Amex v Matty - Partial success

[TUTTSI]

Re: Amex v Matty - Partial success

Well done Matty for getting this far, please let us know the final outcome once known.

Is this a case of AMEX finally settling with you before getting to court I wonder?

Just make sure you get your fair dues as you are entitled to.

[MattyA]

Re: Amex v Matty - Partial success

Will do Tuttsi - I hope so,we will see.
If not I am up for the scrap as it has gone on long enough now.
Matty

[MattyA]

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.

Right - I have enetered all my info into the spreadsheet and come up with £27oddK - which I am happy is there or thereabouts re the refund of PPI premiums,associated interest and 8% where applicable.
My own calcs got the figure a bit higher than this but the difference is down to the changing contractual interest rate over the 25 years or so that the account was running.

Fantastic spreadsheet Bill !!! Thank you.

What I still dont get (and I believe it is only applicable to very long standing accounts with high balances )is the notional zero balance and interest in compansation.
If the balance on a card is sak £10K in August 2003 and the refunded premiums and associated interest negate the is at this date (as the card had been open 15years) - the 8% compensation does not cover the payments or interest made from this point on - the payments or interest charged by the provider are not picked up in any of the redress calcs and therefore the provider even after paying compensation is STILL benefitting (to some tune) from their wrong doing.

I have calculated that the payments made / interest(less that associated with the PPI premium) applied to the account since the date(Aug 2003) that the account should have had a Zero balance , total over £20K.

Surely this should be refunded along with 8% simple interest in compensation?
(NB - The 8% as per your spreadsheet amounts to £5K over the same period.)

I trust that the above makes sense - it is difficult to put down clearly in words,but I know what I mean ....lol

Any views/comments would be appreciated as I am preparing to go legal on this.


Regards,

Matty

[Bill-K]

Re: Amex v Matty - Partial success

It's good that you chose to check out my spready, and compare it with yours, Matty.

Originally, we claimed 8% SI on ALL payments and debited interest - from the date debited to the claim date. However - since PS 10/12 last year, the FOS have advocated a different method, which ONLY allocates SI on any 'notional' balance, if it would have been a 'credit' balance. I don't like it, myself - but it is what the FOS dictate, if we are to use them to resolve our claim.

If you are intending to litigate via the courts, then this does not necessarily have to be adhered to. So your own calculations may well be OK for this. BUT - court action is not seen as a safe route for PPI claims, so I can only suggest that you tread very carefully.

The PPI which was actually paid - and the attributed interest on that - are being reclaimed. The 8% SI is merely a 'compensatory' amount for the loss of use of that money during periods when you would not have had a 'negative' account balance.

I agree that it should perhaps be a higher amount - but that is a separate argument, and one which may well continue for a long time, yet. The REAL 'Contractual Interest' argument.

[MattyA]

Re: Amex v Matty - Partial success

It's good that you chose to check out my spready, and compare it with yours, Matty.

Originally, we claimed 8% SI on ALL payments and debited interest - from the date debited to the claim date. However - since PS 10/12 last year, the FOS have advocated a different method, which ONLY allocates SI on any 'notional' balance, if it would have been a 'credit' balance. I don't like it, myself - but it is what the FOS dictate, if we are to use them to resolve our claim.

If you are intending to litigate via the courts, then this does not necessarily have to be adhered to. So your own calculations may well be OK for this. BUT - court action is not seen as a safe route for PPI claims, so I can only suggest that you tread very carefully.

The PPI which was actually paid - and the attributed interest on that - are being reclaimed. The 8% SI is merely a 'compensatory' amount for the loss of use of that money during periods when you would not have had a 'negative' account balance.

I agree that it should perhaps be a higher amount - but that is a separate argument, and one which may well continue for a long time, yet. The REAL 'Contractual Interest' argument.

Cheers Bill - Your comments are much appreciated and give me some hope that I am not going completely insane (yet) with my thought patterns re my claims.

Matty