MBNA - Amazing what they do and nobody can tell them to stop ?1?

[birkopf]

Re: MBNA - Amazing what they do and nobody can tell them to stop ?1?

As I am not able to edit or remove previous message, I am sending below shortened letter to Financial Ombudsman:


Iam writing to bring to your attention severe problems as well as the unsatisfactory service that I have received from the Financial Ombudsman Service (further addressed as FOS) in regards to the case ref [removed].

Asa government organization which is supposed to provide help to peoplethat are often powerless against corporations, I believe the FOS hasconsequently failed in this role and its primary purpose.

Myofficial exchanges with FOS started in October 2011 and lasted untilJan 2013 (16 months). Over 200 emails have been exchanged between meand FOS consultants which include, but are not limited to:

[removed],

Thedocumentation which I have gathered for the requirements of the casecontains well over 500 pages of documents, statements, bills letters,et cetera. This evidence has been acquired with the use of largeamounts of mytime and initiative. Documentation clearly shows even to a lay personthe fact that I am in line with the law, however FOS has ruleddifferently. Iam deeply offended and astonished with such negligence.

Idemand a reimbursement, an apology and appropriate actions to betaken against relevant Adjudicators, MBNA and the merchant.

THEMERITUM OF MY CASE


Onthe 30 April 2010 I have used my MBNA Credit Card to pay for my May’s2010 rent installment. Unfortunately, the Merchanthas never processed this transaction.

Table1.0 - Chronological Events

April 2010	Rented a flat in London (Standard Shorthold Tenancy Agreement, 6mths starting April 2010, ending November 2010)
30 April 2010	Paid for May’s 2010 rent using MBNA UK Credit Card
18 May 2010	Cleared the balance with MBNA and closed account under the Terms and Conditions point 10c. Further details in Appendix A.
30 Nov 2010	Ceased my tenancy, moved out from the flat, and moved out of UK
30 Jun 2011	Unknown transaction appeared on my account (closed in May 2010) with the date of 30 Apr 2011
13 September 2011	I have been notified by an automatic email about arrears on my closed account. This is how I found out about above transaction
September 2011	I have immediately reported to MBNA this transaction as unrecognized and requested investigation
October 2011	MBNA concluded that the transaction was genuine, the date was correct, and that the PIN was used to authorize it.
October 2011	I have requested FOS to investigate and filed a complaint against MBNA, as I did not agree with the MBNA conclusion and contrary information coming from them.
13 August 2012	FOS issued their initial decision, which I have appealed
13 December 2012	M. Ingram issued final decision on behalf of FOS 16 months later

Belowfollows what I have found out after many months of intensiveresearch. Twodifferent transactions were made.
Firstoneoriginated from me and wasnever billed.To avoid loss, the merchant used my personal data and issuedanother/second transaction without my knowledge.

Table1.1 – Visual presentation of two different transactions

Item	Original Transaction Authorized by me	Manipulated transaction Unauthorized
Transaction Date	30/04/2010	30/04/2011
Transaction Time	15:31	00:00 (none)
Billed Date	Never	30/06/2011
Amount	823.23 GBP	823.23 GBP
Authorization Code	[removed]	None
Entry Mode	PIN, My (card owner’s) physical presence	Sale, 05, “Integration circuit card read-CVV data reliable”
Type of transaction	Card terminal	On-line payment gateway via WORLDPAY UK (different means)
Proof supplied to FOS?	Yes	Yes

Notes:

• As the attached two sets of payment slips show, I have used my PIN and authorized only the first transactionin April 2010, but it was never billed. Statements were provided to Adjudicators.

• The second transaction from June 2011 has been created by the Merchant themselves; over the Internet; without the use of my PIN, without the use of any other authorization method and without the card owner’s permission.

• MBNA states that it is genuine, that the PIN was used, and claims that the first transaction has been carried out at the date of the second transaction.

• MBNA refused to provide any evidence supporting such a claim. Furthermore, MBNA has refused to confront my original slip against their payment system and empty claims. Both sets of documents were provided to the adjudicators, but they were ignored.

• I have also spoken to WorldPay UK (Acquirer on that transaction) and they have confirmed that the transaction from June 2011 is invalid because it doesn’t have an authorization code, Unique Transaction ID and card owner’s permission. The adjudicator has ignored this fact.

• WorldPay also stated that they cannot track this transaction on their system at all and the merchant in question does not have a valid account with them (anymore?).

• I was not entirely sure if such practices (using personal data, card data, creating and self-authorizing transactions without card owners consent) were legal therefore I have asked FOS to investigate and explain that, although this requesthas been alsoneglected.

• The attached documents show that the payment has been processed to merchant liking in June 2011 (not April 2010), although MBNA is claiming that my PIN has been used on that particular transaction to process it. This is a false statement. Furthermore - Subject Access Request confirms that. Adjudicator apparently has reviewed S.A.R.

