Need help with FOS letter after 2nd rejection letter from MBNA

[Angry Cat]

Re: Need help with FOS letter after 2nd rejection letter from MBNA

Apologies, kellywilko for cutting in on your thread, only trying to help:beagle::beagle:

[Ken100464]

Re: Need help with FOS letter after 2nd rejection letter from MBNA

You want to ask the question why in real life the PPI premiums will attract associated interest at the rate on the card at the time but in MBNA world they subtract these pretend surplus amounts for minimum balance payments and subject them to 8%simple only.

The loss to the consumer is the difference between the card rate associated interest rate (which actually happened) and the 8% simple. (which reduces the claim to MBNA's benifit)

The reconstructions do not follow the publicly viewable FCA/FOS methods.

Complain to the regulators and your MP. If we get the regulators on our side then MBNA will be forced to recalculate.

[Ken100464]

Re: Need help with FOS letter after 2nd rejection letter from MBNA

Just seen that spreadsheet. Is that an actual MBNA spreadsheet in Amethyst's post and if so what is the build number?

Thats just sick removing £4000 from the account which will in real life have been attracting interest at the card rate and replacing it with 8% simple.

Shame on them. Swapping something that actually happened after an event that has now been admitted now as miss-selling with a fantasy world of reconstruction as they know what we would have done if we hadnt been miss-sold the policy.

This started about June 2012 as prior to this MBNA were calculating using FSA method. We have details of the MBNA build numbers hence why the request, as it has gone quiet on the forums and no one seems to be questioning this at the moment. This is the only account of this date I have seen.

OP please be aware there is a number of us with FOS right now waiting to put these very points to an ombudsman.

FCA/FOS and MP's have been notified and are interested in what MBNA are up to.

[Ken100464]

Re: Need help with FOS letter after 2nd rejection letter from MBNA

And here is where the arguement is going to be

MBNA, wrote:
"The redress calculation is intended to put you in the position you would have been had you not bought the PPI, it does this by refunding your PPI premiums, historic interest where relevant and 8% interest on any periods where your account would have been in credit. In addition to this we include additional 8% compensation for any surplus payments that were made through the period of the insurance contract.
This is how it should be done
We determine these sums by applying the FOS guidance of reconstructing the account and assuming the customer made the same payments each month.(Yes lets reconstruct the account with how the consumer actually operated the account) To do this we identify full and minimum payments and ensure that we apply the same type of payment in the reconstruction as was applied to the account with PPI. In cases where the customer payment behaviour cannot be clearly interpreted, no reconstruction of the payment takes place. If any surplus payment is identified within the reconstruction it is remediated and an additional 8% interest simple per annum is credited along with it in line with FOS technical guidance published March 2013."(This is the crucial point that we have to overturn. If they win then this will reduce the payments as seen. If we win then they will have to recalculate. So any idea's to rebut this.? In my mind in real life associated interest at the card rate has been added into the account which increases the ACTUAL balance. To return you to where you should have been if the PPI wasnt there (The whole point of the redress not just give you back a portion of what they have taken) then surely ALL associated interest due to the PPI must be removed, not what might have happened if they are allowed to reconstruct the account as they see fit.)

:beagle:

[Turboman]

Re: Need help with FOS letter after 2nd rejection letter from MBNA

phew---haven't time to catch up---far too much complex info (Mrs Turbo knee job and me a carer-lol) but AngryCat & Ken & bill are more familiar so hope they can help

[kellywilko]

Re: Need help with FOS letter after 2nd rejection letter from MBNA

Hi all, just seen all the amazing posts. Seems i've put the cat among the pigeons on this one. Waiting to hear from Bill-k and you guys on what you think they are up to and will then go back to FOS re accepting the cheque i'm holding, but only as a part payment. For Ken 100464, the built number is V20D-B038. Sorry if i've given some people a major headache on this one. If more info is needed please let me know. Once again BIG THANK YOU, TO YOU ALL.

