The Journey So Far...

[Bill-K]

Many thanks to Niddy for this forum area for discussing the wholesale mis-calculation of credit card PPI redress offers made by MBNA over the past 2 years or so. Very briefly, it has become clear that MBNA have been using a 'non-standard' method of calculating redress due to claimants of mis-sold Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) over this period, and in most (perhaps all) cases this has resulted in redress offers far below that which we consider to be fair - 50% reductions are not uncommon. In 2013, a small group of cross-forum members came together to try and get this matter looked at seriously by the FCA, FOS, and ultimately by MBNA.

MBNA have sent claimants tabulated lists of the figures used in their calculations in the form of PDF files, but so far we have not been able to obtain any details of the calculation methods used. We have been able to reconstruct some of MBNA's calculations by 'reverse-engineering' their PDF tables, but some of their calculations have so far remained a mystery. What we do know is that the FSA (now the FCA) published the PPI Redress Handbook in August 2010, which was contained within Policy Statement PS10/12 as Appendices 1 & 2. These were considered to be the FSA rules on PPI redress procedures, but are always referred to by the FCA & FOS merely as 'guidelines.' Nevertheless, lenders are expected to follow them unless they consider that there is good reason not to. Examples of how to calculate redress are given in PS10/12 Appendix 2, and Example 6 is the one which is used for credit card PPI. PS10/12 is here :-

http://www.fca.org.uk/your-fca/docum...nts/fsa-ps1012

What we did was to take the somewhat simplistic Example 6 calculation method and evolve a workable spreadsheet that was based on this, and we then used it with several sets of MBNA claim figures. In every case, we found that the MBNA figures were much less than the Example 6 figures, and decided that the FCA & FOS needed to know about this and to investigate the problem. As it was clearly widespread, we posted an appeal in several forums for people to write to the FCA & FOS about this, in the hope that they might sit up and take notice, and AAD members did us proud. Eventually the FCA asked for more details, and we sent them a complete submission - whereupon they agreed that MBNA's 'methodology' was strange, and that they would investigate the matter :-

http://forums.all-about-debt.co.uk/s...o-spare-stamps

The FCA said that, as they did not generally deal with individuals, they would not contact us again - but eventually their CEO Martin Wheatley issued a pronouncement that approx. 2.5 million PPI claims would need to be reviewed, as they were likely to have been wrongly adjudicated or the redress offers wrongly calculated.

Rrrrrrresult !!!!!

...............actually...erm...no...

[colonelsensibl]

Re: The Journey So Far...

Bill, I agree that MBNA are significantly understating PPI redress and am amazed that MBNA continue to pull the wool over the FCA/FOS's eyes. I wondered if an approach to a famous mathematician, with a request for help was viable?

S/he could be charged with understanding the differences between MBNA and our approaches, then explain these differences at a meeting where forum members could attend (and FCA/FOS Members(?), and/or press(?) could be invited).

Johnny Ball (no relation, no connection, I promise!) has the reputation of explaining mathematical concepts so that lay people understand, and he does these kind of meetings, it appears.

http://www.johnnyball.co.uk/html/talksaddress.php

Rachel Riley may be another possibility.

[ken100464]

Re: The Journey So Far...

One has to wonder where fair comes into a calculation that is in the region of 50% less to what the FCA guidelines state they should be

We understand fully what the bank has done. Shifted money attracting compound interest into money attracting simple.

That the FCA/FOS cant get this shows how unfit for purpose they are.

They are also missing this bank publicly stating that overlimits can never be caused by PPI ignoring the notional balance as per the guidelines which shows I am sure many overlimits are wrong also

But the FCA/FOS have been walked and talked through this.

Time now to let the press get wind of it. Seems the FCA by protecting the banks will become as scandal ridden at their paymasters

[Bill-K]

Re: The Journey So Far...