• After my complaint, the Merchant has admitted

• to Adjudicators
• to MBNA
• as well as to Myself,

thatthey have overlooked it and the April 2010 transaction was notbilled at all. One year later they have createdanothertransaction to match the amount and hoped that nobody would notice.

• As stated by [removed] (“The Landlord”), when they have finally found out about this error one year later, they have used my personal and my card details (stored without my consent) to process this payment once more, however, this time:

• Manually (themselves),
• Without my/owner’s presence
• Via online payment system, not card terminal
• Manipulating my personal details and my card details (only the amount was the same)
• Without my knowledge and permission

Theattached documents clearly show that we are dealing with twodifferent transactions.Neither Ms Earl nor Mr. Ingram understood this fact, even after Ihave pointed this out on more than three occasions.

LEGALBASE

Theauthorized transaction took place on the 30 April 2010 (as you cansee on the attached original payment slip which was obviouslyprovided to the Adjudicator).

1. If the Merchant would process it within 180 days, the payment would clear, it will be legal and the card owner would not have any legal ground to challenge it;

1. If the Merchant would process it after 180 days, the Merchant would be in breach of Visa Regulations and the card owner would have the right to dispute it.

• I have provided the Visa Regulations handbook to MBNA and FOS, even though this is not my role.

Accordingto “Visa Chargeback & Dispute Resolution Scheme Rules”, aswell as “Chargeback Management Guidelines for Visa Merchants”,there are at least two applicable legal bases to fulfill thisrequest.

Code73 mayalso be applicable, as the card was cancelled - meaning “notvalid”, “out of date”. Visa International Operating Regulationsstate explicitly, that every single company providing VISA cards mustact in accordance to those regulations. The card-system is a propertyof the issuer that is VISA International. MBNApart of Bank of America is formally bound by them. MBNA Terms andConditions “Point C” definitively state that it subscribes to thecard scheme, therefore MBNA follows the Visa Regulations as confirmedto me by Visa upon checking.

FOLLOWINGIS THE EXTRACT FROM HANDBOOKS (provided to MBNA and FOS)

Reason Code 74 Late Presentment Overview: Reason Code 74 Time Limit: 120 calendar days Description: Transaction was not processed within the required time limits and the account was not in good standing on the Processing Date, or the Transaction was processed more than 180 calendar days from the Transaction Date. Requirements: Sales Receipt Older than 181 Days Instructions: (NR) If the sales receipt was deposited more than 181 days after the transaction date, accept the chargeback. (In this situation, the cardholder’s account status is not a factor.) No remedies exist for chargebacks on sales receipts deposited 181 days or longer after the transaction date. Media Required: Limited reversal rights: Permitted only if credit was issued or if proof can be presented that the sale was processed within the allotted time.

Reason Code 74 Cardholder Does Not Recognize Overview: Reason Code 75 Time Limit: 120 calendar days Description: The Cardholder does not recognize the Transaction and additional information beyond the data required in the Clearing Record is needed to determine Transaction validity. Requirements: Cardholder does not recognize the sale and the issuer has made a good-faith effort to help the cardholder recognize it. Instructions: (PR) Provide any documentation or information that would assist the cardholder in recognizing the transaction. For example: • Sales receipt • Shipping invoice or delivery receipts • Description of merchandise or service purchased Media Required: A signed sales receipt with imprint or swipe. If card-not-present transaction, invoice, AVS results, CVV2 results, and signed proof of delivery.

• I believe that 16 months of co-operation and providing evidence is “a good-faith effort” in its best meaning to help recognize it. I have even provided all of the above Handbooks to MBNA and FOS, so that both of the organizations could familiarize themselves with them.

MBNAin breach of Visa Regulations 74 and 75


Table1.2 – Visual illustration of billing dates and falsification

Item	Authorized Transaction	Unauthorized/Disputed Transaction
Transaction Date	30/04/2010	30/04/2011
Transaction Time	15:31	00:00 (none)
Validity Period Start	30/04/2010	30/04/2011
Validity Period End	27/10/2010 (180 days)	27/10/2011 (180 days)
Billed	No, never	Yes, 30/06/2011
Within Validity Period?	No	Yes

Notes:

TheMerchant has tampered with my personal and card details and havecreated another, almostidentical,transaction.The Merchant has adjusted the date to 30 April 2011and billedin June 2011 tomake it look like the original one. Due to this falsificationby merchant,both MBNA and merchant were able to get away with it and bypass theVisa Regulations.

1. The above table and attached evidence shows that I have also proven a fraud, which was ignored by the Adjudicator.

1. This fraudulent practice is against the law.

1. This falsification gave an unlawful right to MBNA to refuse disputing the second transaction as per my request, because the falsified date shows 30/04/2011 and the date of billing as 30/06/2011 which is within 180 days period.

