaking the PPI premium would be the last entry on a statement in each billing cycle.

 

So, given that you have the statement for October 2002 with the ending balance of £67.69, by adjusting that figure for the transaction both in and out on that statement you can then work out what the starting balance was on that statement which is also the closing balance on the previous one. Make a note of that figure.

 

You then go to the transaction history for that month (Sept 2002) and adjust the noted figure by the value of the transactions (in and out) to arrive at the balance for the end of the previous month. Again make a note of that figure.

 

Do the same again for the August billing cycle and then for each cycle working backwards to the date that the transaction history started.

 

When you have finished you should end up with the balance on the account at the point the transaction history started. It should, under normal circumstances, show a figure that is due to the lender at that point in time.

 

For example it may show that £250 was due at that time.

 

Your first entry in the fos running spreadsheet will be for the first billing cycle covered by the transaction history. Add up the expenditure for that cycle and add the £250 to it and that is the amount that you will put in the "Monthly Spend" column. You enter any payment made in the normal way in the "Payment" column.

 

The balance figure given by the sheet should then agree to the note you made of the balance on the next billing cycle. That being the case then the sheet will now show the correct balance as you enter data moving forward.

 

As regards the missing years right at the start, you will not be able to enter any data into the spreadsheet. You will have to look at the figures given by the spreadsheet and make a judgement as to what amount might have been involved to cover those years. This will have to be an estimate.

 

You should also get MBNA to provide you with a copy of their full and detailed worksheet showing how their offer is calculated. They do send them if you press them for the information.

 

It is highly likely that MBNA's offer is incorrect given what is being discussed on the MBNA PPI Redress Thread here...

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?372400-MBNA-PPI-Award-%93Interpretative%94-Calculations-(1-Viewing)-nbsp

[Shelley181146]

ims21 & Aftermidnight - I thank you both for getting back to me, certainly in as much detail as you have.

 

Apologies for delay but I have been distracted with equally as important issue elsewhere.

 

I have read you're posts but will have to read again tomorrow when I can absorb the information in detail, but I think I get the gist of what you are saying.

 

Aftermidnight, I see you are the author of the thread ims has pointed me to so will read through that also.

 

Not sure if it is usual but my friend has not yet received his offer letter. It appears they have sent it to me as my details were provided as his 'helper' in this matter. Is that usual?

 

Cheers

Shelley

[AfterMidnight]

Hi Shelley

 

 

That thread is a bit "war and peace" - and goes into a lot of detail, and develops it's understanding over time, but does show there are a number of people who think similarly. I would read page 14 post #268 onwards for 4 or 5 posts to get the flavour, and then go back for the rest, should you wish to, when you have the time to do so.

 

 

I would expect that the firm is treating you as your friend's representative as that is likely what was put in the standard complaint form, I think either would be fine, so IMHO not unusual.

[Shelley181146]

#CONFUSED.COM ARGH.........

I have started a new spreadsheet and have entered the information as you advised ims21. Then I have continued down the spreadsheet from the statements I have upto and including Dec 2013. However, it shows me the following blips;

E45 - shows a different balance as to what the statement shows - it's showing £67.?? when it should be £259.70

F90 - there is no PPI amount at all on the transaction information so I have entered 0.00

E94 - No transactional information

There is also a gap on the transactional information whereby no entries between 04/10/2006 - 04/12/2006. Therefore I have entered 0.01 for the formula to continue working down the spreadsheet - should I do anything different?

Finally, it shows that the account was in credit on some 44 seperate occasions of which sometimes £10K - impossible.

I must be doing something wrong because having randomly checked the card balances, they are no where near the amounts they should be. I can post it up here if you think it will help, just let me know please.

It's 3 am now so will have another look at it tomorrow with brighter eyes on the subject.

[Shelley181146]

#CONFUSED.COM ARGH.........

I have started a new spreadsheet and have entered the information as you advised ims21.

Then I have continued down the spreadsheet from the statements I have upto and including Dec 2013.

 

However, it shows me the following blips;

E45 - shows a different balance as to what the statement shows - it's showing £67.?? when it should be £259.70

F90 - there is no PPI amount at all on the transaction information so I have entered 0.00

E94 - No transactional information

 

There is also a gap on the transactional information whereby no entries between 04/10/2006 - 04/12/2006.

Therefore I have entered 0.01 for the formula to continue working down the spreadsheet - should I do anything different?

 

Finally, it shows that the account was in credit on some 44 seperate occasions of which sometimes £10K - impossible.

 

I must be doing something wrong because having randomly checked the card balances,

they are no where near the amounts they should be.

 

I can post it up here if you think it will help, just let me know please.

 

It's 3 am now so will have another look at it tomorrow with brighter eyes on the subject.

 

Ims & AM,

Here's where I am at, at the moment.

 

I have checked my entries into the spreadsheet as advised but I still have the errors above

so I could do with some further guidance on that issue please.

 

In addition to that, my friend has received their cheque and that attached letter says

 

"previous correspondence, including information about how this payment was claculated, will have been sent to them.

Please bank the cheque immediately; doing so will not prejudice you if you still have a query about your complaint".

 

So, I am also looking for guidance on whether they should bank the cheque or wait for thirty days whilst we write to them for the proper calculations?

 

What are your thoughts please?

[slick132]

Hi Shelley,

 

Re the cheque, I would bank it as per post #55.

 

Re the spready, I must leave that to Ims.

 

[ims21]

Hi Shelley

 

Sorry been really busy. Will take a look this evening and over the weekend for you.

[Shelley181146]

Hi Shelley

 

Sorry been really busy. Will take a look this evening and over the weekend for you.

Thank you both. Appreciate your help.

[ims21]

Hi Shelley

 

Can you post up the first actual statement you have, the part of the transaction history which covers that statement and the transaction history going backwards from that date please

[Shelley181146]

Hi Shelley

 

Can you post up the first actual statement you have, the part of the transaction history which covers that statement and the transaction history going backwards from that date please

 

Thank you for dropping in ims21. I really appreciate your time.

I will get my tecky talent sorted and let you know when I can get this posted here.

 

Cheers

[Shelley181146]

Hi Shelley

 

Can you post up the first actual statement you have, the part of the transaction history which covers that statement and the transaction history going backwards from that date please

 

Hello ims21,I have (with the help of my local library) managed to scan in requested information. It is pdf format so I hope that is acceptable?Here goes at attaching them now, lol.

There will be another two files to upload on next post, hopefully. Lol

[Shelley181146]

Hello ims21,

Not wishing to be a nuisance but wondered if you can assist me with the above posts please ims21?

 

Appreciate you are very busy

[citizenB]

ims not online at the moment, shelley. I will leave a note for him on the site team notice board

[SabreSheep]

Read BBC news regarding PPI redress and they name MBNA

[citizenB]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?1052-British-Banks-still-ripping-off-their-customers-over-PPI-reclaims.

[ims21]

Looking at it now.