MBNA PPI Award “Interpretative” Calculations?

[angry cat]

So, what exactly has been going on with these, so called, Regulators!?

 

We sent a mass complaint to the FOS and FCA but nothing was done; just endless meaningless letters from a junior FOS employee and;

Martin Wheatley (FCA) just passed the buck, so to spaeak...

 

Now it appears that Mr. Osborne will not be renewing the FCA contract for Mr. Wheatley (let's not forget the shameful Hong Kong debacle that he was involved in too)

 

Also, it would appear that the FOS take, hook line and sinker, any excuse that MBNA feed them!

 

The FOS & FCA were provided with a detailed analysis of how and why the MBNA PPI calculations were incorrect.

But, the FOS did nothing are doing nothing.

Why?

 

I would urge ALL MBNA complainants (Capone too) to write to Andrew Tyrie MP. Because, he will not know the true saga until you ALL tell him.

[AfterMidnight]

It would seem the time is right to have another channel to shame FOS/FCA into doing more than previous work of assigning under-qualified/under-caring staff to take a quick look - so if we can add to that momentum individually through BBC and/or Andrew Tyrie channels that would be good. I can picture follow-up stories with a more human "case study" examples.

 

 

If you do want to fully appreciate the complete ins-and-outs of what MBNA have been doing, it requires a significant investment in time and mental effort to follow it and "get" what is being done. The "beauty" of the value-minimisation-project from MBNA's perspective was that it was so opaque that there was a problem at all, that few (none they hoped) would have the observation and then motivation and audacity to suggest it was rigged.

 

 

I can fully appreciate it would take someone with ability around 80 hours to comprehensively understand, on the basis of starting from source materials, and knowing the end "50%" result question.

 

 

FCA and FOS in contrast have however had supplied examples, work-throughs, primers, articles and guided conversations (and low-level no-assumptions-step-by-step guides) freely provided to them both. And haven't so far "got it" - even to the extent that there is any problem at all. Wonder how many person-hours FOS have spent on it. Anyone like to bet it has been under 80 hours? The conclusion of FOS/FCA efforts, so far, are sadly either, simple under-inspection efforts, or ... alternatively somewhere along the line of underwhelming consideration ... somebody deemed that the "balance of probabilities" had probably been considered enough, and no point in upsetting apple-carts.

 

 

Well done AC in bringing this quickly to everyone's attention - and also to anyone who has been trying to chip away at media and governmental channels to get these interested.

 

 

AMN

[angry cat]

So, what exactly has been going on with these, so called, Regulators!?

 

We sent a mass complaint to the FOS and FCA but nothing was done; just endless meaningless letters from a junior FOS employee and;

Martin Wheatley (FCA) just passed the buck, so to spaeak...

 

Now it appears that Mr. Osborne will not be renewing the FCA contract for Mr. Wheatley (let's not forget the shameful Hong Kong debacle that he was involved in too)

 

Also, it would appear that the FOS take, hook line and sinker, any excuse that MBNA feed them!

 

The FOS & FCA were provided with a detailed analysis of how and why the MBNA PPI calculations were incorrect.

But, the FOS did nothing are doing nothing.

Why?

 

I would urge ALL MBNA complainants (Capone too) to write to Andrew Tyrie MP. Because, he will not know the true saga until you ALL tell him.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jul/19/martin-wheatley-walks-away-fca-agm

 

Also, we are extremely concerned about the monies that CPP customers have been cheated out of.

And why, did Mr. Wheatlley allow CPP to get away with depriving millions of CPP customers of monies and interest owed to them.

 

We intend raising this important issue with Mr. Andrew Tyrie MP, as well as the MBNA debacle...

[Miaspa 2010]

Thiank for the links AC, have written to Mr Tyrie....doubt I''ll get a response........ haven't MP's started their three month summer holidays?

[angry cat]

Thiank for the links AC, have written to Mr Tyrie....doubt I''ll get a response........ haven't MP's started their three month summer holidays?

 

http://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-commons-faqs/business-faq-page/recess-dates/

 

They are back 05 September 2015!

 

Let us ensure that Mr. Tyrie MP is met with a nice full mail bag on his return.

 

Some of you may want to go through your own MP in order to contact Mr. Tyrie MP;

I would suggest that it would be prudent to write to both.

[suvin50]

Got my "judgement" from my adjudicator today:

 

As agreed I have included below a response to the complaint points we have discussed so far. The exception being the fees and charges issue.

 

If I have missed anything please let me know.

 

Your complaint is about an offer made by MBNA on 10 April 2012 for the payment protection insurance (PPI) policy attached to the credit card ending 0323.

This offer was for £7,644.95.

You were unhappy with this offer because it did not take into account the period from when you took out the card in 1995 to 1999.

You also stated the contractual interest was incorrect.

 

You then brought the complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service and MBNA made a second offer of £7,879.64

that included the missing period of 1995 to 1999.

You have said you are unhappy with this second offer.

You have stated that the calculation is too low.