Interesting suggestion, Colonel, and I agree with Ken's comments. I remember Johnny Ball now, but I needed to see a You Tube clip first - and yes, he is very entertaining and can hold our interest. Rachel Riley replaced Carol Vorderman on Countdown, and I must admit both of them amazed me with the maths solutions. Wikipedia says Rachel worked in The City for a short while, but quit because she didn't like the atmosphere, so she has some inside experience. If we were able to get one of them to a meeting with the FCA, then it might just work - as there is the 'implied threat' of media attention if the FCA still dismisses it all. But these guys don't work for free, so there will be costs - but if we approach them as volunteers ourselves, then they might just consider a freebie for a good cause.

Continuing the story, a number of us wrote to the FOS to ask what (if any) progress there had been following Martin Wheatley's announcement, and we were simply sent templated 'holding' letters, assuring us that it was being looked into. Clearly it wasn't - because it wasn't that complex that it should take 10 months to understand. I then decided to write to the FCA & FOS with what I considered to be a simpler to understand submission which pointed out just two obvious and simple errors and the FOS's their Lead Adjudicator replied. She completely ignored the simple maths, and instead proceeded to explain that the lenders were free to use their own calculation methods if they considered them to be fair and appropriate. I - and at least one other group member replied with letters that effectively stated that neither the FCA nor the FOS were regulating at all, and were clearly 'unfit for purpose.'

And that is about it so far. Clearly, the regulators are not regulating the lenders, and it is the lenders who are calling the tune - because they are actually 'paying the piper.' The regulators are funded by the banks - so the banks are their paymasters - and that is not exactly conducive to independent and unbiased practice, is it ? We had hoped that our efforts might achieve at least a matching effort from the FCA & FOS, but this has clearly not been the case. The best we can now do is bring this to the attention of as many as possible, and do our best to assist them with their own claims against MBNA (and others who may be up to the same tricks) - and eventually the FOS might finally realise that this is not going to go away until they deal with it properly and fairly.

The FCA's CEO Martin Wheatley has already forfeit his huge bonus for failing to meet expectations, and is now forced to try and feed his family on what remains of his obscene salary, whilst thousands of people on what is probably the Minimum Wage (if they have a job at all after the banks wrecked our economy) - are currently struggling to even survive Christmas this year. And all because they were ripped off by the very banks that Wheatley is paid handsomely to regulate. If that isn't criminal, then somebody please explain.

[pompeyfaith]

Re: The Journey So Far...

One has to wonder where fair comes into a calculation that is in the region of 50% less to what the FCA guidelines state they should be

We understand fully what the bank has done. Shifted money attracting compound interest into money attracting simple.

That the FCA/FOS cant get this shows how unfit for purpose they are.

They are also missing this bank publicly stating that overlimits can never be caused by PPI ignoring the notional balance as per the guidelines which shows I am sure many overlimits are wrong also

But the FCA/FOS have been walked and talked through this.

Time now to let the press get wind of it. Seems the FCA by protecting the banks will become as scandal ridden at their paymasters

They are already Scandal Ridden:

http://news.sky.com/story/1389626/fc...low-over-probe

How long since they took over from the FSA?

[Bill-K]

Re: The Journey So Far...

They are already Scandal Ridden:

http://news.sky.com/story/1389626/fc...low-over-probe

How long since they took over from the FSA?

Wasn't it April Fools' day 2013 ?

...clearly 'unfit for purpose.'

[Angry Cat]

Re: The Journey So Far...

Interesting suggestion, Colonel, and I agree with Ken's comments. I remember Johnny Ball now, but I needed to see a You Tube clip first - and yes, he is very entertaining and can hold our interest. Rachel Riley replaced Carol Vorderman on Countdown, and I must admit both of them amazed me with the maths solutions. Wikipedia says Rachel worked in The City for a short while, but quit because she didn't like the atmosphere, so she has some inside experience. If we were able to get one of them to a meeting with the FCA, then it might just work - as there is the 'implied threat' of media attention if the FCA still dismisses it all. But these guys don't work for free, so there will be costs - but if we approach them as volunteers ourselves, then they might just consider a freebie for a good cause.

