Misleading MBNA PPI Redress Calculations Leading to Reduced Settlement Offers

[Bill-K]

Re: Misleading MBNA PPI Redress Calculations Leading to Reduced Settlement Offers

Please do adapt the letter to suit your circumstances, DT - and thank you for your interest, my friend.

Thank you to all those who have posted the letters. There may be some who are interested in this matter, but cannot justify the cost of sending these letters - and that is fair enough. However, it would still be a great help if you could email the FOS & FCA a copy of this letter. It costs nothing to do that, and simply needs a few minutes of your time - and a handful of spare electrons.

Please consider emailing the letter - it would help tremendously with getting this matter looked into seriously. Here are the email addresses:-

tony.boorman@financial-ombudsman.org.uk

martin.wheatley@fca.org.uk

[MIKE770]

Re: Misleading MBNA PPI Redress Calculations Leading to Reduced Settlement Offers

LETTERS FROM BOTH, CANNOT LOOK AT INDIVIDUAL COMPLAINTS BUT or similair wordswill file with others for poss use later

[Bill-K]

Re: Misleading MBNA PPI Redress Calculations Leading to Reduced Settlement Offers

Cheers for that, Mike. It is interesting that you got a letter from the FCA, as they have not been replying so far. Can you let us know who the sender's name was ?

As regards the FOS - I can't see how they can tell you that they cannot look at individual complaints !!! But if that reply came from Lynsey Pittaway, then I will assume it was actually her standard 'holding' letter as attached below. Can you confirm, please ?

[MIKE770]

Re: Misleading MBNA PPI Redress Calculations Leading to Reduced Settlement Offers

Cheers for that, Mike. It is interesting that you got a letter from the FCA, as they have not been replying so far. Can you let us know who the sender's name was ?

As regards the FOS - I can't see how they can tell you that they cannot look at individual complaints !!! But if that reply came from Lynsey Pittaway, then I will assume it was actually her standard 'holding' letter as attached below. Can you confirm, please ?

Bill sent attachments to your e=mail address

[MIKE770]

Re: Misleading MBNA PPI Redress Calculations Leading to Reduced Settlement Offers

Cheers for that, Mike. It is interesting that you got a letter from the FCA, as they have not been replying so far. Can you let us know who the sender's name was ?

As regards the FOS - I can't see how they can tell you that they cannot look at individual complaints !!! But if that reply came from Lynsey Pittaway, then I will assume it was actually her standard 'holding' letter as attached below. Can you confirm, please ?

FOS same trash response.

[Bill-K]

Re: Misleading MBNA PPI Redress Calculations Leading to Reduced Settlement Offers

Thanks for that Mike - I got the scans. Yes - the FOS reply was the same 'holding letter' that our Lynsey has been sending out. But this is good - because she is clearly now getting all such letters dumped on her desk - which means that this matter is being given at least a modicum of attention.

As for the FCA reply - I have now heard that this has been received by several others as well. Given the timing, I reckon that the FCA may have now also realised that this is more than just one disgruntled PPI claimant venting their spleen. The important thing is that the FCA have asked for more details - and that is exactly what we hoped to achieve by this 'mail-shot.' In effect, we are now being given an invitation to engage with the FCA over this matter, and they are clearly seeing it as a 'group action' - as opposed to a singular and lonely Mr Angry just 'taking a swing' at them.

It is looking good, Houston, IMHO.

[MIKE770]

Re: Misleading MBNA PPI Redress Calculations Leading to Reduced Settlement Offers

so must make sure they are given all the evidence from people!

[Bill-K]

Re: Misleading MBNA PPI Redress Calculations Leading to Reduced Settlement Offers

Yes - this is the next phase. We have the evidence ready.

[Amethyst]

Re: Misleading MBNA PPI Redress Calculations Leading to Reduced Settlement Offers

Goodness, reading that Lynsey's letter, I tend to think the Plain Intelligible English campaign has gone a little bit too far.

[Bill-K]

Re: Misleading MBNA PPI Redress Calculations Leading to Reduced Settlement Offers

It matters little, Ame. It's what we expected. The fact is that dear Lynsey has sent this mindless missive out to enough peeps to make it a noticeable 'trend' (to use a further bit of mindless FB-speak.)

This matter (erm...the MBNA calc. scam - NOT the mindless missive, Ame - do try and keep up...) has been noticed by the FCA now, and that was the object of the exercise.

[Bill-K]

Re: Misleading MBNA PPI Redress Calculations Leading to Reduced Settlement Offers

I am most pleased to announce that we have now received a request from the FCA's PPI Redress Team Manager for full details of our analysis.This was the eventual outcome we had hoped for from this 'mail-drop' exercise, and it is entirely the result of the efforts of those who sent letters and emails to the FCA & FOS. There is therefore no need of any further letters/emails to either the FCA or FOS - and I and the 'MBNA Calculation Group' wish to thank those here in LB who have supported us with this venture. We will report back here when we have any news or results, but we may not know the outcome until such time as the FCA or FOS publishes it.