 

You are also unhappy that MBNA have not included penalty charges in their calculation,

that the monthly interest rate is incorrect,

that the business has not applied statutory interest when you defaulted on the account

and how they have calculated the minimum repayments model.

 

I have spoken to MBNA to query why when they recalculated the first offer to include the missing four years,

the final figure did not increase significantly.

 

 

I have previously explained that MBNA have told me that when the original calculation in April 2012 was completed,

it showed that your account defaulted in 2006 with an outstanding balance of £13,833.86.

 

 

The calculator used in 2012 to create the offer contained a fault.

This meant that the outstanding balance amounts were treated by the calculator as a customer payment.

This caused the reconstructed balance to go into credit and 8% simple interest accrued on this amount when none was due.

 

MBNA have said that if the calculator had been correct then the redress due in April 2012 should have been £5,383.77, and not £7,644.95.

The calculation in July 2013 for the second offer was worked using a new calculator that fixed the original fault.

Therefore while it appeared the offer had only increased by a small amount,

because the original figure was wrong it had actually increased by a significant amount .

 

I hope this has gone some way in explaining why it appeared that the second offer had not been calculated correctly.

 

You have raised a number of concerns about the second offer.

You have stated the monthly rate of associated interest is incorrect.

You have raised the point that the 2012 and 2014 calculations provided by MBNA in October 2014,

and that I forwarded to you on, show contradictory associated interest amounts.

You have also said that the associated interest rates on the 2012 calculation do not reflect the interest rates you believe were charged.

 

I have explained that the 2012 calculations did not include premiums for the period June 1995 to July 1999,

however an average premium was used in the 2014 calculation.

 

 

Therefore the associated interest would differ for both calculations because the premium amounts that the associated interest accrued on were different.

The 2014 calculation included a larger amount of premiums and so the associated interest was higher.

 

I have also stated that monthly card rate figure on the 2012 calculations are not actually the annual percentage rate (APR) of the card.

The card rate figure on the 2012 calculations is actually the proportion of interest to the overall balance and not the APR.

This figure is then applied to the total amount of PPI premiums in each month to give the associated interest figure for the PPI.

 

With regards to MBNA’s minimum payment MBNA will assume at points that if you make a minimum payment with PPI,

you would have also made a minimum repayment without PPI.

This minimum payment would have been less.

They will then take the difference between the two payments and pay 8% simple interest on this.

 

The purpose of redress in relation to credit cards is to place the account in the position it would have been had there been no PPI added on to the credit card.

This means that when the account is still open, MBNA should do the following:

 

· hypothetically reconstruct the account by removing any premiums and interest associated with the PPI premiums;

· if that produces a credit balance for any period, add 8% simple interest on that balance for that period.

 

Having looked at the offer made by MBNA I am so far satisfied that is has been made within our guidelines and therefore is fair and reasonable.

This is includes their minimum repayment model and that MBNA that have not applied 8% simple interest to the balance of the account while it was in default.

 

Another whitewash

[AfterMidnight]

Hi suvin50

 

 

Yes - while your Adjudicator has given some thought to some of the points, and while some may not be all that unreasonable to conclude TBH - some, however, of the reply ... is clearly adopted MBNA-thinking, to the point of what I suspect is practically direct-quote. The text follows the style of the "look we are being reasonable and here's what we have done" MBNA method communication ... that assumes lots, glosses over sleights - and reassures of tick-box correctness (while whitewashing).

 

 

Currently it still appears to me that MBNA ... are simply telling FOS that MBNA are doing it all within FOS guidelines, with the simplest of plausible-sounding reassurances about doing things with various noble-sounding and FOS-compliant sounding procedures that (without going into any details of mechanics) - portray as a picture - a simple but effective way to return client to position. Apparently that is, to the under-initiated.

 

 

FOS's under-critical, wholly assumptive (and only semi-understanding) role to MBNA's "informative" submissions " communications from the firm being just exactly as they appear on the surface ... is becoming so painfully obvious to any other party except FOS and FCA. MBNA must not be believing their (previous) good luck that no-one took any complainant seriously. Still ... it seems that FOS and FCA still think and report the firm is providing good service and a fine level of reasonable methodology ... simply because MBNA keep telling them (with tick-boxes) that it is. Apparently looking below the surface of MBNA official-sounding responses of "we have catered for that, and done so here - just so" ... is either far above most FOS Adjudicator level remit, or far below any necessity for a requirement-to-understand.

[angry cat]

Got my "judgement" from my adjudicator today:

 

As agreed I have included below a response to the complaint points we have discussed so far. The exception being the fees and charges issue.

 

If I have missed anything please let me know.

 

Your complaint is about an offer made by MBNA on 10 April 2012 for the payment protection insurance (PPI) policy attached to the credit card ending 0323.

This offer was for £7,644.95.

You were unhappy with this offer because it did not take into account the period from when you took out the card in 1995 to 1999.

You also stated the contractual interest was incorrect.

 

You then brought the complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service and MBNA made a second offer of £7,879.64

that included the missing period of 1995 to 1999.

You have said you are unhappy with this second offer.

