Amex v Matty - Partial success

[pompeyfaith]

Re: Amex v Matty - Partial success

Is there an outstanding balance now? Did you clear the card down to NIL.?

That is an important question as it does make a difference to the final outcome.

Regards

[MattyA]

Re: Amex v Matty - Partial success

Matty, I've asked this question twice, and I'm going to ask it again. Forgive me if you have answered it already and I've missed it.

Is there an outstanding balance now? Did you clear the card down to NIL.?

Hi Wendy - thanks for dropping in.

I have answered this before - but yes there was an oustanding balance month on month.
I was on a fixed payment as demanded by Amex (dont know what I did wrong to this day but now I will fight them).
Anyway as you can see from above the fixed monthlty payment paid the charges,PPI and interest,whatever was left reduced the outstanding balance.

Matty

[WendyB]

Re: Amex v Matty - Partial success

No, you haven't, actually. I didn't ask if there was an outstanding balance month on month. I asked if you cleared the balance down to NIL. As in, was the balance ever completely paid off, meaning you owed them nothing?

This is very important and has a bearing on what the FOS are saying. Is there still any outstanding balance now?

[MattyA]

Re: Amex v Matty - Partial success

'There was an outstanding balance and I was on a fixed payment plan imposed by Amex' - Ithink confirms that there was indeed an outsatnding balnace.

However ,for clarity I did not pay off the balance in full , at any time,between 2007 and the point at which I presented them with my claim - Spetember 2010.

Yes there is still an outstanding balance , as I have refused to pay any further monies to them, due to the fact that they owe me more than I owe them.

Hope this answers your question.

Matty

[WendyB]

Re: Amex v Matty - Partial success

Yes it does, finally. So if there is still an outstanding balance now, then the FOS are correct in what they are saying, as I said originally. If you have not actually paid the charges/interest etc, then why should you be refunded them and the interest thereon? The best you could hope for would be for them to be wiped off the balance. If you haven't paid the charges and the interest thereon, then how have you been disadvantaged? You have not paid them, so therefore have not lost out. If they wipe them off the balance, you won't pay them, and the account will be put back to what it would have been had the charges not have been put on in the first place.

[MattyA]

Re: Amex v Matty - Partial success

The balance is circa £2K the mis -sold & upheld PPI charges are circa £12K....
who has been overcharging who here?
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
As I have said before - all charges have been paid each month - that is clear for all.
It does not really matter if they wipe them off the blance or refund them to me.....I dont care as long as they dont get to keep the money.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
They are just playing games with the British public - because they can.

[WendyB]

Re: Amex v Matty - Partial success

So when the PPI and charges are refunded you'll be about 10k up then, once the balance is cleared on the account.
Leaving that aside, go back to the relevant paragraph in the FOS letter and break it down.

What also concerns me is the following statement from FOS:

I do not agree that the bank should refund interest at both contractual rate and 8%.It would not be appropriate for the bank to pay interest at the card rate on top of interest at 8%,i.e. for the deprivation of funds - it would only be appropriate to pay interest at one rate or the other.I say this because interest could not have accrued at the card rate if you had repaid the charges(i.e. if you had ben deprived of the funds). As in, because you didn't repay the charges, then they accrued interest at the card rate.Similarly,you could not have been deprived of any funds if interest was accruing at the card rate,because you had not paid the charges. You weren't deprived of funds,because you hadn't paid the charges. If you had have paid the charges, then interest at the card rate wouldn't have accrued.In light of this , I feel the banks offer was a reasonable one and I would not ask it to make any further refunds in this respect.'

I have read this a few times and it still does not make sense to me.

As I see it they have applied interest to the charges which in effect is another charge and I am asking for this to be returned. They aren't going to physically give it back to you because you have never physically paid it in the first place,

If the balance had been completely paid of and down to NIL, i.e you had paid everything that had ever showed on the statement and now had no balance at all on your account, then I could see there would be a case. But as it stands at the moment, with the info you've given, then I can't see that there is anything to be gained by taking this any further.

