Reference Information for Calculating Actual Redress

[ken100464]

Re: Reference Information for Calculating Actual Redress

Matty ask for the spreadsheet V20C-B031

Its their internal worksheet. You wont get it unless you demand it. When you get it you will see the lies they are using

[MattyA]

Re: Reference Information for Calculating Actual Redress

Thanks Matty.

I cant go into mine too far on a public forum as would be identified straight away.

I however have our MP interested who just happens to be an ex CAB manager and also chair of the all party consumer finance and debt sub committee. Handy I couldnt believe it when read the profile.

As you say what is the point of publishing guidelines then to just role over and give into the bank.

The balance is higher because they havnt reduced it and contractual interest is applied to it. Dont take a maths genius to work out that even if the PPI premium is removed if the balance isnt reduced then you aint returned to where you should be.

I also have penalties which they aint taken off. But these should be easier to prove and tbh should end up with me getting what I want eventually.

The CEO is fully aware of this case and if we need to shame him eventually personally and I mean personally we will. We have the letters and will publish them just need a good journo. Its a good story. Shows what they are like.

But one option is court just need to push them one last step. Once we get that admission flood gates open.

Our MP is fully aware of FOS and there are rumblings of them being reformed as they are basically not fit for purpose.

If any of you are reading this from FOS start tackling the finance industry or you are going to be out of a job.

Do you have the MBNA speadsheets?

Good stuff Ken - sounds like you are up for the fight and could have some good allies.

I agree fully with the floodgates opening I have been banging on about this for a while.

I will look for the MBNA spreadshee - if they sent one.

Matty

[MattyA]

Re: Reference Information for Calculating Actual Redress

Have it direct from MBNA now they are doing as they please.

Basically they feel it is ok to remove notional money from the account and give you 8% even though on the card the balance is still in debit.

This notional money isnt removed from the reconstructed balance either so your new balance is higher than it should be.

The loss to the customer is the PPI removed x contractual interest - PPI removed x 8% simple. That happens per month. But obviously the balance remains higher than it should and therefore so does contractual interest.

They are basically saying the examples on FSA/FOS are just that. Examples and they dont have to follow it if they feel they dont want to.

They believe its the customers fault they operated the account the way they did not the fact the PPI was added by a shyster of a bank. Basically that they ripped us off.

This is despite in all the letters to you saying they are following the FSA/FOS method of redress.

Totally arrogant. But presume FOS will agree with them.

Food for thought.....

As you say , once you reconstruct your account in accordance with the FOS giudelines, by removing the premiums and interest at the contract ,eventually if the account is old enough the balance will become a notional credit balance.

At this point, what happens to the payments made to the account, which were made but need not to have been made as the account should have been in a credit balance??

Hard to explain fully in writing - so I will attach 2 spred sheet hopefully that will help.

1: With the redress calcs (based on a spreadsheet provided by HSBC on another claim which came within spitting distance of both my calcs and Turbomans spreadshett at the time) Ignoring the affect of continued payments when the account balance became a notional positive balance

&

2: As above but showing what the affect of the continued payments made to the balance and would be (should be?)redress.

I dont see if you get back less than you have paid in that you have been returned to the position that you would have been in had the PPI premiums and associated interest not been applied to the account.

Long winded I know (sorry) but....If this notion is correct it has MASSIVE consequences to all concerned.

PS : I wouldnt bother looking to the FOS with this as they dont understand / apply their own guidelines and seem to think that 8% simple interest is compensation enough for 21.9% compound interest paid.

PPS : I even put a complaint in to an Ombudsman about this decision (IE not understanding simple maths) and it was rejected....LOL

Regards,

Matty

[ken100464]

Re: Reference Information for Calculating Actual Redress

Thanks Matty.

I cant go into mine too far on a public forum as would be identified straight away.

I however have our MP interested who just happens to be an ex CAB manager and also chair of the all party consumer finance and debt sub committee. Handy I couldnt believe it when read the profile.