You have stated that the calculation is too low.

 

You are also unhappy that MBNA have not included penalty charges in their calculation,

that the monthly interest rate is incorrect,

that the business has not applied statutory interest when you defaulted on the account

and how they have calculated the minimum repayments model.

 

I have spoken to MBNA to query why when they recalculated the first offer to include the missing four years,

the final figure did not increase significantly.

 

 

I have previously explained that MBNA have told me that when the original calculation in April 2012 was completed,

it showed that your account defaulted in 2006 with an outstanding balance of £13,833.86.

 

 

The calculator used in 2012 to create the offer contained a fault.

This meant that the outstanding balance amounts were treated by the calculator as a customer payment.

This caused the reconstructed balance to go into credit and 8% simple interest accrued on this amount when none was due.

 

MBNA have said that if the calculator had been correct then the redress due in April 2012 should have been £5,383.77, and not £7,644.95.

The calculation in July 2013 for the second offer was worked using a new calculator that fixed the original fault.

Therefore while it appeared the offer had only increased by a small amount,

because the original figure was wrong it had actually increased by a significant amount .

 

I hope this has gone some way in explaining why it appeared that the second offer had not been calculated correctly.

 

You have raised a number of concerns about the second offer.

You have stated the monthly rate of associated interest is incorrect.

You have raised the point that the 2012 and 2014 calculations provided by MBNA in October 2014,

and that I forwarded to you on, show contradictory associated interest amounts.

You have also said that the associated interest rates on the 2012 calculation do not reflect the interest rates you believe were charged.

 

I have explained that the 2012 calculations did not include premiums for the period June 1995 to July 1999,

however an average premium was used in the 2014 calculation.

 

 

Therefore the associated interest would differ for both calculations because the premium amounts that the associated interest accrued on were different.

The 2014 calculation included a larger amount of premiums and so the associated interest was higher.

 

I have also stated that monthly card rate figure on the 2012 calculations are not actually the annual percentage rate (APR) of the card.

The card rate figure on the 2012 calculations is actually the proportion of interest to the overall balance and not the APR.

This figure is then applied to the total amount of PPI premiums in each month to give the associated interest figure for the PPI.

 

With regards to MBNA’s minimum payment MBNA will assume at points that if you make a minimum payment with PPI,

you would have also made a minimum repayment without PPI.

This minimum payment would have been less.

They will then take the difference between the two payments and pay 8% simple interest on this.

 

The purpose of redress in relation to credit cards is to place the account in the position it would have been had there been no PPI added on to the credit card.

This means that when the account is still open, MBNA should do the following:

 

· hypothetically reconstruct the account by removing any premiums and interest associated with the PPI premiums;

· if that produces a credit balance for any period, add 8% simple interest on that balance for that period.

 

Having looked at the offer made by MBNA I am so far satisfied that is has been made within our guidelines and therefore is fair and reasonable.

This is includes their minimum repayment model and that MBNA that have not applied 8% simple interest to the balance of the account while it was in default.

 

Another whitewash

 

Of course, you know that you do not have to accept this FOS Adjudicators view!

And, did he spend the necessary 80+ hours, in order to carry the necessary complex calculations. Or, did he just accept MBNAs word that their calculations were are correct?

Without a debt the answer is the latter: he just accepted MBNAs word!

 

No doubt, we will be making a FOI Act Request to ascertain just how thorough the FOS investigations have been/are regarding the MBNA calculations; MBNA couldn't count in 2009 and they still cannot...

 

Rest assured that the FOS will not be allowed to just whitewash this scandal as too many people are involved now, including Andrew Tyrie MP.

[Miaspa 2010]

Should we start naming and shaming the adjudicators who obviously don't have a clue?

 

 

Sunvin, have you got statements? Can you not show payments that have been restated to minimum were at the time not minimums because the statement in the prior month requested a different amount.

 

 

Usually if a payment had been missed, MBNA would only take the minimum based on the previous month statement but include arrears on the statement.

 

 

For example on my statements minimum payment including arrears £839.36 but the payment in the next month was £136.01 MBNA restated the £136.01 to a minimum in the redress calculation to £43.01. Clearly I hadn't made the anywhere near the minimum payment by paying £136.01 (it should of been 839.36) so they can't restate the payment to £43.01.

 

 

This was agreed by my adjudicator, basically my argument was of the 24 restated minimum payments I could prove 21 were incorrect with available satements.

 

 

Clearly if I only had 36 (12 classed as fulls) restated payments on the entire life of the card and I can prove 21 are incorrect using statements and agreed by my adjudicator it questions the remaining 15 restated payments.

 

 

Another minimum payment was agreed to be incorrect just because it was less than £5, the minimum payment allowed by MBNA's terms at the time if not paying off the card.