[Ken100464]

Re: Need help with FOS letter after 2nd rejection letter from MBNA

Hi all, just seen all the amazing posts. Seems i've put the cat among the pigeons on this one. Waiting to hear from Bill-k and you guys on what you think they are up to and will then go back to FOS re accepting the cheque i'm holding, but only as a part payment. For Ken 100464, the built number is V20D-B038. Sorry if i've given some people a major headache on this one. If more info is needed please let me know. Once again BIG THANK YOU, TO YOU ALL.

Well MBNA have updated the build number yet again so thank you for that Kelly. I would like to think its because they have now added insult to injury by applying the tax to the 8% (Yes its due but the balance is inflated due to what they are doing so you are paying more tax than you should if they werent doing what they are)

We havnt seen that before on their spreadsheets. But other than that its the same old same old and the FCA do not seem to have taken this onboard. More complaints to them please anyone who is reading.

[Angry Cat]

Re: Need help with FOS letter after 2nd rejection letter from MBNA

And here is where the arguement is going to be

Originally Posted by Angry Cat
MBNA, wrote:
"The redress calculation is intended to put you in the position you would have been had you not bought the PPI, it does this by refunding your PPI premiums, historic interest where relevant and 8% interest on any periods where your account would have been in credit. In addition to this we include additional 8% compensation for any surplus payments that were made through the period of the insurance contract.
This is how it should be done
We determine these sums by applying the FOS guidance of reconstructing the account and assuming the customer made the same payments each month.(Yes lets reconstruct the account with how the consumer actually operated the account) To do this we identify full and minimum payments and ensure that we apply the same type of payment in the reconstruction as was applied to the account with PPI. In cases where the customer payment behaviour cannot be clearly interpreted, no reconstruction of the payment takes place. If any surplus payment is identified within the reconstruction it is remediated and an additional 8% interest simple per annum is credited along with it in line with FOS technical guidance published March 2013."(This is the crucial point that we have to overturn. If they win then this will reduce the payments as seen. If we win then they will have to recalculate. So any idea's to rebut this.? In my mind in real life associated interest at the card rate has been added into the account which increases the ACTUAL balance. To return you to where you should have been if the PPI wasnt there (The whole point of the redress not just give you back a portion of what they have taken) then surely ALL associated interest due to the PPI must be removed, not what might have happened if they are allowed to reconstruct the account as they see fit.)

And I think that we all know what they are doing...

[Amethyst]

Re: Need help with FOS letter after 2nd rejection letter from MBNA

One question I had for Kelly - the red payments figures on the MBNA spreadsheet - were those the actual payments you made at the time ?

[Angry Cat]

Re: Need help with FOS letter after 2nd rejection letter from MBNA

My post #59 shows the wording that I received from MBNA in a template letter. Of course, their template letter to me was totally illogical as it did not even come close to the concerns that I had written in about; it was a template; one hat fits all answer!
However, I believe that it does demonstrate just how they are arriving at their redress calculations.

I have been a member of the MBNA Fan Club for approximately 10 years; their reputation goes before them...!

Of course, one can only speak personally, but most certainly they have not calculated my and others PPI redress correctly;
as the customer actually operated the account;
applying the actual and correct associated interest rates that varied, sometimes month by month etc...

MBNA, cannot just reconstruct the account how they (MBNA) think that it should have been, as opposed to what was actually charged!

[Angry Cat]

Re: Need help with FOS letter after 2nd rejection letter from MBNA

One question I had for Kelly - the red payments figures on the MBNA spreadsheet - were those the actual payments you made at the time ?

I have the same question, Amethyst?

[Ken100464]

Re: Need help with FOS letter after 2nd rejection letter from MBNA

And thats the problem because the FOS interpretation seems to say they can. By using minimum and full payments they know what we would have done. A minimum and full payment again but on the reconstructed balance.

