PPI redress confusion

[tjperfick]

I have had a bit of success with reclaiming PPI. I have had a CC, store card and now a catalogue claim upheld. I am however slightly confused at how the redress (or more especially the interest) is calculated.
With the CC and store card the breaddowns were as follows:
premiums £xxx
refund of interest charges on PPI premiums £ xxx
8% simple interest per annum £xxxx
LESS 20% income tas deduction £xxx

The catalogue is as follows:
Premiums £xxx
Interest £xxx ( interest equals 27% of premiums refunded and covers APR interest charges and covers interest on the amounts where the account would have been in credit, but for the premiums charged)

There is no tax deduction.

Do these workings seem correct?

[di30]

Re: PPI redress confusion

I will have a word with Bilk and Turbo on this one for you, they will I'm sure make sure you have received the right redress or not etc :-)

Well done on your success :-) x

[Bill-K]

Re: PPI redress confusion

Hi TJP - and well done with your claims. Yes - there are 3 elements to mis-sold PPI redress, as you have listed.

The PPI premiums, along with the portion of account interest which is attributable to the PPI are the first two elements.

Next, the account is theoretically 'reconstructed' so that a 'Notional Balance' can be calculated - which is what the account balance would have been if the PPI had not been purchased. In any month where this shows a credit balance, then simple interest at the rate of 8% pa is added to the redress.

Finally, any 8% interest is subject to Income Tax, and this may be deducted 'at source' at 20%.

It is possible to check your redress settlements, using a spreadsheet, but you will need your account records/statements etc. to do this.

[di30]

Re: PPI redress confusion

Thank you Bill, as always your a star x

[Bill-K]

Re: PPI redress confusion

Hope I helped, guys. Let me know if you decide to try checking your settlement figures more closely, TJP.

[tjperfick]

Re: PPI redress confusion

Thanks for your quick replies. Bill , I don't have all the statements to hand to work this out. If I send you over the amounts for the claims ( that they have outlined) could you check out for me?

I will send over the cc and the catalogue one's they just seem to vary so much in the interest payments.
cheers

[Bill-K]

Re: PPI redress confusion

Unfortunately, without entering all your figures into spreadsheets, it is not really possible to evaluate PPI settlements just from the total amounts offered, TJP. You would really need all your records, and then you would need to enter the figures into the spreadsheets yourself - which takes time. Once you have done this, I should then be able to take a look and check the figures for you.

[oscar]

Re: PPI redress confusion

they just seem to vary so much in the interest payments.

Probably down to the rate of interest that was charged on the account when it had a balance. Also nee t consider the length of time the account has (or was) open

[Bill-K]

Re: PPI redress confusion

Yes, there are so many other variables, aren't there Oscar ? Some time back, I looked into the multi-tiered interest rates that credit cards applied, and without a huge mainframe working on a daily basis, I concluded that it was nigh on impossible to mimic this with Excel spreadsheets. It can be done, of course - but the complexity of it is far too much for most claimants to grasp - and the time and effort needed to enter the data can be daunting.

I have recently had to look into this aspect again, and I am beginning to think that the data that is held on their mainframes is in a 'relevant format,' and that it should be disclosed with DSAR's. This will require its disclosure in a format that can be used by an average claimant, and I doubt if the banks would be happy with having to transpose their mainframe data into Excel, OpenOffice or MS Works formats and send out CD-ROMS in addition to the DSAR printouts.

I'm not sure what the DPA stipulates, and the term 'Relevant Format' is one that seems to be very open to interpretation.

[oscar]

Re: PPI redress confusion

Yes, there are so many other variables, aren't there Oscar ? Some time back, I looked into the multi-tiered interest rates that credit cards applied, and without a huge mainframe working on a daily basis, I concluded that it was nigh on impossible to mimic this with Excel spreadsheets.

MBNA used to just use the highest interest rate applied (non cash rate) for the duration o the account. Obviously they had the same issues.

[Bill-K]

Re: PPI redress confusion

LOL, Oscar - perhaps us mere peasants are not quite so disadvantaged as we are made out to be, with our pitchforks, torches and tumbrils !!!

[tjperfick]

Re: PPI redress confusion

Thanks Guys, for all your replies - much appreciated. Still a bit confused about the way the 2 different redress's are broken down. Maybe I should trust that they know what they are doing ! lol

[ken100464]

Re: PPI redress confusion

MBNA used to just use the highest interest rate applied (non cash rate) for the duration o the account. Obviously they had the same issues.

Are you saying MBNA didnt use the retail rate on PPI?

[ken100464]

Re: PPI redress confusion

Thanks Guys, for all your replies - much appreciated. Still a bit confused about the way the 2 different redress's are broken down. Maybe I should trust that they know what they are doing ! lol

No you should not trust what they are doing at all. You will if you look hard enough find the banks are at it again. But it does need the consumer to get a SAR and have a compliant spreadsheet they can use.

[Bill-K]

Re: PPI redress confusion

I agree with Ken, TJP - if you can still get your data with DSAR's & CCA s.77-79 Requests, then I think it is worth looking into. But DSAR's often only get you your data from the past 6 years, and it can be very difficult to get more. CCA requests will usually only work if the account is still running.