 

 

In the end I have 22 restated payments agreed by the adjudicator as incorrect, that's 61.11% of the total. That's ones that could be proved without argument. Of the remaining 14, 6 were payment which were reclassified as fulls at the time they were not. ( I just need a fail safe method of arguing the fulls, the obvious argument would be if I paid in full why did I have to make a payment the next month to clear the balance again. If the balance was paid in full and no additional purchases made on the card how can a further payment be required. The adjudicator couldn't see the logic of this, but that's for another day when get to the ombudsman)

 

 

So in total I have proved 73% of the minimums are definitely incorrect, it was at this point MBNA clammed up as I requested documentary evidence that on how the remaining 8 minimums were worked out. So we now wait for a ombudsman decision.

 

 

The only way forward is to start putting the seeds of doubt in the adjudicators mind, 80 mans hours by Ms Lowe. I recon I could easily treble that, with the amount of time I have spent.

[angry cat]

Should we start naming and shaming the adjudicators who obviously don't have a clue?

 

 

Sunvin, have you got statements? Can you not show payments that have been restated to minimum were at the time not minimums because the statement in the prior month requested a different amount.

 

 

Usually if a payment had been missed, MBNA would only take the minimum based on the previous month statement but include arrears on the statement.

 

 

For example on my statements minimum payment including arrears £839.36 but the payment in the next month was £136.01 MBNA restated the £136.01 to a minimum in the redress calculation to £43.01. Clearly I hadn't made the anywhere near the minimum payment by paying £136.01 (it should of been 839.36) so they can't restate the payment to £43.01.

 

 

This was agreed by my adjudicator, basically my argument was of the 24 restated minimum payments I could prove 21 were incorrect with available satements.

 

 

Clearly if I only had 36 (12 classed as fulls) restated payments on the entire life of the card and I can prove 21 are incorrect using statements and agreed by my adjudicator it questions the remaining 15 restated payments.

 

 

Another minimum payment was agreed to be incorrect just because it was less than £5, the minimum payment allowed by MBNA's terms at the time if not paying off the card.

 

 

In the end I have 22 restated payments agreed by the adjudicator as incorrect, that's 61.11% of the total. That's ones that could be proved without argument. Of the remaining 14, 6 were payment which were reclassified as fulls at the time they were not. ( I just need a fail safe method of arguing the fulls, the obvious argument would be if I paid in full why did I have to make a payment the next month to clear the balance again. If the balance was paid in full and no additional purchases made on the card how can a further payment be required. The adjudicator couldn't see the logic of this, but that's for another day when get to the ombudsman)

 

 

So in total I have proved 73% of the minimums are definitely incorrect, it was at this point MBNA clammed up as I requested documentary evidence that on how the remaining 8 minimums were worked out. So we now wait for a ombudsman decision.

 

 

The only way forward is to start putting the seeds of doubt in the adjudicators mind, 80 mans hours by Ms Lowe. I recon I could easily treble that, with the amount of time I have spent.

 

Name and shame, sounds like a plan...!

 

Do not forget that if you want Mr. Andrew Tyrie MP; Chairman of the Treasury Select Committee, to be made aware of your bad treatment by MBNA. Write your complaint about MBNA to your own MP and ask him/her to forward same to Mr. Tyrie!

[suvin50]

Should we start naming and shaming the adjudicators who obviously don't have a clue?

 

 

Sunvin, have you got statements? Can you not show payments that have been restated to minimum were at the time not minimums because the statement in the prior month requested a different amount.

 

 

Usually if a payment had been missed, MBNA would only take the minimum based on the previous month statement but include arrears on the statement.

 

 

For example on my statements minimum payment including arrears £839.36 but the payment in the next month was £136.01 MBNA restated the £136.01 to a minimum in the redress calculation to £43.01. Clearly I hadn't made the anywhere near the minimum payment by paying £136.01 (it should of been 839.36) so they can't restate the payment to £43.01.

 

 

This was agreed by my adjudicator, basically my argument was of the 24 restated minimum payments I could prove 21 were incorrect with available satements.

 

 

Clearly if I only had 36 (12 classed as fulls) restated payments on the entire life of the card and I can prove 21 are incorrect using statements and agreed by my adjudicator it questions the remaining 15 restated payments.

 

 

Another minimum payment was agreed to be incorrect just because it was less than £5, the minimum payment allowed by MBNA's terms at the time if not paying off the card.

 

 

In the end I have 22 restated payments agreed by the adjudicator as incorrect, that's 61.11% of the total. That's ones that could be proved without argument. Of the remaining 14, 6 were payment which were reclassified as fulls at the time they were not. ( I just need a fail safe method of arguing the fulls, the obvious argument would be if I paid in full why did I have to make a payment the next month to clear the balance again. If the balance was paid in full and no additional purchases made on the card how can a further payment be required. The adjudicator couldn't see the logic of this, but that's for another day when get to the ombudsman)

 

 

So in total I have proved 73% of the minimums are definitely incorrect, it was at this point MBNA clammed up as I requested documentary evidence that on how the remaining 8 minimums were worked out. So we now wait for a ombudsman decision.

 

 

The only way forward is to start putting the seeds of doubt in the adjudicators mind, 80 mans hours by Ms Lowe. I recon I could easily treble that, with the amount of time I have spent.

