MBNA PPI Award “Interpretative” Calculations?

[matttaylor3331]

Gentlemen

 

Please see the attachments for your perusal and let me know what you think as you can see the build

V20_B022 is not a million miles out i still think it has errors mind you just not as many

 

i lookforward to your comments

 

Matthew

Edited January 29, 2013 by matttaylor3331
attachments not right

[ken100464]

Well that is rather interesting.

 

I would say by just a 2 second look at the two sheets you have, the V20_B022 is how FSA and FOS told them to calculate.

 

Which leads us to the other pile of crap. Its basically designed to turn contractual interest into 8% interest and ensure the the reconstructed balance is higher than if it would be if they had followed the FSA/FOS instructions and not their own.

 

If it was me I would be firing that off to the FSA indicating they decided to calculate a different way and by doing so are cutting compensation to clients. Hopefully FSA will grow a pair investigate and fine them heavily.

 

I am very grateful for you showing me the first one because I can now advise FOS that there was until at least June 2012 a build that followed the way they are supposed to calculate more closely than the way they are trying to fob us off with now.

 

The quickest give away for anyone looking at this thread is the reconstructed balance on the V20_B031. You have a payout of £7475 and an original balance of £7555. FSA/FOS calculation would give the recon balance as £80 on these figures.

 

However this lot give a recon balance of £6946. Bit of a difference. Within that £6946 is the contractual (or what they call the associated) interest being converted into 8%

 

Add this £6900ish to your £976 they give you and lo and behold you are not a million miles away from the £8000 associated interest you have calculated. Because the recon is lower in the FSA/FOS way then the balance will be in credit more and higher and therefore the 8% will also be higher than they give.

 

Once again I would tackle this by showing they HAVE NOT calculated as per the FSA/FOS preferred method. By trying to be clever trying to get the last penny out of them will cloud the claim against them. They are calculating using daily figures. We cannot do this. Our claim will not ever be as accurate as theirs could be. But by showing the method as being wrong and putting us the consumer at a disadvantage hopefully they will be taken to task either by the FSA and by FOS ordering a new calculation.

 

On each and every case I have seen the claim is nearly half what it should be. Therefore well worth their while.

 

Aftermidnight. There is the smoking gun we were looking for.

[matttaylor3331]

ken

 

i spoke to MBNA this morning after doing the calculations last night.

 

the numpty i spoke to said the method is a FSA approved method i told him i doubted it. then i challenged him on why the software builds were different after i introduced the second claim.

He did try to reassure me that they were the same i pressed him as to why the software build is different!!! again its not sir. i them pulled the FSA/FOS card and said i will start a complain which will incur them costs. he told me to write to the advocates office and gave me an email address direct to them asking for clarifications.

 

I would like to know what the random F's and M's mean on he reconstructed balance. any ideas?

 

i fired MBNA an email and copied the 2 address at the FSA that you gave. that should put the cat among the pigeons. one thing i have learnt with these people and corporate man in general in my profession. they have no staying power and will eventually trip themselves up by holding common man in contempt of having any ability. they still think they are the master of the universe. they are the destructors of the universe.

 

anyhows, for 7 grand i will not leave it alone until i am told to and i think that every avenue has been exhausted.

 

im contemplating contacting the national press or anyone who might just listen to the small man.

 

ill keep everyone posted

 

Matthew

[ken100464]

Matt.

 

The F and M's is part of the complaint I put into the FOS. Exactly what are they. MBNA in writing to me have said this method more closely follows how various consumers move between different types of usage of the account. What the hell is that supposed to mean? FSA guidance states clearly that if they wish to deviate from the preferred method of calculation then they should clearly advise the consumer what they are doing and they must not do the alternative method to reduce the claim from the preferred method.

 

A spreadsheet build that takes forever and a day to extract from them followed by no explanation whatsoever isnt what the FSA is saying they should do if they chose not to use the preferred method.

 

The F & M's are more like random amounts removed into the pot not attracting contractual to reduce the claim. They cant do it all in one lump so do it in bits hoping that firstly people accept the recompence then if they insist on calculations they dont notice or cant work out what is going on so leave it. Maybe its named after Foot & Mouth. ie Mad Cows

 

I have amounts being removed from the account into the 8% pot even when no PPI is being applied which makes no sense whatsoever.

 

Your first spreadsheet V20_B022 is not a million miles off in both your calculation or what the FSA/FOS expect. The second one is just pits. I find it interesting they keep saying it follows FSA guidelines. Not the publicly viewable ones they dont. But if you say this on all correspondence a compliance dip check will show the company is using the method they should. But of course what they are saying and what they are doing is two different things.