It would be like you lending me 100 quid, which I never paid you back, then me saying that not only did you illegally lend me the 100 quid, so you have to wipe it out, but as well as that I want the 100 repaying. So I get back 100 that I never actually paid in the first place.

[MattyA]

Re: Amex v Matty - Partial success

Thanks for your coments Wendy - I kinda get where you are coming from but...

We are talkig about charges here and not the balance as a whole...but
I HAVE paid the PPI / Default charges & associated interest for some 20 + years - the Amex statements show / detail that.

As stated previously they take payment in a particuler order.

They have agreed to pay contractual rate interset up until 2007 and 8% SI since then.......I again question as to why because nothing has changed?

[WendyB]

Re: Amex v Matty - Partial success

Yes but the balance as a whole is partially made up of charges.What they are saying is that because the balance hasn't actually been paid, then you can't have been deprived of funds (for that period, presumably).

Whichever way you look at it, if there is a balance, be it 2k, or 20k, the very fact that there IS a balance means you can't have been deprived of that particular bit of money, however much it is, because you haven't paid it.

Tuttsi has posted up the guidelines etc previously, if there are some in there that you think are exactly the same as your scenario, then you must go ahead as you see fit, but personally if it were me, I wouldn't.

[MattyA]

Re: Amex v Matty - Partial success

Thanks Wendy - I appreciate your comments / views on the matter.

[MattyA]

Re: Amex v Matty - Partial success

Hi

Just thought I would drop by and update this as it has been a while since I last posted - how time flies.

Anyway , this one rumbles on and is still awaiting an ombudsman to review it.

In the meantime if have had various ppi claims upheld and have learned a bit more with regrads to the argument above, due to banks providing me with detailed breakdowns of how they have arrived at their offers of redress.

What I have found out is , that in 'reconstructing my account' to a position it would have been / should have been,in accordance with the FOS guidelines,eventually (If the account is longstanding enough) the refunded premiums and compounded interest can result in a 'notional' credit balance - from which point onwards 8% simple interest is applied to the notional positive balance as I have been deprived of the money.

So whilst not completely on the right track previously , I was barking up the right tree.

As the FOS are taking so long to sort this I have now passed this on to a lawyer to progress through the courts.

This now begs the question :

If in reconstructing the account the balance becomes positive and remains so,increasing month on month - should the banks not be returning the payments made from the point the account bacomes positive along with any interest charged???

Food for thought......


Matty

[Bill-K]

Re: Amex v Matty - Partial success

Hi Matty, and well done for getting your head around the calculations. For your info, the best 'official' example I have found of these is example 6 in Appendix 2 of the FSA's PPI Redress Handbook in PS 10/12, issued in late 2011. The idea of the 'Notional' balance is to theoretically reconstruct the account to show what the balance would have been if the PPI premiums were not charged. The sole reason for doing this is to establish whether 8% compensatory interest should be awarded for your 'loss of use' of that credit during any particular month when it would have been available to you, but for the PPI. This also covers the larger payments that you may have had to make, because of the 'inflated' balance.

The refund of the PPI premiums and apportioned account interest is often credited directly to the card account. If the account is cleared by this, then any surplus is returned to you, along with any compensatory interest due. Returning any surplus repayment amounts to you would simply increase the balance owing by the same amount. Thus the Notional balance would be increased, and the compensatory interest reduced. Finally, the account balance when the PPI is refunded would be higher, and thus the amount of PPI needed to settle the account would be higher. It's a self-cancelling exercise by the time the PPI is refunded, and would not put you any better position financially.

I've attached the spreadsheet I use for credit card PPI claims, which uses the current FSA/FOS calculation methods.

[MattyA]

Re: Amex v Matty - Partial success

Thanks Bill - I will have to re read your comments a few times to get my head round them.

I will also run my numbers through your spreadsheet (thanks)and see what it spits out.
Might need the longer version though as my claims all go back to the mid 90's.

Matty

[Bill-K]

Re: Amex v Matty - Partial success

Added it above now, Matty. Have fun !!!

[MattyA]

Re: Amex v Matty - Partial success

LOL - Cheers Bill.