Continuing the story, a number of us wrote to the FOS to ask what (if any) progress there had been following Martin Wheatley's announcement, and we were simply sent templated 'holding' letters, assuring us that it was being looked into. Clearly it wasn't - because it wasn't that complex that it should take 10 months to understand. I then decided to write to the FCA & FOS with what I considered to be a simpler to understand submission which pointed out just two obvious and simple errors and the FOS's their Lead Adjudicator replied. She completely ignored the simple maths, and instead proceeded to explain that the lenders were free to use their own calculation methods if they considered them to be fair and appropriate. I - and at least one other group member replied with letters that effectively stated that neither the FCA nor the FOS were regulating at all, and were clearly 'unfit for purpose.'

And that is about it so far. Clearly, the regulators are not regulating the lenders, and it is the lenders who are calling the tune - because they are actually 'paying the piper.' The regulators are funded by the banks - so the banks are their paymasters - and that is not exactly conducive to independent and unbiased practice, is it ? We had hoped that our efforts might achieve at least a matching effort from the FCA & FOS, but this has clearly not been the case. The best we can now do is bring this to the attention of as many as possible, and do our best to assist them with their own claims against MBNA (and others who may be up to the same tricks) - and eventually the FOS might finally realise that this is not going to go away until they deal with it properly and fairly.

The FCA's CEO Martin Wheatley has already forfeit his huge bonus for failing to meet expectations, and is now forced to try and feed his family on what remains of his obscene salary, whilst thousands of people on what is probably the Minimum Wage (if they have a job at all after the banks wrecked our economy) - are currently struggling to even survive Christmas this year. And all because they were ripped off by the very banks that Wheatley is paid handsomely to regulate. If that isn't criminal, then somebody please explain.

Wheatley, left Hong Kong in disgrace and why on earth the TSC allowed him to become CEO of the FCA is beyond comprehension!

http://minibondsoctaveconstellation....-wheatley.html

http://stockmarketmanipulaters.blogs...y-go-home.html

After the above referenced debacle, how on earth can this man be allowed to carry on in his position?
All those people who have lost money;
anyone one else would have been jailed for doing same...

It is not good enough just forgoing his bonus!!!

Quote:

"“We’d be in jail by now if we’d done what they did,” one insurance exec told City A.M. yesterday. “The organisation is totally out of control.” [End Quote]

We have, as a small Group, attempted to enlighten the FCA and FOS. But our pleas clearly fell upon deaf ears or ears that found it more convenient NOT to listen...
This matter must NOT be allowed to be swept under the incompetent, so called, regulators carpet.

[colonelsensibl]

Re: The Journey So Far...

Chaps/chapesses, I think we need to be more positive going forward, and however frustrating these regulators are, try to persuade them that they are being hoodwinked by MBNA, et al. (In my limited experience, Sainsbury's Bank (BOS) and HSBC (HFC) are just as bad in their own way). I could give more detail, but fear that a surfeit of data may be getting in the way of the crystal clear message that is needed to force the FCA/FOS to accept that these banks are obfuscating issues around the real PPI redress they should be providing.

I've suggested Johnny Ball/Rachel Riley as people we may want to get onside. There seems to have been a warm-ish response to this, so if there's no objection, I could try and outline our problem, and see what/if (in the first instance) Mr. Ball's reaction (and costs) might be? Can I assume "silence means consent" - i.e. please let me know if you don't want me to do this.

There are four other avenues I can think of, that we could pursue, without opening the situation out completely to the media:
1 Anna Tims runs a column in the Observer that follows up selected consumers' monetary complaints;
2 Private Eye is the best campaigning journal in the UK, and if primed, may take up the cause;
3 BBC's Watchdog may be sympathetic;
4 Martin Lewis - unsure about suggesting this, but apologies in advance if it's the elephant in the room.