 

I have too emailed FSA (not your recompence from MBNA as that would be very remiss of me) but the build numbers. I have an automated reply so they have it again.

 

I intend to write to my MP again with the two different builds. I think MBNA have to explain why its ok to follow the regulators guidance up to June this year but not afterwards. What made them change and on whose authority????

 

Again if we are all saying why are they not following the regulators method and forget the actual calculations at the moment then anyone should be able to see what we are saying is they are not following publicly viewable methods of calculating the redress. So we want to know why they have changed and who gave them the authority to do so??

 

In my mind its a better method of attack. If FSA/FOS side with us then the recalculation will come under their remit and therefore be hopefully correct.

[AfterMidnight]

Matt/Ken/All

 

Yes, becoming rather more difficult for MBNA to deny the following version of events:

 

Following the realisation that they were "losing" lots of money (return to the proper owner under FSA requirement), MBNA opted to use their own methods. These started as (relatively) fair, but as time went on, well, the temptation and management pressure to improve the worksheets proved irresistible.

 

Matt - your V20C_BO31 details are very familiar to the likes of ken and myself who have been pulling our own apart for a while, while V20_B022 was obviously created before the, ehh,"invention" of Card Redress and Surplus Redress.

 

If you go through the FSAHandbook, as is available online, if you look for it, and the explaining/illustrative examples in FS Policy Statement 10/12 (Thanks IMS21from earlier!) you may get an idea of why perhaps MBNA think they can get away with this kind of thing (over and above hoping no-one notices, that is).

 

Their defence/justifaction as far as I can see it, within the realms of UK PPI Redress requirements, can only really be:

 

FSA Handbook DISP App 3.8.2: "When applying a remedy other than those set out in DISP App 3.7, the firm should satisfy itself that the remedy is appropriate to the matter complained of and is appropriate and fair in their individual circumstances."

 

The point of the wording seems to be (raised I believe when firms complained about an earlier version of the Policy Statement, or rather a consultative draft) - that - there were circumstances where the firm may be justified in applying redress as to how the account actually operated, perhaps against an otherwise overly broad-brushstroke example or described method (my surmisation). With a bit of banker wishful thinking, this could be seen to allow some latitude in performing redress calculations...MBNA pretty much said said to ken, that they believe they can and do calculate according to how they think customers operated their accounts. With a bit more wish fairydust, this could be skewed as vaguely implied permisssion to allow a firm to choose a method of redress that varies from, and steps outside of the necessity (as stipulated elsewhere) that the redress must be within FSA guidelines and requirements (and particularly for us, illustrated examples). However – the watchwords if you again read DISP App 3.2.2 are ""appropriate and fair". A highly-manipulated speadsheet riddled with errors? I don't think so..but this DISP App 3.8.2 may be MBNA's line of defence/justification, or something to hide behind.

 

Ken and I both pretty well concluded that the best way of dealing with this redress-manipulative injustice was with drawing the attentions of the relevant authorities to the specifics of what is going astray here. My own submission to FOS is aimed at getting an adjudicator/ombudsman to think, hmmm, there are probably enough spelled out points of doubt here that, on balance, it may be best to request an" absolutely certain compliant way recalculation" worth being requested to MBNA. FSA submission e-mail is more "hey, have you seen this..". I have worries that the average FOS worker with ten cases targetted to close in a week may indulge in a lot of complaint-skimmimg, but I reckon the points will be recognised in the eventual end...

 

While my own FOS complaint (and I guess ken's less so) was a quite detailed and commenty demolition job, I tried to stay away from detail of values, rates, etc. where it might just look I just preferred my method thank-you. The essence is pretty simple really - if FOS is the route for you Matt, sending copies of both sets of your redress calculations, with the single page illustrated example copy of FSA Policy Statement 10/12 - The assessment and redress of Payment Protection Insurance complaints, Appendix 2, Example 6 from earlier in this thread does very much most of the trick . Highlight that, in the example, all running redress totals return to contractual interest after any periods where they visit 8%-land. In MBNA's version of reality, they don't, well don't in later versions ofthe V20xxxx series anyway...

