MBNA PPI Award “Interpretative” Calculations?

[Miaspa 2010]

A few weeks ago I sent a query to my adjudicator:

 

 

 

With regards to the interest rates the figure of 1.5% isn’t actually the APR. The 1.5% is the proportion of interest to the overall balance. So for September 1999 the balance was £3,574.58 and the interest charged on this was £53.62. Therefore £53.62 is 1.5% of £3,574.58 (3,574.58 divided by 100 times 1.5). MBNA then take the figure of 1.5% and apply it to the sum total of PPI charged of £23.78 + £22.38 to work out proportionately how much interest was applied to the PPI. Therefore 23.78 + 22.38 is 46.16 and 1.5% of this is 0.69p.

 

 

 

Ask your adjudicator this

Balance outstanding £900 at zero % promo rate, PPI charged £100 APR 25% on purchases and charges.

 

You get the following figures.

Bal B/fwd £900

PPi£100

Interest£25

Balance C/fwd£1025

Using MBNA’s logic which you have explained so perfectly.

The resulting offer of redress from MBNA would be

25/1000 = 0.025

PI suffered £100 interest refunded £100x0.025 = £2.50

Simplified a little bit to get the point across.

Using an average weighted interest rather than the actual interest applied significantly reduces the consumers redress.

[Miaspa 2010]

Oh still waiting for my final decision!! Email reminder I think!!

[Miaspa 2010]

Oh still waiting for my final decision!! Email reminder I think!!

 

 

 

And an update .....................................

 

 

 

 

My complaint into redress calculation is ............................................

 

 

 

 

Upheld!! Round 1 to me!!

 

 

Not sure if I am allowed to post the full report!!

[AfterMidnight]

Excellent Miaspa

 

 

Remind us all please of how far this went through FOS stages.

 

 

While one battle does not make a war, hearing (in writing it sounds like?) of stage one on the route to that is fantastic news for you. Everyone's cases are a little different, and have different factors over time. But as well as for you personally, that is a big step for many. As in ... MBNA calcs may not be as perfect ... as were recently originally generally held supposed to be ... as considered as gospel around FOS, despite all us apparent nitpickers.

 

 

While we would all like to hear detail, post what you feel comfortable with in terms of gist if need be. And ... was this upheld an "inclined to" provisional upholding, or something more definitive? MBNA's team presumably have a chance to object? Interesting in that they might want to do so, or might not wish to draw too much attention...

 

 

Anyway - well done and forge on, a satisfying breakthrough for you. A recapping paragraph would be great at this stage for general inspiration ...

 

 

AMN

[angry cat]

And an update .....................................

 

 

 

 

My complaint into redress calculation is ............................................

 

 

 

 

Upheld!! Round 1 to me!!

 

 

Not sure if I am allowed to post the full report!!

 

Brilliant news Miaspa 2010, good for you!!!

[Miaspa 2010]

Brilliant news Miaspa 2010, good for you!!!

 

A brief history

 

 

Complained to MBNA in 2011 - application was ticked no to PPI in 1999, PPI applied from outset of card

MBNA refused to correspond so off went my complaint to the FOS in 2012.

 

 

FOS upheld my complaint May 2014, MBNA offered 5K, on PPI of just over 2K accumulated over 11 years. For the last 3 years of the account the APR was 35%, so 5K was always going to be a bit low.

 

 

Rather than attack the method which the FOS still to this day believe is correct I went for the restatements.

 

 

I also queried why not one penalty charge had been refunded.

 

 

I also asked for compensation for the fact I declared bankruptcy in 2010, if I had the PPI refund at this date I would never have gone down this route.

 

 

FOS upheld complaint March 2015

 

 

MBNA have to recalculate the redress after reviewing the historical data (adjudicator agreed that 22 of the restatements are incorrect, ones I could easily prove.), consider if charges should refunded, not compensate me for bankruptcy.

 

 

or MBNA can ask the ombudsman to review the case.

 

 

How things stand MBNA have until mid April to come up with an offer or ask for ombudsman review. It would have been mid March but they already asked for an extension.