[Bill-K]

Re: The Journey So Far...

...our pleas clearly fell upon deaf ears or ears that found it more convenient NOT to listen...
This matter must NOT be allowed to be swept under the incompetent, so called, regulators carpet.

Hear, hear, AC.

...we need to be more positive going forward...

1 Anna Tims runs a column in the Observer that follows up selected consumers' monetary complaints;
2 Private Eye is the best campaigning journal in the UK, and if primed, may take up the cause;
3 BBC's Watchdog may be sympathetic;
4 Martin Lewis - unsure about suggesting this, but apologies in advance if it's the elephant in the room.

Colonel - I have appreciated your interest and skill during our recent off-forum discussions about MBNA's methods, and I appreciate your similarly excellent input to this thread, sir. I know AC is all in favour of 'seizing the moment,' after the recent report and the FCA jettisoning exercise. As well as Johnny Ball and/or Rachel Riley, I am interested by your 4 recent suggestions also. However, I do consider these 4 as media attention, even if the contact is singular in each case - but I agree that any one of these would not constitute a media 'open release.' Personally, I am in favour of the Ball/Riley suggestion because it is not media contact 'per se,' but may have the implication that it could well 'go public.' As regards general consent to your kind offer to contact him/her, I would suggest we set a deadline for objections at 2359 hrs tomorrow 12/12/14. After that, I am all in favour of literally getting the 'Ball' rolling - but if there is enough positive feedback on that idea before the deadline, then I would suggest that we kick off earlier.

Regarding the recent 4 suggestions :-
1. Anna Tims' column is probably the least 'big splash' media contact - but still more widely read than this thread, I assume. There are other columns/inserts such as 'Money Mail' etc., and I guess all of the newspapers have their own similar features. Which ? is another suggestion we have previously considered.
2. Private Eye is a worthy consideration IMO, as they are fearless - and clearly not influenced by the 'illuminati' that own so many of the media. But if the Eye runs with it, then it may become a big thing, as they are in the business of chucking sewage at the rotor-blades.
3. If Watchdog runs with it, then it will be prime-time and very widespread, I reckon.
4. The elephant - Martin Lewis. The previously 'private group' has mentioned him, and he is not to be ignored IMO. My personal thoughts are that he has the potential ability to understand the MBNA methods (or he can get his team to brief him) - and he is a well-known and high-profile media guy who specialises in this field. I reckon he would probably be the best guy to understand this, if we wanted to really hit the media, but I suspect that the chances are that he would be inclined to obliged to attribute any credit to MSE - when in fact it has been AAD that has supported this campaign from the word go.

FWIW, my immediate thoughts are that we 'go public' with this by contacting Messrs Ball & Riley, and that will establish that AAD deserves full credit (or blame !!!) for getting this matter dealt with. If that 'softlee softlee' approach fails, then we at least have established some 'provenance' for AAD's credit when/if we go to the media. I also believe that Chris Choi may possibly consider looking into this - and perhaps a collaboration with Messrs Ball & Riley would be a good 'slant' on this.

[pompeyfaith]

Re: The Journey So Far...

Can I just say Good Luck and add any press you use would be best served if they was independent and not so close to Govt and regulatory bodies I think the Guardian or Independent would be better than say the Mail if they have money columns.

[Angry Cat]

Re: The Journey So Far...

Chaps/chapesses, I think we need to be more positive going forward, and however frustrating these regulators are, try to persuade them that they are being hoodwinked by MBNA, et al. (In my limited experience, Sainsbury's Bank (BOS) and HSBC (HFC) are just as bad in their own way). I could give more detail, but fear that a surfeit of data may be getting in the way of the crystal clear message that is needed to force the FCA/FOS to accept that these banks are obfuscating issues around the real PPI redress they should be providing.