 

I don't have any statements, in fact the PPI payments for 1996-1999 are estimates as MBNA could not even supply transaction details. I did not miss any payments before 2005 and I cancelled PPI in 2004.

[DonkeyB]

Fascinating thread.

 

My own PPI reclaim is being considered by MBNA at the moment, and of course they’re bombarding me with text messages to call them. And in the meantime, they write to tell me there’s a slight delay, but don’t bother telling me what they’re texting about... usual efficiency.

 

Anyway, one interesting thing I remember about my MBNA account was contained in the T&Cs small print, and it’s something I’m wondering if they include in their recalculations when re-engineering accounts (especially if they are estimating due to having no records). This relates to paying off your balance in full. I did this one month, but still got charged full interest. This was because you had to pay your balance off for two consecutive months, in full, to attract no interest. I checked the T&Cs after I complained, and it was hidden in the small print. This differed totally from my Barclaycard T&Cs.

 

So it will be interesting to see if this effectively ‘compulsory’ interest has been included in the re-creations, or if they try it on and pretend that a single month of full repayment attracted no interest when in fact it did.

 

I’ll let you know what they come back to me with – Barclays settled within days on an account with half the running balance of my MBNA account, and they ran concurrently, so it will be interesting to see how the compensation levels compare.

[GRUMPY OLD GIT]

16 August 2013: MBNA final response and logged complaint with FOS same date;

03 February 2014 FOS adjudicator investigating;

06 August 2014 sent of mass complaint letter to FCA, McAusland & Wayman;

13 August 2014 FCA contacting FOS;

19 September 2014 FOS apologise for delay but still looking at calculations;

24 September 2014 FOS still talking to MBNA and looking closely at their calculations;

15 October 2014 FOS state that they do not have the software to enable them to calculate;

29 November 2014 FOS still considering;

02 April 2015 FOS still considering.

 

Thus so far from 16 August 2013 to date 12 July 2015, almost two years!!!

And what have they done, nothing!?

 

Well, after much foot dragging and copious excuses I have received the long awaited FOS Adjudicators 'Opinion'.

And yes no surprise; complaint not upheld.

 

Miaspa10, suggested we start by naming and shaming these FOS Adjudicators.

Therefore, I will kick the ball off by naming & shaming number 1:

edited

 

This is not sour grapes as edited is so incompetent that he sent my data sensitive FOS 'opinion' to the wrong address;

one that I move from over 1 year ago!!!

He did not comprehend or even attempt to explain my concern over the 'M' scenario but went to great length to explain the 'F' scenario. He prattles on about dealing with each claim separately but failed to grasp that there were so many incorrectly flagged 'M' payments, which he should have done.

 

He did make mention of (the ex John Lewis customer complaints department employee:) edited. But of course, as we all know the (MBNA - Mass Complainants) still await the courtesy of edited final response to our Mass Complaint;

I do hope that edited does not return to the employment of the John Lewis Group, as I am a good customer and;

what would happen if my Kitchen Aid toaster malfunctioned?

She would deny me a repair or replacement as she would deny, in her opinion, that it is not broken.

 

So, in a nutshell he does admit that that the FOS have been looking into the fairness of MBNA PPI redress offers. But appears to be more concerned with the question refunding PPI related charges and fees, rather than the problem of reduced interest being refunded.

 

I have all my statements and bank statements...

 

Finally I have been set a deadline by which to accept or decline. So, looks like I will be joining the ever lengthening MBNA queue for an FOS Ombudsman. In the meantime, I do intend to contact the Claims company who was recently mentioned on the BBC Money Box Radio programme as reported by Mr. Mike Robinson, aided by Ms. Jonquil Lowe

Edited September 9, 2015 by slick132
names edited

[Miaspa 2010]

@ Donkey B the way MBNA calculate interest won't cause issue, (its does on the redress calculation if you have variable rates but that s explained earlier).

 

 

If you have an actual balance of £5,000 and interest charged of £100, MBNA NA assume the rate on the card is a monthly rate of £100 / £5,000 so 4%.

 

 

So as explained earlier if you had a zero rate promo offer on a transfer the PPI would have interest charged at the purchase rate say 2% monthly.

 

 

£100 PPI has £2 interest.

 

 

But in the redress calc. Your balance is a £5,000 is a zero rate transfer. £100 PPI and £2 interest. Total £5,102, interest charged £2. MBNA work out the associated interest refund is £2 / £5102. 0.039%.

 

 

So you have been charged £2 interest on the PPI but you only get refunded 1p associated interest. (£2x 0.039%)

 

 

@ Grumpy Old Git

 

 

So you could provide actual statements showing a minimum payment is £70, you paid £85 but MBNA can still restate the £85 as a minimum according to the adjudicator?

 

 

Mines edited, got some of it, not all. A bit out of his depth understanding the whole picture. If I was talking to someone with same level of financial qualifications I have may be it would have progressed far quicker and further.

Edited September 9, 2015 by slick132
spelling; names edited

[AfterMidnight]

Many people on here are by now something of subject-experts on potential ways that a firm could "creatively" or "imaginatively" stretch plausibility-envelopes, and choose to try to minimise recompense for previous PPI miss-selling without anyone noticing.