[loulouxx]

Re: Misleading MBNA PPI Redress Calculations Leading to Reduced Settlement Offers

I am having the exact problem with Canada Square in regards to the redress. As the loan was sold on a third party it changes the calculations completely. I don't think MBNA is the only ones and from what I can gather from research is that firms are offering low settlements hoping the consumer will take it and not do the working out as it can take a further 2 years with the FOS. I sent an email to Ian clark at Canada Square who is dealing with my complaint and made me my offer with my calculations based on the link I attached from the FOS website. The other issue that I found in my research was the 'Offset Rules' and how theyre interpreted the companies. In my case Egg sold the debt on to a third party. On my credit file under the entry of Prudential Group AKA Egg the loan is listed as settled in 2011 then there is the entry from the DCA in 2011 as defaulted. Canada square an saying that they are taking £756 to bring the loan to where it should be had PPI not been added as they day per the FSA handbook. But I have found the following from the FSA handbook under the same section that tells another story entirely I quote '(1) for live policies:
(a) subject to DISP App 3.7.5 E, where there remains an outstanding loan balance, the firm should, where possible, arrange for the loan to be restructured (without charge to the complainant but using any applicable cancellation value) with the effect of:
(i) removing amounts relating to the payment protection contract (including any interest and charges); and
(ii) ensuring the number and amounts of any future repayments (including any interest and charges) are the same as would have applied if the complainant had taken the loan without the payment protection contract; or
(b) where the firm is not able to arrange for the loan to be restructured (e.g. because the loan is provided by a separate firm), it should pay the complainant an amount equal to the difference between the actual loan balance and what the loan balance would have been if the payment protection contract (including any interest and charges) had not been added, deducting the current cancellation value. The firm should offer to pay any charges incurred if the complainant uses this amount to reduce his loan balance; ' This seems to be another ploy from the banks/companies. What do you think? Don't get me wrong I have every intention of paying what I owe but right now I have more pressing debts to pay. IMO the company that sold the debt on have already got their money back and any tax relief on top so technically the customer doesn't owe them anything.

[Bill-K]

Re: Misleading MBNA PPI Redress Calculations Leading to Reduced Settlement Offers

Hi Loulou - well done for rolling your sleeves up and getting into PS10/12's DISP APP 3 stuff !!!

From what I understand, this is yet another debate that may need to be seen through. If the Original Creditor (OC) sells the debt on to a DCA, then this is usually at a very much reduced price. As I understand it (and I'm not an accountant by a long shot) - they can write this off as a tax loss - and the taxpayer ultimately foots the bill. Having done this, then I cannot see any justification for seeking to recoup that loss from the borrower. Indeed - it may even amount to defrauding the Inland Revenue (and hence the Great British Public).

Once the DCA has bought the right to pursue the debt, then I do believe that they have also bought (many - if not all of) the liabilities that the OC originally had - to ensure that the claimant is put back into the position they would have been had they not been mis-sold the PPI. The 'delinquency' of the debt could be said to be the fault of the OC, having mis-sold the PPI - and yet the OC has managed to recoup its apparent 'losses' as a tax loss - when in fact they made a profit out of their mis-selling. Meanwhile, the poor PPI claimant is stung a second time by the DCA.

Nope - that ain't right to my tiny mind. Is there a greater mind here in LB that would care to make better sense of this than I can ? I'm sure there must be...

[dogtired]

Re: Misleading MBNA PPI Redress Calculations Leading to Reduced Settlement Offers

Glad you got the reply Bill, here's hoping for success.
Sorry did not write myself in the end, got yet another battle with my mortgage provider.
But you know that BOS passed them on.
On one they settled the balance on it and I got the small remainder.
The other I got a larger amount and they said it was settled but despite this an alleged remainder has been past around several DCAs.

[loulouxx]

Re: Misleading MBNA PPI Redress Calculations Leading to Reduced Settlement Offers

Thanks for the reply Bill-K! Research is key! It's surprising what you can learn with a good internet connection

The loan is listed as settled on my credit file and I have confirmation from the DCA that they own all rights to the loan. I find that all big businesses will use the FSA handbook to justify their actions but so can the consumer too if you know the relevant section it applies to. Having worked out exactly what redress I am entitled to Canada Square 20% lower than what the FOS says I am entitled to. IMO banks and financial institutions will always try to get away with paying the consumer less and succeed 80% of the time because they don't have clue like I was of what they are entitled to. My advice to anyone is to get all your paperwork and research your claim inside and out get a approx. figure of what you should get then ahead with it.