 

 

So in all its a hollow "upheld" as it not the calculation method that's been defeated only its application.

I still think the surplus redress method allows MBNA to manipulate the redress as shown by my adjudicators decision. The idea of PS 10/12 was to allow the consumer to understand how redress would be calculated and allow fair redress.

 

 

MBNA's current method is wrong and place the onus back on the consumer to gain fair redress, it allows the person who queries and understand the manipulation to get better compensation than those that don't. How many people have been offered redress, seen dollar signs and accepted, unaware that MBNA have potentially short changed them by £1,000's.

[Miaspa 2010]

This will be going to Ombudsman, I have picked up something that I hadn't noticed before.

 

 

MBNA has assumed that Misaspa 2010 would not have paid his account into credit in

the months that his actual payments would clear the hypothetical balance in full.

I am of the opinion that when Miaspa 2010 made a minimum payment it seems fair for MBNA

to assume that he would also have paid – a slightly lower – minimum payment to his credit

card if the PPI had not been sold. Although Miaspa 2010 did make more than a full repayment

on one occasion and paid his account into credit, he explained that this was because he

knew of an upcoming expenditure. I think it is unlikely that Miaspa 2010 would have paid more

than was needed to clear his balance on a regular basis

 

Basically the adjudicator is saying MBNA can restate payments as full carte blanche, correct me if I am wrong.

 

 

When it comes to fee's

I don’t think the right way to establish whether a fee was caused by the PPI or not is to

compare that hypothetical account balance with the actual balance.

I am of the opinion that MBNA should consider whether it was the activity on the account in

that month that took the credit card balance over the credit limit or caused a late payment

fee, or whether it was the addition of the PPI premium for that month that caused it

So MBNA can use the hypothetical balance to restate payments as full, but I can't use the hypothetical balance to restate charges. Some double standards taking place here.

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[angry cat]

Hmmmm, didn't think it was as straightforward as it at first sounded!!!

 

Typical MBNA, as ever...

[Miaspa 2010]

Hmmmm, didn't think it was as straightforward as it at first sounded!!!

 

Typical MBNA, as ever...

 

 

Can't blame MBNA for this its the FOS that should take the can!!

 

 

As things stand:

 

 

I wait for MBNA's revised offer, post it up on here so we can have a good laugh. Then ask for an ombudsman's review into the adjudocators report.

 

 

I have already made my adjudicator aware of this, well not the bung up here and laugh bit.

 

 

At the end of the day, it makes no odds to me what the settlement is but what I don't want is to set an ombudsman decision that says MBNA's method is correct.

 

 

My point for disagreeing with the adjudicators decision will be on allowing MBNA to use the notional balance to restate payments. (the minimums I have no issue with I can prove they are all incorrect, its the f's I can't argue with.) But not allowing the consumer to use the notional balance to restate the penalty charges.

 

 

I think MBNA may have issues on the restated offer anyway. Its already been stated by the adjudicator that 15 of the last 17 restated payments are not minimums. Even using MBNA's old offer, by the time we get to the near the end of the card I will be making payments against a zero notional balance.

 

 

As the adjudicator so wisely put I would not make payments that would place the account in credit, what will happen to these payments? Straight to the surplus redress column and not classed as an F or M but an OP? (over payment)

 

 

Let see what happens.

[AfterMidnight]

"As the adjudicator so wisely put I would not make payments that would place the account in credit, what will happen to these payments? Straight to the surplus redress column and not classed as an F or M but an OP? (over payment)"

 

 

Probably!

 

 

Hopefully your Eventual Ombudsman (after some largely fruitless tennis with MBNA re. revised offer) can get his/her head around that it is not soooo much the declaration of F&Ms- but what they do with them, so worth hammering a bit further perhaps at that stage that the overall aim of MBNA is to effectively break people's claims into "a series of smaller claims" that they can gleefully treat to 8% without many people at all noticing.

 

 

AMN

[angry cat]

"As the adjudicator so wisely put I would not make payments that would place the account in credit, what will happen to these payments? Straight to the surplus redress column and not classed as an F or M but an OP? (over payment)"

 

 

Probably!