I've suggested Johnny Ball/Rachel Riley as people we may want to get onside. There seems to have been a warm-ish response to this, so if there's no objection, I could try and outline our problem, and see what/if (in the first instance) Mr. Ball's reaction (and costs) might be? Can I assume "silence means consent" - i.e. please let me know if you don't want me to do this.

There are four other avenues I can think of, that we could pursue, without opening the situation out completely to the media:
1 Anna Tims runs a column in the Observer that follows up selected consumers' monetary complaints;
2 Private Eye is the best campaigning journal in the UK, and if primed, may take up the cause;
3 BBC's Watchdog may be sympathetic;
4 Martin Lewis - unsure about suggesting this, but apologies in advance if it's the elephant in the room.

Sorry to to disagree. But I do not consider that individuals such as Johnny Ball can be of assistance other than because of their celebrity status!

IMHO, we need journalists such as Cliff D'Arcy, Mike Robinson and Paul Mason etc;
journalists who have already been bashing the Banks and their rotten products...

Incidentally, the Report cost £3.8M of Public Money;
how shocking is that!!!

[Bill-K]

Re: The Journey So Far...

The idea of getting Johnny Ball or Rachel Riley was to try and get them to :-
a. Understand the FCA's Example 6, and their general methods & principles of calculating fair redress;
b. Understand what we consider to be wrong with MBNA's;
c. Confirm privately (or in a meeting) with the FCA that there are errors and/or anomalies;
d. Explain in a way that the FCA can understand exactly what these errors/anomalies are.

Johnny Ball's proven skill at explaining things makes him the best choice for item d., IMO - but the idea is to force the FCA to make an effort to listen and understand - before going to the media. The celeb. status is an extra incentive, because the FCA will be aware that media attention is a real threat. So - if you are intending to take it directly to the media without trying this idea, then I can see why you disagree, AC.

I also agree that there are good journos who have been bashing the banks, and doing so very well - so there is much to be said for using them directly and immediately, as opposed to bringing in a total stranger to the problem simply to get a 'handle' on the calculations. I only hope that the somewhat complex nature of this is not going to be too difficult for these journos (as good as they are at their job) to grasp quickly and fully enough to be able to put the case across clearly - so that the general public can grasp it. I don't believe there have been any objections to taking this to the media right now, so I'm happy to see that happen.

I think we need to decide if we are going to approach the media guys singly - with an 'order of priority' list - effectively offering this as an 'exclusive' - or whether we want to contact a whole bunch of them together, and see if any of them run with it. I would think that if we go for Radio/TV coverage, then there will be a delay while the programs are researched and produced - but if we go for the press, then I think it will appear in print much faster. But we do need to decide. We can do this on our own, and with whatever contacts we have - or we can make use of whatever contacts AAD can provide.

So far, I have suggested Chris Choi, as he is a big name in the media game, and he takes an interest in bank problems. Researcher/producer Martin Kemp is my only other suggestion, as he and I have spoken before (about the 'Alternative Redress' scam), and he works with BBC Radio on these matters - researching & producing for such presenters as Mike Robinson. Your other suggestions of Cliff D'Arcy & Paul Mason look good to me, too. I suspect that Cliff might be able to get a good grip on the maths, as he is a financial 'poacher-turned-gamekeeper,' I believe.

I still have the feeling that this - as a potential media presentation - is perhaps a little too 'dry' as it stands, and that the producer(s)/publisher(s) might struggle to keep the public's interest. I do believe that what we have experienced on our journey - and are still experiencing of course - has been an excellent example of 'Regulatory Capture' (thanks again to Cloggy for the links earlier) - and we have a freshly-wrought and well-documented story to tell. Trying to put myself into the shoes of a media guy, I do feel that the wider and bigger aspect of that would catch the public's attention, as the injustice of it is phenomenal. To me - that is the real malaise that we are dealing with now - and the MBNA aspect of it (although important to us individually) is just a symptom of that. If we can cure the malaise, then we have won a war - but if we only treat the symptoms, then we are fighting a losing battle.