 

Lastly - thinking a bit off major-topic: MBNA applied different rates for different things (c/c Cheques, Over The Counter OTC, general retail, Balance Transfer BT promotion rates, etc.) - I am beginning to question the (provided) monthly associated interest calculated values themselves. Looks to me that MBNA have perhaps always applied to PPI (in V20xxxx) the rate as applied to the total of the balance, not neccessarily that of what was really applied to the PPI. If you have any old statements, check the monthly rates printed on them for different things.(or SARS, expressed as APRs for different things) ..if anyone ever used promotional low rates for putting big sums into their cards, over time this could make a huge difference too...things like an applicable 1.11678% monthly rate may well not really calculate PPI values shown on MBNA rederess calcs, while combining everything using very low promotional rates may well produce the kind of figures seen. I am at a bit of an early stage with this one, and only maybe applies to some people, and don't want to unneccessarily cloud waters. Worth checking...

[ken100464]

Aftermidnight/Matt/anyone else reading.

 

That about sums up my position too. However far from being not very detailed my FOS complaint has run into hundreds of pages of documentated evidence dealing with individual points I believe they have got wrong. The final part of my complaint also revolves around the fact I have pointed all this out to MBNA and they still dont cough. So if FOS rules in my favour I have asked for compensation for all my wasted time effort and costs involved in having to go to FOS AFTER MBNA have been advised exactly of what is wrong. And dont forget after wasting nearly 4 months trying to get the information out of them they have tried to timebarr me at FOS stating the original redress letter is their final response and the 6 months ran from there.

 

However unless I am able to prove beyond doubt I too am steering clear of the interest rates etc. It will be a daily rate hence why they are all over the place. However if you breakdown interest charged as per your statements or transaction log you will conclude as I have that PPI is not paid down first as they state. Far from it. A nice spreadsheet proving this although taking time to do has also winged its way to FOS. Again I have steered clear from what I believe the total redress should be and have not sent them the fine spreadsheets from here. I have just stated they have underpaid me considerably and I want it recalculated as per the publicly viewable FSA/FOS guidelines.

 

With Matts spreadsheets and build numbers a further complaint will now be going to FOS under my reference number asking why if it had been calculated in June 2012 I would have it done the FSA/FOS way but 6 weeks later I am having my claim cut in half???? What has changed???? Who has authorised this change in redress??? As stated FSA have already been emailed this specific information and the build numbers and the question why what and who. A letter to my MP will be next and as Matt says perhaps it is time the press were asked if they wanted another juicy bank scandal. I even put this to MBNA. If we are right and they are wrong and they didnt keep it in house then the eventual cost to them of what they are doing and us trying to work out what they are doing by sharing knowledge would only lead to many many more questioning their own claims. And then what happens if the FSA orders them to recalculate ALL claims using this spreadsheet. What have they achieved????

 

Take Matts MBNA sheets. Say he had overlimits applied towards the end of the account because the original account went over his limit by a few hundred. In reality as even by MBNA's own admission the account at the end is nearly wiped out by the redress. Just by this new method the recalculated balance doesnt show this fact. This happened in my case but they are refusing the charges back. The PPI inflates the balance and is the reason the account is overlimit. FSA/FOS again are quite clear on this. Charges occurring due to the PPI must also be removed and the associated interest from these charges.

 

So I prove the account dips below the card limit when reconstructed and just ask why MBNA have not followed the FSA guidelines. Same with the MBNA reconstruction. Why have they not followed the regulators guidance.If I wrote that once I wrote that hundreds of times. Why have they not followed the publicly viewable regulators guidelines. If they wished to use another method they have to quite clearly explain to the consumer what they are doing and why. And they must not be doing an alternate method to solely advantage themselves and disadvantage the consumer.

 

Late fees. Again say someone ran into trouble and incurred late fees at the end of the account. It happens and is usual just as an account heads into default. If the recon balance is now in credit how can a late fee stand? There wasnt a balance to be late on. They owed the consumer but still want to take a fee for a balance that was just the PPI and interest and has since been proved as miss-sold. You cant make it up really.

 

Take all these things into account and the recon balance should swing further and further away from what they are trying to state it is. And of course within the FSA guidance the redress is the difference between the recon balance and the original balance. Strange eh.

 

In each and every case that I have seen with this spreadsheet the redress amount is being cut in half. Seems this is the reason they are doing all this. Is this appropiate and fair to the consumer as per Disp App 3.2.2. And this then leads to the question if they are hiding behind the way it was how I operated my account seems funny already we can see a number of people who seem to operate their account exactly like I did. And of course unless you are all me then that is utter bollocks. And from seeing Aftermidnights and Matt's sheets I can assure you that neither of you operated your account the way I did but you have both had the same build spreadsheet used as I have.