 

 

Hopefully your Eventual Ombudsman (after some largely fruitless tennis with MBNA re. revised offer) can get his/her head around that it is not soooo much the declaration of F&Ms- but what they do with them, so worth hammering a bit further perhaps at that stage that the overall aim of MBNA is to effectively break people's claims into "a series of smaller claims" that they can gleefully treat to 8% without many people at all noticing.

 

 

AMN

 

Miaspa2010, needs to ensure that his/her FOS adjudicator fully understands exactly why MBNA has calculated incorrectly. Because once the case is passed to a FOS Ombudsman it is unlikely that the opinion will change, from what the adjudicator has concluded;

passing a case to an FOS Ombudsman is simply just FOS red tape and;

remember, there is NO appeal...

 

Having pointed out the above, one does not have to accept an FOS decision, one can take the matter against MBNA to court via a class action!

Edited March 18, 2015 by angry cat
typo

[Miaspa 2010]

Miaspa2010, needs to ensure that his/her FOS adjudicator fully understands exactly why MBNA has calculated incorrectly. Because once the case is passed to a FOS Ombudsman it is unlikely that the opinion will change, from what the adjudicator has concluded;

passing a case to an FOS Ombudsman is simply just FOS red tape and;

remember, there is NO appeal...

 

Having pointed out the above, one does not have to accept an FOS decision, one can take the matter against MBNA to court via a class action!

 

 

The adjudicator is aware of my concerns, I'm holding fire until MBNA come back with a restated offer. I actually haven't had a copy of the report as yet. I have a copy the report sent to MBNA, but nothing addressed to me. (should I not get a copy?).

 

 

I'm sitting at four years a couple more weeks isn't going to make much difference. It will be interesting to see what cock and bull MBNA decide to place on the table.

[angry cat]

The adjudicator is aware of my concerns, I'm holding fire until MBNA come back with a restated offer. I actually haven't had a copy of the report as yet. I have a copy the report sent to MBNA, but nothing addressed to me. (should I not get a copy?).

 

 

I'm sitting at four years a couple more weeks isn't going to make much difference. It will be interesting to see what cock and bull MBNA decide to place on the table.

 

Of course you should receive a copy of the report. But if you are not, I would demand to be informed why not!?

 

No doubt, MBNA will pull something out of the clear blue sky, as ever...

[gettingsorted]

Firstly congratulations on reaching the first hurdle ( even if you're not over it yet.

 

As the adjudicator so wisely put I would not make payments that would place the account in credit, what will happen to these payments? Straight to the surplus redress column and not classed as an F or M but an OP? (over payment)

 

If you go through my previous posts on this thread; there is a copy of my mina spreadsheet where I was actually paying into a zero balance; it is part of my claim that I want this money back. I will see if I can find it for you later.

 

I don't understand why I do not get notifications; I will get a few and then it stops again - I m always careful to click on the link.....

 

GS

[angry cat]

HAPPY EASTER to ALL MBNA complainants! X

[gettingsorted]

HAPPY EASTER to ALL MBNA complainants! X

 

Thank you

[AfterMidnight]

Here's hoping that FOS staff come back from Easter breaks with a renewed sense of getting on with things with an open mind, a willingness to consider and check basic assumptions, and an ability to get to grips with the issues. Interesting times in that they now have enough well-argued cases to build a picture that they themselves (in addition to '000s of customers) have been taken for a ride now for years. If, that is, there is a willingness to even examine, in any degree of depth, the possibility that this just might be the case that we are proposing ... and that the points are very difficult to deny and not being apparent ... if you only, however, actually do look.

 

 

I guess this stage of the war comes down to - if ombudsman stage FOS people just as lazily and easily make the same assumptions in the same way as adjudicator level staff have : that is - that they don't really actually have to actually read and understand the heavy and onerous consumer-level allegations, as "the chances are the bank is right, or someone in authority would have noticed!"