If that point can be overturned using the regulators own rulebook then a recalculation has to follow.

Not being negative just see this as you have to convince FOS that MBNA have seen a chink in the interpretation of the rules and driven a tank through it.

Any advice would be most welcome as I am at FOS with them right now.

[Bill-K]

Re: Need help with FOS letter after 2nd rejection letter from MBNA

As I understand, the FOS have to abide by the FSA/FCA rules. For PPI redress, these are in PS 10/12, Appendices 1 & 2. Appendix 2 contains 8 examples of how to calculate redress. Example 6 shows how it should be calculated in this case.

If we take the figures in example 6, and apply the MBNA method to them, then we should get the same result if MBNA are following the FSA rules. If we don't, then they are breaking those rules.

If we could understand exactly how the example 6 figures are calculated, we could do this a different way - by applying those calculations to the FACTUAL amounts and dates that MBNA have supplied Kelly with. This is the method that the FSA/FCA prescribe, and it is not the method that MBNA are using.

I will be so bold as to say that I know this because I DO understand exactly how the example 6 figures are calculated.

"Not a lotta people know dat."

[Amethyst]

Re: Need help with FOS letter after 2nd rejection letter from MBNA

If you take out the 'reconstructed payments' which seem rather beneficial on MBNA's side it would make quite a big difference. However , on the first reconstructed payment the balance would have been below the figure that was paid so it does have to be accounted for.

If you look at Jun 00 there was a payment made of £4000 - MBNA have decided had there been no PPI she would only have paid £3606 leaving a balance - I'd say that Kelly had £4k available - she would have paid the entire balance off that month rather than leaving a small amount accruing interest. Similarly when things got harder and they reverted to minimum payments can it be said for certain they would have paid off just the minimum balance if it were £1.74 rather than £58 odd ?

However they are adding simple interest only on the 'overpayments' (surplus redress) at the time whereas I'm pretty sure they should be adding the 8% on the PPI Premiums paid and interest gained on such rather than just what MBNA reckon was an overpayment each month.

Not explaining myself particularly well here, my apologies, I'm sure Bill will have a better idea what I'm on about.

I agree that in months where Kelly paid more to her account that she would have done had the PPI+interest thereon never have been applied - she has lost use of that money so indeed she should get 8% simple interest and that amount repaid. Fair enough but who decides what she would have done?

BUT MBNA don't adjust Kellys payments all the way back so the simple interest is only accrued from a year after the PPI started, and on Day 1 when she paid £3.97 PPI and interest was charged on it, she should get that back plus 8% across the whole period.

Do we know MBNA's method of charging interest - does the PPI payment get paid first or last (ie does it attract interest in a month there was a payment over the amount of the PPI ?)

Feel free to ignore my inane ramblings, but I think the best idea is to put the figures in a spreadsheet set up to calculate the FOS's/FSA's method of redress and compare those. Where the payment would have been more than the balance due to the PPI+interest thereon being removed then I think a truer picture would be to pay off the balance. Minimum payment parts are a bit stickier.

[Angry Cat]

Re: Need help with FOS letter after 2nd rejection letter from MBNA

And thats the problem because the FOS interpretation seems to say they can. By using minimum and full payments they know what we would have done. A minimum and full payment again but on the reconstructed balance.

If that point can be overturned using the regulators own rulebook then a recalculation has to follow.

Not being negative just see this as you have to convince FOS that MBNA have seen a chink in the interpretation of the rules and driven a tank through it.

Any advice would be most welcome as I am at FOS with them right now.

Well, I have all my statements; everything in fact from day one. I am also waiting for the result of my recent SAR to be complied with, in which I have specifically have requested the breakdown of exactly how they arrived at the (incorrect) redress figure?
Should make for some interesting reading if, the comply.

Of course, this is not my thread, therefore I am only throwing into the discussion my own personal view(s) on this matter in order to assist the OP and others...