LOL - and just to be an awkward sod - I reckon that if all that report cost was £3.8K, then it wasn't really bad value - when you consider what Martin Wheatley apparently takes home every damned week for doing nothing except betray those who look to him for protection.

[Angry Cat]

Re: The Journey So Far...

The idea of getting Johnny Ball or Rachel Riley was to try and get them to :-
a. Understand the FCA's Example 6, and their general methods & principles of calculating fair redress;
b. Understand what we consider to be wrong with MBNA's;
c. Confirm privately (or in a meeting) with the FCA that there are errors and/or anomalies;
d. Explain in a way that the FCA can understand exactly what these errors/anomalies are.

Johnny Ball's proven skill at explaining things makes him the best choice for item d., IMO - but the idea is to force the FCA to make an effort to listen and understand - before going to the media. The celeb. status is an extra incentive, because the FCA will be aware that media attention is a real threat. So - if you are intending to take it directly to the media without trying this idea, then I can see why you disagree, AC.

I also agree that there are good journos who have been bashing the banks, and doing so very well - so there is much to be said for using them directly and immediately, as opposed to bringing in a total stranger to the problem simply to get a 'handle' on the calculations. I only hope that the somewhat complex nature of this is not going to be too difficult for these journos (as good as they are at their job) to grasp quickly and fully enough to be able to put the case across clearly - so that the general public can grasp it. I don't believe there have been any objections to taking this to the media right now, so I'm happy to see that happen.

I think we need to decide if we are going to approach the media guys singly - with an 'order of priority' list - effectively offering this as an 'exclusive' - or whether we want to contact a whole bunch of them together, and see if any of them run with it. I would think that if we go for Radio/TV coverage, then there will be a delay while the programs are researched and produced - but if we go for the press, then I think it will appear in print much faster. But we do need to decide. We can do this on our own, and with whatever contacts we have - or we can make use of whatever contacts AAD can provide.

So far, I have suggested Chris Choi, as he is a big name in the media game, and he takes an interest in bank problems. Researcher/producer Martin Kemp is my only other suggestion, as he and I have spoken before (about the 'Alternative Redress' scam), and he works with BBC Radio on these matters - researching & producing for such presenters as Mike Robinson. Your other suggestions of Cliff D'Arcy & Paul Mason look good to me, too. I suspect that Cliff might be able to get a good grip on the maths, as he is a financial 'poacher-turned-gamekeeper,' I believe.

I still have the feeling that this - as a potential media presentation - is perhaps a little too 'dry' as it stands, and that the producer(s)/publisher(s) might struggle to keep the public's interest. I do believe that what we have experienced on our journey - and are still experiencing of course - has been an excellent example of 'Regulatory Capture' (thanks again to Cloggy for the links earlier) - and we have a freshly-wrought and well-documented story to tell. Trying to put myself into the shoes of a media guy, I do feel that the wider and bigger aspect of that would catch the public's attention, as the injustice of it is phenomenal. To me - that is the real malaise that we are dealing with now - and the MBNA aspect of it (although important to us individually) is just a symptom of that. If we can cure the malaise, then we have won a war - but if we only treat the symptoms, then we are fighting a losing battle.

LOL - and just to be an awkward sod - I reckon that if all that report cost was £3.8K, then it wasn't really bad value - when you consider what Martin Wheatley apparently takes home every damned week for doing nothing except betray those who look to him for protection.

No Bill, it cost £3.8 MILLION!!!
(my apologies for the typo, of which I have now corrected)

[Bill-K]

Re: The Journey So Far...

No Bill, it cost £3.8 MILLION!!!

Blimey - they are all riding on the same gravy train. It must look like one of those overloaded Bombay Specials !!!

[Angry Cat]

Re: The Journey So Far...

Yes it has taken 8 months and £3.8 MILLION and he is still in his job!?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/bu...o-9231470.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/p...y-blunder.html