1. On the 2 Jul 2012 I have requested in writing from MBNA a proof of both transactions (authorization codes, unique ID’s, etc). This has never been provided.

RIGHTTO REJECT


Ihave rejected this transaction on the basis that:

• The first (authorized) transaction time for billing by the Merchant has expired in October 2010; and it was never billed.

• The second transaction did not originate from me (falsification);

• My details were used without my consent;

• The Merchant has further falsified the details of the second transaction

(Itis worth mentioning again, that I have closedmy account underthe MBNA Terms and Conditions point 10cinMay 2010, thereforeVisaCode 73 is additionally applicable.I have cut up my card and cancelled the account; therefore this falsetransaction has been billed on a closed account – certainlyby other means than a PIN authorization as claimed by MBNA).


OUTCOMETO DATE

• MBNA has refused to dispute this transaction on the basis that the time between the unauthorized transaction date and the billing to my closed account was less than 6 months (180 days).

• I have pointed out to both MBNA and FOS that the second transaction didn’t originate from me, and provided them with the payment documents for both transactions. Both MBNA and FOS failed to acknowledge it.

• Under the MBNA Credit Card Agreement, Point 14 - Refunds and Claims, I have the undeniable right to dispute and request a refund after pointing out all of the above, which I did. Additionally, I have requested it additionally under:

• Consumer Credit Act
• Visa Regulations

MBNATerms and Conditions


“14.1. Wewill give you a refund on your account for a transaction only if:

1. We receive refund details from the supplier;
2. We are satisfied that neither you nor an additional cardholder authorized the transaction (and did not act dishonestly)
3. We are able to claim a refund for you through the card scheme;”

• All of the above is sufficient for anyone to understand what has happened and uphold my rejection upon reviewing details of those transactions.

• The Ombudsman has dismissed my appeals and has not provided me with the help I believe I should have received. The adjudicators were replying mostly with refusal stating that”it is not an Ombudsman’s role”.

BEINGUNFAIRLY TREATED AND CHARGED BY MBNA

• Being forced into such position, I have experienced further misconduct from the Adjudicator and MBNA.

• I have repeatedly requested MBNA to stop charging me interest on the disputed transaction while it was being investigated by FOS.

• Point 8d of MBNA Terms and Conditions as well as Point 2.5 MBNA Credit Card Agreement Regulated By The Consumer Credit Act 1974 grants me this right.

CreditCard Agreement: 2.5 – “Unless you have a legal right to do so,you must not hold back
apayment or refuse to pay anything you owe us because of adisagreement between you or an additional card holder and a thirdparty”

• MBNA is bound by their own terms on Credit Card Agreement, yet has breached them.

• I have requested MBNA to repair their error and stop collecting interest which they refused.
• I have also requested the Adjudicator to mediate with MBNA in my name. This has been delayed for months which exposed me to MBNA debt collection practices (Appendix A).
• Finally, MBNA stopped charging me for a short while, but about a month later they have restarted doing so and the Adjudicator was helpless.

• I have also repeatedly requested MBNA to stop harassing me with calls from debt collectors and written correspondence as I was not avoiding paying off my balance. I was simply awaiting the decision that FOS should provide me with (Appendix A).

ITEMISEDCHARGES


Irequest a full reimbursement as per the table below.

Table1.3 – Itemised charges

Itemized charges	Amount
Over 500 pages of documents at £5 each (includes fee for scanning and photocopying)	£ 2,500
Over 200 emails at £5 each	£ 1,000
Over 10 formal letters at £15 each (includes recorded postal charges)	£ 150
Over 30 on-line reports at £10 each	£ 300
Over 80 calls under 1 hour at £15 each (including call cost)	£ 1,200
Over 200 hours of time unnecessarily spent on this case instead of being used for my formal work which is being paid at hourly rate of £18.23	£ 3,646
MBNA to reimburse SAR and ‘copy of statements’ (includes charges)	£ 60
MBNA to reimburse unfair interest and charges	£ 430.69
MBNA to reimburse transaction which wasn’t disputed as formally requested	£823.23
Interest on the days which I had to wait for correct decision @ 8%p.a.	TBC
Legal fees if this case will be directed to the court	TBC
Total	£ 10,109.92

FINAL F.O.S. RESPONSE by M. INGRAM


Mr.Ingram, who issued a final response on behalf of FOS, has stated that"allaspects (documents) were taken into consideration",yet he omitted to refer to any of my points, which is truly shocking.

1. Mr. Ingram’s response shows that he completely misunderstood the reason of my complaint and that he never familiarised himself with the evidence provided.

1. He states in his 4^th paragraph that the original transaction was made in April 2010 (which is correct) just to say in the next paragraph that, I quote “It had not been processed until June 2011, two months after it was made.”