 

 

Name edited also has spent a fair time becoming expert in how one firm made this step, and how they did it, but there are probably bits that she even she may have missed in MBNA's method (such as Miaspa2010 explains above, on misapplication of interest rate "averaging".)

 

 

MBNA, in turn, know exactly what they have done, and are most very expert indeed ... in the art of payout-minimisation through any method ... using anything they may be able be able to get away with.

 

 

The design of their spread-sheet maths, hidden assumptions, overly-interpretative portrayal of the rules that apply to them ... are quite frankly excellent work. If, that is, you could consider excellent work to be ... something that saves the firm returning customer's money previously taken. The entire process/procedure for calculating PPI redress, as performed by MBNA now for a good few years, is and was the product of a small team of very smart, but questionably-motivated people. Maths minimisation - tick. Hidden assumptions - tick. Information obscurity - tick. Regulator windows dressing - tick. Prepared glossing for half-hearted FOS inquiries - tick.

 

 

So, in turn, now we have FOS (and FCA) looking more and more like the only party involved who does not even realise that there was even any form of a problem here to (so inventively) cover-up. FOS continuing to say they have looked at it and it is not a problem, while missing almost everything involved through under-application of effort, or some other motivated or unmotivated reason ... is starting to look very "stupid" of the service.

 

 

FOS need their own team of smart people to look at this issue (it has affected thousands of people who know it or not).

 

 

The occasional thing said by an adjudicator from what people have reported from FOS experience, shows that staff there seem to have had very occasional twinklings of understanding.

 

 

However I have yet to see ANYTHING that shows that FOS have actually twigged to what is being done under their name. That includes public pronouncements, Adjudicator responses, or anything at all.

 

 

MBNA claim "all done under FOS guidelines".

 

 

MBNA know this in not actually true, on several counts. FOS, however ... believe this to be true ... because MBNA have said it is true, with also showing a few minor "look, we've done this here" embellishments.

 

 

A defence of MBNA which stretches approximately as far as "no, I can't believe anyone would ever do that" versus "mysterious-but-surely-OK 50% pay-outs" .... certainly adds up to embarrassment for FOS.

Edited September 9, 2015 by slick132

[GRUMPY OLD GIT]

@ Donkey B the way MBNA calculate interest won't cause issue, (its does on the redress calculation if you have variable rates but that s explained earlier).

 

 

If you have an actual balance of £5,000 and interest charged of £100, MBNA NA assume the rate on the card is a monthly rate of £100 / £5,000 so 4%.

 

 

So as explained earlier if you had a zero rate promo offer on a transfer the PPI would have interest charged at the purchase rate say 2% monthly.

 

 

£100 PPI has £2 interest.

 

 

But in the redress calc. Your balance is a £5,000 is a zero rate transfer. £100 PPI and £2 interest. Total £5,102, interest charged £2. MBNA work out the associated interest refund is £2 / £5102. 0.039%.

 

 

So you have been charged £2 interest on the PPI but you only get refunded 1p associated interest. (£2x 0.039%)

 

 

@ Grumpy Old Git

 

 

So you could provide actual statements showing a minimum payment is £70, you paid £85 but MBNA can still restate the £85 as a minimum according to the adjudicator?

 

 

Mines edited, got some of it, not all. A bit out of his depth understanding the whole picture. If I was talking to someone with same level of financial qualifications I have may be it would have progressed far quicker and further.

 

Miaspa2010,

My FOS adjudicator made little reference to the Minimum ('M') scenario, seeming to prefer lengthy explanation about the Full ('F') payment scenario. He is unaware, that I hold a large file of papers regarding my MBNA credit card account which provide documentary evidence that I had not consistently made just M payments for over 6 months. But, even if I had not kept my MBNA statements I could quite easily calculate a minimum payment by checking on my Bank statements the repayments made to MBNA for each and every given month; I hold the MBNA T&Cs original and varied too.

So, I will of course be writing back to my FOS adjudicator, correcting his mistakes and providing further evidence, in order to overturn his faulty opinion.

Not forgetting to alert/complain about his DPA breach...

Edited September 9, 2015 by slick132
name edited from Miaspa's quote

[angry cat]

Many people on here are by now something of subject-experts on potential ways that a firm could "creatively" or "imaginatively" stretch plausibility-envelopes, and choose to try to minimise recompense for previous PPI miss-selling without anyone noticing.

 

 

Name edited also has spent a fair time becoming expert in how one firm made this step, and how they did it, but there are probably bits that she even she may have missed in MBNA's method (such as Miaspa2010 explains above, on misapplication of interest rate "averaging".)

 

 

MBNA, in turn, know exactly what they have done, and are most very expert indeed ... in the art of payout-minimisation through any method ... using anything they may be able be able to get away with.