 

 

AMN

[Miaspa 2010]

Here's hoping that FOS staff come back from Easter breaks with a renewed sense of getting on with things with an open mind, a willingness to consider and check basic assumptions, and an ability to get to grips with the issues. Interesting times in that they now have enough well-argued cases to build a picture that they themselves (in addition to '000s of customers) have been taken for a ride now for years. If, that is, there is a willingness to even examine, in any degree of depth, the possibility that this just might be the case that we are proposing ... and that the points are very difficult to deny and not being apparent ... if you only, however, actually do look.

 

 

I guess this stage of the war comes down to - if ombudsman stage FOS people just as lazily and easily make the same assumptions in the same way as adjudicator level staff have : that is - that they don't really actually have to actually read and understand the heavy and onerous consumer-level allegations, as "the chances are the bank is right, or someone in authority would have noticed!"

 

 

AMN

 

 

Happy Easter!!!

 

 

Lest hope so, mine stands that MBNA were to respond a few of weeks ago to the adjudicators. They have since asked for two extensions to reply and have missed the last deadline. Tomorrow they will be past their second extended deadline by a week.

 

 

When MBNA respond I will get a copy of the adjudicators decision plus the revised offer or that MBNA wish an ombudsman review. If MBNA fail to respond it will go to the ombudsman. Not sure how long they have after the deadline to submit a response but a guess a bit more than a week due to bank holidays.

[AfterMidnight]

" When MBNA respond I will get a copy of the adjudicators decision plus the revised offer or that MBNA wish an ombudsman review. If MBNA fail to respond it will go to the ombudsman. Not sure how long they have after the deadline to submit a response but a guess a bit more than a week due to bank holidays."

"

Well Miaspa 2010 ... if MBNA don't reply and goes to ombudsman level review ... can't exactly damage your chances ... have seen a number of Decisions which kind of imply that ... "well, if the firm didn't bother to reply..."

 

 

Although ... counting any form of spring chicken before hatching, even at Easter is probably inadvisable ... but does suggest that MBNA may not have already had the defences entrenched that I suspected they might (expensively in time and money) already have had in place ...

 

 

AMN

[Miaspa 2010]

 

Although ... counting any form of spring chicken before hatching, even at Easter is probably inadvisable ... but does suggest that MBNA may not have already had the defences entrenched that I suspected they might (expensively in time and money) already have had in place ...

 

 

AMN

 

 

I'm more of the opinion that MBNA know what the revised offer was going to be ever since I complained into the calculation method back in May last year. MBNA just need to drag it out so it looks like they have investigated.

 

 

Lets see what happens, I have asked my adjudicator to clarify how long MBNA have after failing to meet an extended deadline before it goes to an ombudsman.

[Miaspa 2010]

More stalling by MBNA next week for an answer!

[angry cat]

More stalling by MBNA next week for an answer!

 

We are ALL waiting for answers!

[Miaspa 2010]

We are ALL waiting for answers!

 

 

Yep, and MBNA aren't playing ball, another deadline passed yesterday and still nothing.

 

 

Adjudicator wrote to MBNA 3rd March asking for review of the calculations in line with his findings,

 

 

Originally reply was due 16th March, MBNA asked for an extension to the 23rd March, and then another to 30th March. They failed to keep to the 30th and didn't ask for an extension, after chasing by the adjudicator they came up with this on 9th April.

 

 

"They aim to respond by 13 April (Monday). They have apologised for the further delay and have explained that they wish to ensure all aspects have been reviewed and considered before they respond."

I shall be pressing the adjudicator to pass the case to an ombudsman. I had this before passing the matter to the FOS, MBNA just ignore any correspondence.

Either they are dragging their heels because they want to show they are in control or they know they are up s@*t creek without a paddle.

[AfterMidnight]

]Either they are dragging their heels because they want to show they are in control or they know they are up s@*t creek without a paddle.[/color][/size][/font] [/color]

 

 

 

May MBNA live in interesting times.

[Miaspa 2010]

May MBNA live in interesting times.

 

 

Well MBNA have failed to offer a revised offer or redress, they are failing to correspond with the FOS. It's now going to the ombudsman.