[ken100464]

ken

 

 

He did try to reassure me that they were the same i pressed him as to why the software build is different!!! again its not sir. i them pulled the FSA/FOS card and said i will start a complain which will incur them costs. he told me to write to the advocates office and gave me an email address direct to them asking for clarifications.

 

 

Matthew

 

Matt.

 

I missed this bit. This is the path they led me on mine. Then after jerking me around for 4 months then state the 6 months timetable runs from the offer of redress not from the impasse we ended up in about the redress 4 months later.

 

They quite kindly then said they would seek time barring at FOS if I chose that method even though it was them who were jerking me around while still communicating.

 

Luckily I had taken the decision that this could well be what they would try so I had been proceeding building my FOS claim while communicating with them. So when they pulled this stunt I just happened to have the claim completed and ready for posting. It gave me no end of pleasure that day on reciept of their letter to go to the post office and post what hopefully will now cost them alot of money.

 

It also freed me up to openly help others if I can with the knowledge I have and am obtaining about them. Hopefully one day they will regret not settling with me there and then.

[AfterMidnight]

I found that MBNA did not reply to my "complaint about not handling a complaint", which was firstly in itself about how they did not handle the original PP mis-sale complaint properly. As ken says, I would place little faith in the company having a moment of revelation that it is in their own best interests to deal with this sharply and quickly internally. However, I do reckon that complaint handling is very well documented in terms of how firms must handle them under Handbook rules. The MBNA approach (this is just me surmising for them again) seems to be that their redress letter was indeed their final decision (a particular term), so any banter with customers afterwards... is basically, guv, just them trying to help out and argue on their own free time really...

 

Point is that if the scales of justice do finally fall on their heads for us (individually or collectively) it does absolutely no harm whatsover to have very clear evidence that you gave them every opportunity to fix things themselves by pointing out a few facts they may wish to have checked. I always send my envelopes to be signed for. That post office in Chester must be a very busy one for that, and I can picture how long it must take some employee to sign for them all if done individually. If all above does become public knowledge I can see those bags getting heavier.

 

Eight weeks from original PPI redress vaule notification letter = complaint in to FOS, seems the way to go. Swapping a few letters if possible with MBNA in the period in between does no harm. Dropping a line to FSA by mail can be done anytime after receipt of calcs.

[Old Cogger]

Usually signed as bulk packages i.e. 20 only one signature. signed for,

[ken100464]

Always signed for in my case. Lets you know when they are just plain ignoring (quite regular)

 

It also adds to any case you have with FOS. You asked them to look again you pointed out what you felt was wrong and importantly gave the bank the chance to admit oh hell yeah we got that wrong lets sort it out properly.

 

Like I say if they had settled aftermidnights claim when he started questioning, if they had done the same with me and also Matt then this thread wouldnt be the resource it is. Infact it wouldnt have happened at all.

 

Now it is clear that post June 2012 anyone who has had a claim from MBNA paid up and who hasnt checked their figures could well have lost half of what they were entitled too.

 

The more people we get onboard the more pressure on the regulator and the bank.

[matttaylor3331]

afternidnight/ ken et al

 

please see my email to the FSA and the MBNA advocate

 

this is the FSA reply to my email to both MBNA and the FSA

 

Dear Mr Taylor

 

Thank you for your email of 29 January 2013.

 

I understand from your correspondence that you wish to bring to the attention of the Financial Services Authority (FSA) your concerns regarding MBNA.

 

I have noted your comments and have passed copies of your correspondence to the relevant department within the FSA for their consideration.

 

We do not give feedback on how we have followed up the information you have given us. This is because the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 imposes restrictions on how we can deal with the confidential information we receive.

 

We realise this can be frustrating but please be assured that all information is carefully considered before we decide what action, if any, we take.

 

If you have any future questions on financial services and products, you may find it quicker and easier to call our Consumer Helpline on 0845 606 1234 (call rates may vary).

 

I would like to thank you again for taking the time to bring this matter to our attention

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Consumer Helpline: 0845 606 1234 (call rates may vary)

 

 

　

 

　

 

　

 

-----Original Message-----

 

 

 

Date Sent: 29/01/2013 15:54:15

 

 

Subject: RE: ISS10734713 FW: redress calculations reference numbers 787137 and 775661

 

　

 

From: Matthew Taylor

Sent: 29 January 2013 10:27

 

To:

 

 

 

Subject: redress calculations reference numbers 787137 and 775661

 

 

 

Dear sirs,

 

 

 

I have finally received the Redress calculation sheets and I feel that they need further explaining.

