Tesco Bonus CC PII claim

[cookie2112]

Re: Tesco Bonus CC PII claim

Thanks Bill-K, how can I check their calculations? They have listed:
1.Payment Protection premiums paid
2.Associated interest applied to balance
3.Gross 8% interest on credit balances (this appears to be a deduction)
4.Less income tax deducted (again a deduction)
5.Net 8% interest paid
6.Total offer

Is that where something could be wrong or in the figures themselves? I had no idea I had paid any ppi so have no way of checking point 1 myself.

[Bill-K]

Re: Tesco Bonus CC PII claim

Further to Cookie's post - but in a general sense, too. It has just hit me that the readiness with which Tesco appear to have tried to settle Patch's claim is somewhat reminiscent of MBNA's more recent settlement offers, and I have been working with Ken and others on this lately. Ken has a thread here which has now (I believe) achieved its aim - but which may be worth reading, as it is a result of MBNA's apparent readiness to settle PPI claims which it appears have been wrongly calculated and often vastly "under-offered." In effect, MBNA may have taken advantage of the "Take the money and run" temptation that we are often faced with. I do believe that MBNA may have got away with offering as much as 50% less than what claimants may be entitled to under FCA rules, and I have heard that other lenders may well be jumping on to this little bandwagon.

As I'm sure you AAD guys will know - we need to get our CCA s.77-79 requests in ASAP. They only cost a quid, but they can be worth a helluva lot. Patch - if you are up for it - then I really would suggest that you send in a CCA request if you haven't done so - and you must do it before you pay off the balance. If Tesco's settlement is 'below par,' then you will possibly have the proof of this with your CCA request. Heyyy - take a break and light up some good old 'Nag Champa' sticks for a while - but for Gawd's sake get that CCA request in right now, so it is in your pocket for laterz.

Going back to Cookie's post, I haven't been in to any of the relevant threads, so I may well find disagreement with some of the solid AAD posters - but I hope it can be resolved. It can be a headache/ballache if you ain't a maths guy - but it can be worth a packet.Before I say more, I need to ensure that I'm not treading on anyone's toes here as regards PPI. I know Di 30 and Turbo, and others here too - but I do hope that anyone else here who helps with PPI claims will allow me to work with them - and perhaps PM me in that respect.

My own strategy has been to suggest that we do a CCA & DSAR before we do owt else, as we need to gather as much data as possible beforehand. If the data is over 6 years old, then we face difficulties in gathering it before then - but it can be done very often. Cookie - if you have done a CCA & a DSAR, then we may need to try and be a bit 'forensic' with what we have.

Item 1. Needs checking - but is usually OK., as it is data that both parties have, and is difficult to manipulate.
Item 2. This has been a problem with MBNA, and possibly other lenders. There is a question of possible 'misappropriation' that has now been raised with the FCA. It remains to be seen if this will be taken further.
Items 3, 4 & 5. This should not be a deduction, but it has been curtailed somewhat since the introduction of PS10/12 rules. However - the lenders do now seem to be deducting 20 % IR Tax on this at source, and that is legitimate as far as I understand. This is not something I agree with, as we are not all 20%-rate taxpayers (LOL - note the 'implied' celeb-status there !!)
Item 6. This is the 'bottom line' that we are being offered, and we are being asked to 'sign on the dotted line.' However - the speed with which MBNA (and others) are now delivering our redress seems to imply that they are hoping that this will absolve them of any further responsibility in the matter.

I - along with a few others from here and elsewhere - are working on dashing such hopes.

[patchouli]

Re: Tesco Bonus CC PII claim

too late ... the card has been paid off... good riddance to it I say! .. We did check and we got exactly what was owed to us, in fact it was a little bit more than we expected so a good result for us.

How do you know I like Nag Champa! *checks webcam*

[cymruambyth]

Re: Tesco Bonus CC PII claim

Hi Bill, thank you for the useful post. What about claims that have been paid and banked within for example the past year. Would it be possible to check the figures and go back to them?

[Bill-K]

Re: Tesco Bonus CC PII claim

LOL @ Patch !!! The Nag Champa goes with the Patchouli oil and the flowery CND logo !!! Brings back distant memories of Lebanese Gold & Strawberry Fields...

To Patch & Cymru - Once the claim has been banked, it is usually classed as having been accepted in full & final settlement, unless you made it clear that you disagreed with the offer, and that you have accepted it as an interim payment pending further discussion. But there is nothing to stop you from checking the figures, and if the settlement turns out to have been too low - then you can still point this out, perhaps mentioning that you have since been given further advice about the calculations. The chances are that you will have to refer the matter to the FOS, but the reasons that I consider it possible to amend the settlement are that:-

1. The banks have been notoriously 'coy' about their calculations, and rarely ever send anything other than a list of sub-totals (as Patch listed above). How these sub-totals were calculated has remained a mystery in most cases. This means that claimants were forced to rely solely on the banks assurances that the calculations were correct, and were thus unable to make an informed and independent decision as to whether the settlements were fair and adequate.

2. If it can be shown that the calculations were incorrect, then it is highly unlikely that a large bank with its massive resources and computing power would make such errors. But even if such errors were accidental, then the banks' express or implied assurances that they are correct are clearly misleading - and the universal concealment of their calculation methods indicates that they have something to hide.

3. As 2 above suggests - it is therefore more likely that the calculations were deliberately made incorrectly, in which case the bank is guilty of deception and misappropriation IMO, and the FOS should then order the settlement to be re-calculated - and award additional compensation for distress and inconvenience to the claimant.

That's my take on it - but it's by no means a guarantee, I'm afraid.