 

 

The design of their spread-sheet maths, hidden assumptions, overly-interpretative portrayal of the rules that apply to them ... are quite frankly excellent work. If, that is, you could consider excellent work to be ... something that saves the firm returning customer's money previously taken. The entire process/procedure for calculating PPI redress, as performed by MBNA now for a good few years, is and was the product of a small team of very smart, but questionably-motivated people. Maths minimisation - tick. Hidden assumptions - tick. Information obscurity - tick. Regulator windows dressing - tick. Prepared glossing for half-hearted FOS inquiries - tick.

 

 

So, in turn, now we have FOS (and FCA) looking more and more like the only party involved who does not even realise that there was even any form of a problem here to (so inventively) cover-up. FOS continuing to say they have looked at it and it is not a problem, while missing almost everything involved through under-application of effort, or some other motivated or unmotivated reason ... is starting to look very "stupid" of the service.

 

 

FOS need their own team of smart people to look at this issue (it has affected thousands of people who know it or not).

 

 

The occasional thing said by an adjudicator from what people have reported from FOS experience, shows that staff there seem to have had very occasional twinklings of understanding.

 

 

However I have yet to see ANYTHING that shows that FOS have actually twigged to what is being done under their name. That includes public pronouncements, Adjudicator responses, or anything at all.

 

 

MBNA claim "all done under FOS guidelines".

 

 

MBNA know this in not actually true, on several counts. FOS, however ... believe this to be true ... because MBNA have said it is true, with also showing a few minor "look, we've done this here" embellishments.

 

 

A defence of MBNA which stretches approximately as far as "no, I can't believe anyone would ever do that" versus "mysterious-but-surely-OK 50% pay-outs" .... certainly adds up to embarrassment for FOS.

 

Absolutely agree, AMN!

 

I would suggest that even if edited herself were to submit a rejected MBNA claim to the FOS, it would be rejected...

 

We now have a situation where the MBNA PPI Redress methodology has been proven, by two maths experts to be very dubious indeed; they have been under calculating and thereby cheating thousands of general consumers:

 

Two sets of working papers amounting to approximately 60 pages of analysis & conclusions.

But still the FOS appear to disagree or, don't want to understand!?

 

So, the matter now is in the hands of the BBC/Mike Robinson and the Right Hon Andrew Tyrie M.P., hopefully?

Our final step will have to be via a claims firm taking a 'Class Action' against MBNA on our behalf.

Personally, I am gradually coming round to the idea of a, 'Class Action'; possibly using an American Law firm if, the UK claim firm cannot represent us.

Edited September 9, 2015 by slick132
names edited

[GRUMPY OLD GIT]

Miaspa2010,

My FOS adjudicator made little reference to the Minimum ('M') scenario, seeming to prefer lengthy explanation about the Full ('F') payment scenario. He is unaware, that I hold a large file of papers regarding my MBNA credit card account which provide documentary evidence that I had not consistently made just M payments for over 6 months. But, even if I had not kept my MBNA statements I could quite easily calculate a minimum payment by checking on my Bank statements the repayments made to MBNA for each and every given month; I hold the MBNA T&Cs original and varied too.

So, I will of course be writing back to my FOS adjudicator, correcting his mistakes and providing further evidence, in order to overturn his faulty opinion.

Not forgetting to alert/complain about his DPA breach...

 

I have now responded to the FOS adjudicator's preliminary opinion. So, for now it is sit back and wait but don't hold you breath...

[suvin50]

Latest opinion from my adjudicator edited

" There are variations in the way most banks calculate redress. Our approach at the Financial Ombudsman Service is not to make all banks calculate offers in the same way. Although there are of course some basic guidelines they do have to follow. Instead we look at the individual systems and say whether we think they are fair and reasonable. That means two banks can operate differently but both be fair. We would say that MBNA’s approach is fair. However I can understand your concerns, especially if you have had offers from banks that do it differently."

So.... the monkey is telling the organ-grinder how things should work. FOS have had years to define the rules and now it seems that anything goes.

suvin50

Edited September 9, 2015 by slick132
name edited

[AfterMidnight]

Quick check

 

 

So far it seems ... that cases around the subject of MBNA's PPI redress calculation method in recent years have, after a long wait, eventually been so far handled (my own case included) by Adjudicator-level individuals only. Adjudicators have then typically trotted out the oversimplified Service's view (a la name edited's disturbingly MBNA-trusting earlier belief) that there is probably nothing wrong (essentially as MBNA are reporting that they are doing the right things that would make redress fair). This perspective is not then accepted by the complainant, and the case is bunged into an Ombudsman queue.

 

 

Nobody has reached an Ombudsman yet in my understanding, on the central point of redress methods and assumptions?

 

 

While there is a strong chance that Ombudspeople (initially anyway) will also follow through with what is sadly just considered "received wisdom" at FOS (so no necessity therefor to look into presented information in any detail at all, as MBNA-way has already been deemed fair) ... they do nominally anyway have a remit to think-through things more than processing Adjudicators, and could be less closed-minded, or set in thinking their job is "solve-simply or pass-up".

 

 

If anyone has or does reach an Ombudsman themselves, it would be good to know, and see how anyone else may help, for their own and everybody's potential benefit.