 

 

 

I have had 2 complaints with yourselves

 

 

 

Reference numbers 787137 and 775661

 

 

 

I have run the transactions on a spreadsheet that I have located and have typed all the information that you have sent.

 

 

 

In my eyes the redress calculation certainly doesn't follow the guidelines set of from the FSA.

 

 

 

In particular how you have calculated the associated interest on the PPI premium.

 

 

 

I also note that the calculations have been carried out using two different builds of software V20C_B031 and V20_B022

 

 

 

I would like to know which is correct as the redress carried out on V20_B022 Complaint 775661 is broadly in line with the correct amount I make a shortfall of £800

 

 

 

However, the redress using V20C_B031 really doesn't follow the guidelines at all, it has moments and when the associated interest has built up you seem to throw it off to simple interest and following the guidelines when associated interest is incurred again the running total should carry on totting up, this build doesn't do this. It seems that you are saving the associated interest at the rate of the credit card and using the simple interest. I make a shortfall of approximately £7,000

 

 

 

I would also like to know what the reconstructed payment type letters mean. I have seen an F and a M randomly placed across the redress.

 

 

 

I have also copied this email to the FSA to see if they can shed any light on the situation.

 

 

 

I have seen many articles on the internet where MBNA do seem to be shortchanging people with their own interpretation of the rules.

 

 

 

I look forward to hearing from you. As to how you are calculating the redress. If you do not follow the guidelines I will raise a complaint with FOS as it may appear that you are in breech of the full and final settlement as the guidelines have not been followed.

 

 

 

Regards

 

 

 

 

 

Matthew Taylor

[AfterMidnight]

Gets the point across Matt. You would have thought that MBNA can't really have believed that with forums like this existing that they could get away with it. Pretty much as expected from FSA, will be interesting to see if that cc' inclusion draws any response from MBNA - responses if received are usually fairly bland in my experience. I am sure we will keep each other up to date on this thread with any developments, and as ken says, this should all prove pretty useful to anyone who has the starting point of "I think this is MBNA redress is fishy, but can't make head or tail of it, maybe its just me...""

[ken100464]

Totally agree keep the thread updated and hopefully the site team reading this will direct any MBNA claimant here now. Its important more and more start emailing/writing to the regulator/MP and maybe the press.

 

Matt. Nicely put email to MBNA. Least that will flush out the excuse which I am sure will be the same as was to me.(Thats if they even reply of course) If they have no excuse its nice to know in mine and Aftermidnights cases if we had been calculated 6 weeks earlier we would have had double what we were offered. If we can get it overturned because we are so near the cut off date and therefore it is even more unfair then anyone coming along behind will also benifit.

 

That makes it all more interesting as if the new method is the correct method in MBNA's eyes why werent they using it all along. Oh right they didnt think the floodgates would open on PPI.

 

So previously they had been following the guidelines but now realise the bill is going to be enormous as the public claim everything. Hence why all the letters say they are following the FSA guidelines and perhaps (sadly giving the guy at MBNA the benifit) why the guy Matt spoke to actually believed the redress was being calculated correctly.

 

I have written to FOS stating that there are two builds one of which cuts the redress in half and the approximate date that the changeover happened. I have requested they add this fact to my claim. I have included the two build names just to let them know I have the evidence now. I have also cheekily indicated that the FSA have been informed, my MP has been informed and is taking up the case and maybe at some stage the press will become involved.

 

Hoping this will stiffen some backbones as no one is going to want to be implicated in another banking scandal.

[citizenB]

Gets the point across Matt. You would have thought that MBNA can't really have believed that with forums like this existing that they could get away with it. Pretty much as expected from FSA, will be interesting to see if that cc' inclusion draws any response from MBNA - responses if received are usually fairly bland in my experience. I am sure we will keep each other up to date on this thread with any developments, and as ken says, this should all prove pretty useful to anyone who has the starting point of "I think this is MBNA redress is fishy, but can't make head or tail of it, maybe its just me...""

 

Strangely enough MBNA use these forums as a way of trying to intimidate people and also to try and persuade courts and regulators that those contributing are trying to avoid paying their debts ??