As you say what is the point of publishing guidelines then to just role over and give into the bank.

The balance is higher because they havnt reduced it and contractual interest is applied to it. Dont take a maths genius to work out that even if the PPI premium is removed if the balance isnt reduced then you aint returned to where you should be.

I also have penalties which they aint taken off. But these should be easier to prove and tbh should end up with me getting what I want eventually.

The CEO is fully aware of this case and if we need to shame him eventually personally and I mean personally we will. We have the letters and will publish them just need a good journo. Its a good story. Shows what they are like.

But one option is court just need to push them one last step. Once we get that admission flood gates open.

Our MP is fully aware of FOS and there are rumblings of them being reformed as they are basically not fit for purpose.

If any of you are reading this from FOS start tackling the finance industry or you are going to be out of a job.

Do you have the MBNA speadsheets?

[MattyA]

Re: Reference Information for Calculating Actual Redress

Sorry Ken ....but the answer is yes.

The FOS will agree with them.

I have had the self and same argument with the FOS who upheld my complaint against Amex but they thought that Amex's offer despite it being only refund of premiums and 8% simple interest they thought it fair and that I had not lost out as Amex had told them so.

What is the point of them having any guidelines at all.

Anyway there is some hope.......

If it is worth chasing IE the sums involved are large enough, take it to a solicitor as I did (Site sols) who wrote to Amex and eventually ( with the aid of the information I provided ) persuaded them to up their offer which I accepted in the end as it was a big increase from what the FOS said was fair , even though it was less than I had calculated it should have been had the FOS guidelines been followed - Sometimes a bird in the hand...etc

I have the same argument ongoing with MBNA( 2 qccounts),HSBC & Mint all of whom are also refusing to acknowledge / play ball.

Prepare yourself for the long haul - I have been at it since July 2010.

Good Luck & I will help you wherever I can.

Matty

[ken100464]

Re: Reference Information for Calculating Actual Redress

Have it direct from MBNA now they are doing as they please.

Basically they feel it is ok to remove notional money from the account and give you 8% even though on the card the balance is still in debit.

This notional money isnt removed from the reconstructed balance either so your new balance is higher than it should be.

The loss to the customer is the PPI removed x contractual interest - PPI removed x 8% simple. That happens per month. But obviously the balance remains higher than it should and therefore so does contractual interest.

They are basically saying the examples on FSA/FOS are just that. Examples and they dont have to follow it if they feel they dont want to.

They believe its the customers fault they operated the account the way they did not the fact the PPI was added by a shyster of a bank. Basically that they ripped us off.

This is despite in all the letters to you saying they are following the FSA/FOS method of redress.

Totally arrogant. But presume FOS will agree with them.

[Turboman]

Re: Reference Information for Calculating Actual Redress

no--any details you can post?

Hi Turbo.

Are you hearing anything about MBNA not calculating as per the FSA/FOS methods?

[ken100464]

Re: Reference Information for Calculating Actual Redress

Hi Turbo.

Are you hearing anything about MBNA not calculating as per the FSA/FOS methods?

[ken100464]

Re: Reference Information for Calculating Actual Redress

I would vote these threads are stickied. Any Mods????

[Turboman]

Here's the links to the main official sites by FSA & FOS in describing how redress should be calculated

The new authorative method of calculating redress is Appendix 2 page 104 onwards--see in particular page 115 for credit cards (revolving credit)

FSA Handbook 10/12-The assessment and redress of Payment Protection Insurance complaints


Here's the link of a separate extraction of Appendix 3 from DISP which details what should happen re Disputes-

Appendix 3-Handling Payment Protection Insurance
complaints

-3.9.4 is particularly important where the lender has not explained fully how they calculated the reddress--(also on page 101 of FSA Handbook 10/12)

Also see here:

how does the ombudsman approach redress where a PPI policy has been mis-sold?