 

 

Nothing I can see is available in published Ombudsman's Decisions. Been a few years .. but as far as we know, no one has yet reached Ombudsman level stage yet?

 

 

AMN

Edited September 9, 2015 by slick132
name edited

[slick132]

Should we start naming and shaming the adjudicators who obviously don't have a clue?

 

In a nutshell - No !

 

This could lead to derogatory or defamatory remarks being made about individuals and CAG cannot carry such content as it puts our entire Site at risk.

 

No further naming and shaming in this way please and posts above have been edited to remove names.

 

Thanks.

[angry cat]

In a nutshell - No !

 

This could lead to derogatory or defamatory remarks being made about individuals and CAG cannot carry such content as it puts our entire Site at risk.

 

No further naming and shaming in this way please and posts above have been edited to remove names.

 

Thanks.

 

Rest assured that there will be no defamatory remarks made in relation to the FCA or FOS!

 

We are simply attempting to gain proper and correct PPI Redress from MBNA;

at least 20+ CAG members sent copies of an open letter to both the FCA & FOS in order to make them query the MBNA PPI Redress calculations, which have been proven, in many cases, to be perverse. The majority of members cases lodged with the FOS are currently with FOS Adjudicators and waiting the long 2 year wait for FOS Ombudsman's opinion's.

 

There has been much in the Press and on BBC Moneybox recently regarding MBNA's (and Capitol One) perverse calculations, resulting in an mathematicians investigative paper being released which is of the opinion that MBNA's PPI calculation methodology is indeed perverse..

Jonquil Lowe's working paper is on the worldwide web for all to see!

[angry cat]

Quick check

 

 

So far it seems ... that cases around the subject of MBNA's PPI redress calculation method in recent years have, after a long wait, eventually been so far handled (my own case included) by Adjudicator-level individuals only. Adjudicators have then typically trotted out the oversimplified Service's view (a la name edited's disturbingly MBNA-trusting earlier belief) that there is probably nothing wrong (essentially as MBNA are reporting that they are doing the right things that would make redress fair). This perspective is not then accepted by the complainant, and the case is bunged into an Ombudsman queue.

 

 

Nobody has reached an Ombudsman yet in my understanding, on the central point of redress methods and assumptions?

 

 

While there is a strong chance that Ombudspeople (initially anyway) will also follow through with what is sadly just considered "received wisdom" at FOS (so no necessity therefor to look into presented information in any detail at all, as MBNA-way has already been deemed fair) ... they do nominally anyway have a remit to think-through things more than processing Adjudicators, and could be less closed-minded, or set in thinking their job is "solve-simply or pass-up".

 

 

If anyone has or does reach an Ombudsman themselves, it would be good to know, and see how anyone else may help, for their own and everybody's potential benefit.

 

 

Nothing I can see is available in published Ombudsman's Decisions. Been a few years .. but as far as we know, no one has yet reached Ombudsman level stage yet?

 

 

AMN

 

It wouldn't appear that any of our cases have found their way to an Ombudsman's desk yet?!

Perhaps, it may be of benefit to make an FOI Act request in order to find out what opinions, if any have been made to the positive - I will draft out the request.

[AfterMidnight]

Re: FOI - I think FOS have a special dispensation of some form (in their reckoning anyway) from FOI, although not that I have tried, but had previously picked something like that up in my trawls.

 

 

Re: Naming: I suppose mentioned or quoting Service staff names could mean these are picked up and insulted by individuals less assiduous than AC, hence getting everyone into potential hassle, so better perhaps avoided on advice, but I can understand the frustration very well. Maybe the price of open discussion and required form.

 

 

JL's paper is public domain if one looks for it well enough, and is an interesting read, although arguably a little limited a bit, in that she only had access perhaps to an example or two to reverse-engineer, and there are other factors afoot in other claims, which I am sure she would find interesting, mathematically speaking.

 

 

AMN

[angry cat]

Re: FOI - I think FOS have a special dispensation of some form (in their reckoning anyway) from FOI, although not that I have tried, but had previously picked something like that up in my trawls.

 

 

Re: Naming: I suppose mentioned or quoting Service staff names could mean these are picked up and insulted by individuals less assiduous than AC, hence getting everyone into potential hassle, so better perhaps avoided on advice, but I can understand the frustration very well. Maybe the price of open discussion and required form.

 

 

JL's paper is public domain if one looks for it well enough, and is an interesting read, although arguably a little limited a bit, in that she only had access perhaps to an example or two to reverse-engineer, and there are other factors afoot in other claims, which I am sure she would find interesting, mathematically speaking.

 

 

AMN

 

AMN, yes one can make a FOIA request but agree they will more than likely use an exemption to block same. However, if there is nothing to hide, why would the FOS wish to block the request?!

 

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/about/foi-making-a-request.htm

 

With regard to one of the FOS employees who appeared to be handling our Mass Complaint (her name was edited but we all know who she is as we all received holding letters from her) she left the FOS Service in June 2015. So, presumably must have handed her notice in one - three months prior - No wonder we did not hear from her further...