[bigiain1968]

Hi Guys, I have been keeping a eye on these posts for some time as Im in the final stages of a claim with MBNA, anyway my point is that I was checking on any developments last week 30th jan after being given a verbal amount 5 weeks previous and herd nothing more and was informed that the reason for the delay is that they are reviewing the way they are calculating redress and this review is effecting around 9000 customers, could this have a bearing with you guys?

[ken100464]

Bigiain 1968.

 

Thank you very much for this information.

 

Nothing has been forwarded to me but perhaps the FSA have started to take an active interest. If so then that really is good news but not holding my breath.

 

Fingers crossed for you that you dont have to go through this yourself.

 

Do you have the ability to calculate your own guestimate via transaction log or statements? Does this correspond anywhere near to your verbal offer?

 

I dont think any of us would be understanding what they were up to without each bit of information coming to light from different posters. Its becoming a good team effort.

 

Thank you again

[AfterMidnight]

Firstly just adding thanks to bigian1968 for a very interesting point that may well just be related to the thread's associated actions, perhaps.

 

Another point I have been thinking about recently... is that 8% stat interest is taxable, while contractual is not...if you remove some values from one and place in the other as per MBNAs favourite trick...you may well end up with headlines with a leading point such as "MBNA Slip Up Creates Big Extra Customer Tax Bills".

[ken100464]

Aftermidnight.

 

Good point and that would be an interesting one for any financial journo. The more pressure collectively we make the better for all.

[gettingsorted]

I was pointed to this thread and have been looking through this with interest - as I have just received a letter from FOS stating that MBNA are willing to make me an offer but if I accept I have to do nothing for two weeks and then they will notify MBNA that I am accepting the offer; I said finally ! but have been trying to calculate what I should be due and I have several numbers depending on how I calculate it; The issue is further compounded by the fact that in 2006 I entered into a payment arrangement with them and am still paying but if I had not had PPI then I would not have owed them the amount; I think I would have been in credit or close by then so of course I have paid them some £3000+.

I am also a bit confused on the simple interest figure - how does this work ?

I was wondering if someone could have a look at my spreadsheets as I am so confused !

Help ..........

GS

[AfterMidnight]

Hi gettingsorted

 

A few points that may be helpful for you, and/or help other people to help better.

 

a) Chances are well possible that MBNA will send you a cheque for the entire calculated value (as per them) - as opposed to trying to balance it off against payment plan amounts remaining, leaving you to negotiate if it worked for you I would suggest, for a F&F if so.

b) MBNA don't use the same roughly-as-everyone-else-in-the-universe method of redress which are reflected by spreadsheets you will find on the forum - they use a method of their own devising (central to the arguments with MBNA that you will have seen from people here.) This method appears to have been created to be better reflective of how you operated your account - i.e. uses your interest rates as opposed to blanket ones, etc. Hmmm. It also contains a few extra tricks. Values are likely a lot lower "their way".

c) Is your offer of the kind that they do not accept anything in the way of responsibility but are making you a "goodwill" offer?

d) Basically spreadsheets here will tell you what you kinda-should get - but MBNA employ/use clever people to minimise their calculations. They treat the simple interest figure differently from normal sense. And say to FOS their methods are all-good, guv'...

e) Sorry if any of that confuses, or is things you already know - post up your calcs and chances are a few people will have a look. Remove any personal info. I would suggest.

 

AM

[gettingsorted]

Thank you very much AM for getting back to me - this has been a long time coming - its been with the FOS since autumn 2011

 

Hi gettingsorted

 

A few points that may be helpful for you, and/or help other people to help better.

 

a) Chances are well possible that MBNA will send you a cheque for the entire calculated value (as per them) - as opposed to trying to balance it off against payment plan amounts remaining, leaving you to negotiate if it worked for you I would suggest, for a F&F if so. ? will I just get a cheque through the post from them within the ten weeks ? is that how they work. Only owe them about £400 at this stage ; I have paid them well over £3000 since I made the arrangement and even worst case calculation is showing me a much smaller debt at the time of the arrangement so I am hoping that I can get the money I have paid over the amount of the recalculated debt back together with interest.

b) MBNA don't use the same roughly-as-everyone-else-in-the-universe method of redress which are reflected by spreadsheets you will find on the forum - they use a method of their own devising (central to the arguments with MBNA that you will have seen from people here.) This method appears to have been created to be better reflective of how you operated your account - i.e. uses your interest rates as opposed to blanket ones, etc. Hmmm. It also contains a few extra tricks. Values are likely a lot lower "their way". that's the impression I got from reading this thread; hence my different tries at calculations

c) Is your offer of the kind that they do not accept anything in the way of responsibility but are making you a "goodwill" offer? "a goodwill offer along FOS guidelines

d) Basically spreadsheets here will tell you what you kinda-should get - but MBNA employ/use clever people to minimise their calculations. They treat the simple interest figure differently from normal sense. And say to FOS their methods are all-good, guv'...