• I am truly astonished that a person holding such a responsible position cannot count at the level of primary school!

• It seems obvious that the time gap between April 2010 and June 2011 is 14 months, not 2 months as written in FOS’s final response.

Hiscomplete lack of understandingdoes notend there:

1. Mr. Ingram has inverted the case against me and stipulated that I am being liable for this false transaction on my closed account (Appendix A).

• As a card holder I am aware of my responsibilities and never avoided them, although I am only liable for the transactions that are authentic and not fraudulent, in which case I have the right to successfully dispute them.

• His conclusion skewed the correctness of his reasoning and set the incorrect tone to the rest of the letter, which has de facto wasted 16 months of my hard work.

1. Further on, Mr. Ingram’s states that the Ombudsman service has been established to resolve complaints about financial businesses “quickly and formally”.

• I will leave this without any additional comment from my side as I believe that after 16 months of my suffering with FOS incapability - none is required.

1. Mr. Ingram’s states that he has “concentrated on what is the main point of my complaint” and that he has not commented on the points I raised but “can assure me, that he has considered carefully everything I said and written”

• In the light of the evident mistakes in his response as well as the evidence supplied to the Ombudsman, I lack words to express my dissatisfaction, fury and grief with such a negligence and arrogance!

• How could he “concentrate on the main points of my complaint” if he has a trouble with understanding the documentation and correspondence that has been supplied to the Ombudsman in the first place? He has“concentrated” on something entirely different as per point 1 and 3 above.

1. Shockingly, he states that “he is not interested in the exact details provided to the Ombudsman” as they are “not relevant to his overall findings” and he decides on the basis that “I have authorized the disputed payment”.

• It seems that he has decided that himself and will have a trouble supporting this decision, therefore I would like to challenge it and I am requesting hereby for proof of such a statement.

• As written in this letter, I have never authorized the second payment which he refers to, as it was created by merchant, without my permission.

Mr.Ingram’s has the cheek to imply that I am a liar and stipulatesthat I haven’t cut up my card in May 2010 and secretly engaged inthe second transaction. He also says that he agrees that I have beenabroad, but this does not rule out the possibility that I have “askedsomeone else to make the payment for me”.

• He does not mention when and where, although I would like to receive such answer and evidence supporting this slander and illogical accusations.

• Even if I would still have this card (which is a ridiculous idea after the problems that MBNA has put me through and which are described in Appendix A) this account has been cancelled since May 2010 which Mr. Ingram’s selectively recognized.

• How could I exercise a payment mid 2011 on a closed account (in 2010)?

• I have checked with MBNA who has confirmed that I quote “A payment will be automatically rejected by a system if the card would be used after account closure”.

• Why would I ask anyone to make a payment for a ceased rental agreement?

• Where does this lead us now, if such an evident mistake has been done again by a senior Ombudsman and which is the core of his reply and denial of disputing the transaction in question?

1. Mr. Ingram mentions that I said that I have never dealt with the merchant in question. This is true and I have said that initially, although it has been pointed out to me later on, that the merchants name could be the name of a “superior landlord”. I did not know who the owner of the flat was and what his name was. I have never dealt directly with landlord. I rented from a letting agency and dealt solely with them.

• I have admitted that and apologized to Ms Earl after checking carefully my payment slips for the rent. This has been resolved a long time ago, although Mr. Ingram has unprofessionally brought this to the merits of my case.
• Why has he done it if he was concentrating only on the “authenticity of the transaction”?

1. Finally Mr. Ingram states that he is unaware of “Visa Regulations” and “he believes” that I was referring to the time between the date of transaction and the processment date.

• As an experienced Ombudsman – and only such should issue a response upon appeal, Mr. Ingram should stop believing and look at the evidence which is sufficient to issue a correct decision, without the necessity of me waiting for 16 long months.

1. His sentence “Here the payment was taken in April 2011 (so it’s not April 2010 anymore?) and processed in June 2011 – that is, within two months” undermines further his response.

1. His incorrect believes and lack of counting skills lead him to issue an incorrect decision, which resulted in a punishment for me which I am hereby disputing and demanding from Ombudsman to fix his mistakes within 14 days of this letter date.

Table1.4: Final table showing merits of my letter

1. Authorized transaction in April 2010. - Not presented in time. - Should not pay rephrase 2. Unauthorized transaction April 2011. - Account already closed. - Card cut up. - Card owner no longer in the rental property - No contract between the card owner and the merchant 3. Paying interest & MBNA charges during FOS’s investigation 4. Lack of support from MBNA and especially FOS 5. Stress, time and costs encountered due to faults of both organisations - All the above issues were pointed out to FOS and MBNA - Both organisations were supplied with the documents - Everything that humanly could be done from my side has been done