e) Sorry if any of that confuses, or is things you already know - post up your calcs and chances are a few people will have a look. Remove any personal info. I would suggest. Will post them up later on when I have 'sanitised them'

 

AM

[ken100464]

Another way to look at it would be to reply to FOS and say you would accept an offer based on a calculation as per V20_B022 but would not accept a calculation based on V20C_B031. Perhaps put in the letter if they wish to understand what you mean they should perhaps call the FSA and ask them about it. Get the arbitor talking to the regulator. Get the background noise level up. Or say that one DOES NOT follow the FSA method of redress and therefore how can they say it does.

 

Indicate you are aware that this is cutting redress by nearly half so before you accept you would request MBNA detail which spreadsheet they intend to use.

 

Let them know you know. Even before you accept or decline. You could say you know V20_B022 was in use in June 2012 and presumably because this has been with FOS you claimed before June originally.

 

Also agree with AMN if you post it up we will look over it. But as AMN quite rightly puts the entire drift of this thread is that we aint gonna win on minor interest rate squabbles this goes much more fundamental and we shouldnt let them cloud the issue with smoke and mirrors we help them make.

 

Finally I am in the same boat as you re the being in credit once the PPI has been taken out properly. My mind is to argue that separately if and when we win. I wouldnt like to be in the position the bank could be in where they have been demanding money from someone who was in credit. It dont look good at all and I think a good lawyer would have them in big trouble. Just think they could have defaulted you, could have put a default on your CRA taken you to court threatened a SD all sorts of stuff when actually you were in credit. Like I say wouldnt like to defend that one.

 

But you may find they will cave in completely if they lose this bit. And there is nothing to say the people who have been short changed havnt been specially selected lol. For the very reasons above.

[ken100464]

Gettingsorted you just posted as I did.

 

You sound like you are in the exact same position as I am having paid more back than I should have. I have other suspicions I have not posted before as didnt want to cloud this thread. My redress is within a couple of hundred £ of my PPI claim as per their crap calculation. This keeps me in debt just at time of default. By doing it the FOS way I was in credit when they defaulted me. They have since been taking money which reduces the original debt but on the new balance just makes the credit even bigger.

 

Like you I will want that back one day. But get the FOS to rule in you favour first.

 

Even your lowest calculations will be hard pressed to get to theirs. My only one that was anywhere near was to put 8% as the card rate. But that means you lose all compound.

 

They say in my letter that the redress is along FOS and FSA guidelines. What they say and what they calculate is two entirely different things.

[gettingsorted]

Thanks ken

Did they mention the return of the additional payments made at all in their offer ? I hope I won;t have to go through the FOS again to seek redress for those payments. I suspect that there are quite a few people in the same position. My partner says wait and see what I get and then see what my options are. I have my partner's calculations from them from a couple of years ago to compare it to as well when they agreed to settle.- I may put those figures through the spreadsheet to see how it compares. Also having spoken to my partner I have decided not to post the calculations up until I receive the offer.

I shall keep you posted

Oh by the way did your claim go to the FOS ? Mine has come through FOS.

GS

[ken100464]

GS

 

They just said this is what you are getting and be a good boy now feck off. As I suspect most on this thread were dealt with. With having my offer and payment (now disputed) and understanding what they are doing you realise that they are following a well worn path with you except unlike me they will get you to sign an acceptance first thus precluding further action. They have learnt and checking other forums there is alot of this, if you return a slip accepting whatever they calculate then they will calculate as per FOS/FSA, going on. Now I have letters saying that the spreadsheet we are on about is following the FSA/FOS rules. And this is from a very senior person in MBNA. So take what you will from that.

 

So being cynical I would say you sign an acceptance, they calculate as per the bad spreadsheet and you are in a position where they dont accept liability its a goodwill gesture and here you are this is what we think you should have. Knowing what I do I would want the name of the spreadsheet they intend to use first before I did any signing or accepting. Remembering they have said to me this spreadsheet follows FSA/FOS when it clearly doesnt as in the next line they then say they have come up with a way to show how I operated my account better. Funny that as we all seem to have operated our accounts in a way that reduces our payouts by about half.

 

Again FSA is clear the banks can if they so choose use another method but they must advise the claimant that they are doing so and crucially they must also explain clearly to the claimant what they are doing. What they must not do is change the method of calculation just to reduce the claim. I suspect sending a payout, there you are thats it, then taking 3 months to get the spreadsheet out of them and then a bog off thats all your getting quite follows what FSA intended.

 

My claim is with the FOS. I have asked to be put back to where I would be if PPI had not been sold. FSA is quite clear on this point as close as possible to a position as if PPI had not been sold. I have tho steered clear of producing a spreadsheet saying this is what I calculate now give it back. Because it gives MBNA the opportunity to pick holes in your spreadsheet while the main problems lies hidden in theirs. You will be defending why you cant calculate 4 different interest rates daily with payments going into different pots as per T & C's. You need to use their spreadsheets as the basis of the complaint not give them yours to pull apart.

 

Therefore if you have been paying to reduce a balance which subsequently turns out to be just made up of PPI then I would think you have a good reason to ask for what you paid back.

 

Best way to think of it is in original balance and reconstructed balance. You like me have been paying down an original balance. The PPI redress is made. You can as per this thread demand how they calculated it. FOS are clear on this its your right to ask for the calculations. This will produce a spreadsheet as we have quoted or maybe even a new one now they know we know.

 

From this spreadsheet you can work out how the reconstructed balance should have looked throughout the life of the account. Again FSA and FOS are clear on this and this is one of the points MBNA seem to have decided they dont want to follow. Why well a higher recon balance reduces the difference between it and the original balance which in turn reduces the redress

 

Now you will probably find like me that at some point if the reconstructed account is calculated as per FOS and FSA guidelines that the reconstructed balance will go into credit. However you cannot do this without MBNA's calculations. You need these as you cant just use the total redress against your original balance and say oh it went into credit there. Why? This is due to the 8% being applied each month on this crappy spreadsheet which this thread is all about. It is fiction and doesnt follow the FSA and FOS in anyway at all. And as before be careful using spreadsheets from here. Good to give you a ballpark figure but not accurate enough for this.

 

So even if you are a few hundred £ out if they follow the FSA/FOS method I think you have to be mindful of this bit.

 

So basically I would suspect your balance wont go into credit unless you challenge the calculations. And if your balance doesnt go into credit then you have just been paying down what they say you owe and therefore lose some of the £3000+ They will even cheekily say you could use your compensation to pay the remaining balance down.

 

This is what at present my account looks like. I am paying what I owe on the original MBNA balance. What they havnt done is reconstructed the account as per FSA/FOS by removing all the PPI premiums and associated interest along with any charges that no longer apply (overlimits cant be overlimits if the reconstructed balance is now below your card limit. A late payment cant be a late payment if the reconstructed balance goes into credit. Cant be late if you dont owe anything. This happens at zero balance events and account closures)

 

It is this reconstructed balance that is crucial as the eventual redress should be the difference between the original balance and the reconstructed balance. If they make the reconstructed balance higher then your redress will be lower. Thats why they are messing about with it.

 

In my case even on their bizarre calculations my reconstructed balance would go into credit in 2009. However they have managed to get the recon balance to now = the original balance so it looks like they paid out BUT I still owe what I owed before. And guess what. Yep what I still owe in their heads just happens to be a few pounds out from what they have paid out in redress so far.

 

So basically they want me to pay the redress back again. And therefore it isnt putting me back to a position I would have been if the PPI hadnt been sold.

 

For me this is so complicated I suspect this will be taking along time and it may be something that is like chess pushing them into a check mate situation. If we get the spreadsheet overturned then the redress will be higher. If the redress is higher then we probably went into credit earlier. The payments we have made since we went into credit should then be paid back with interest as they have had our money. But everything has to wait until the previous part of the claim is resolved. Sadly you have to remember you will be dealing with minimum wage boy at FOS which wont help. Therefore nice small easily understood chunks of the problem.

 

As an aside another interesting point for me will be if they defaulted you. If they did this and the new reconstructed balance eventually shows they did this when actually you were in credit then I suspect a poster on here called Durkin would be able to help. Because that default if it can be proved has lost or cost you anything since being wrongly placed would require compensation. And at the very least it would have to be removed from your file even if no loss can be proved.

 

If I was MBNA I really would be looking at what further trouble they are storing up for themselves by trying to save on this PPI which is now well and truely out of the bag.

 

Sorry for the length of the post