Help Needed. MBNA redress calculations Do you have two spare stamps

[colonelsensibl]

Re: Help Needed. MBNA redress calculations Do you have two spare stamps

Sent today, to vicki.mcausland@financial-ombudsman.org.uk, cc martin.wheatley@fca.org.uk, caroline.wayman@financial-ombudsman.org.uk

Ms. Vicki McAusland
Lead Adjudicator
Financial Ombudsman Service
Exchange Tower
London
E14 9SR

Dear Ms McAusland

OUR ‘GROUP’ COMPLAINT ABOUT MBNA LIMITED

Thank you for your template letter dated 26 September 2014.

It should be noted that the above referenced template letter was sent out to all individuals who engaged in sending our ‘Group’ open letter of complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) to your previous Chief Ombudsman: Mr. Tony Boorman, but that Mr. Boorman has now been replaced by Ms Caroline Wayman. Our Group leader also submitted a substantial file of papers to Mr. Boorman as well as to the Chief Executive Office of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA): Mr. Martin Wheatley.

Please be advised that we did receive a response from Mr. Martin Wheatley’s office and that our serious complaint was looked into by Mr. Chris Preston of the FCA. We were then advised that the FCA had requested that the FOS investigate our most serious concerns but to report back to the FCA with their findings.

Frankly, I must say that I find it not only astonishing but also extremely worrying that you have not investigated why MBNA Limited have been incorrectly calculating PPI redress claims. It has taken you over eight (8) long months to provide a bland response which completely misses the point!

Furthermore, your response appears to be addressing “a forum” of which you have read the thread on MBNA and the way it calculates credit card redress when a PPI policy has been mis-sold. Please advise which “forum” you were referring to? It is also quite worrying that you make no mention of our substantial submissions nor to the calculations contained therein? Why not?

Unfortunately, I am unable to respond to your letter fully as you clearly have not investigated fully our concerns; you appear to be attempting to water down/sweep under the carpet these concerns. Therefore, until you do investigate correctly and take the time to study our complete submission, I cannot comment further.

Turning to paragraph seven (7) of your response:

• “So while MBNA’s calculations may not be identical to the examples set out in PS 10/12, DISP App 3 or our own note on our own website. I don’t think this necessarily means their calculations may be unfair.”

In my view your above comment is absolutely ridiculous!A teenager with GCSE Mathematics would be able to see that MBNA isn't calculating PPI redress correctly from the evidence that has been provided.

You refer to the FOS note on the FOS website, that note must be based upon PS 10/12.
MBNA Limited is required to follow PS 10/12 Appendix 2; Example 6 when calculating PPI redress on rolling account credit.
MBNA Limited is NOT following Appendix 2; Example 6 and as such is incorrectly calculating PPI redress.

One wonders, if one were to apply your logic to say; driving on the left hand side of the road, the FOS would think it fair for MBNA to drive in the middle of the road, as that would be near enough? Of course, they might reach their destination but that does not meet the Department of Transport rules.

I will deal with the final comment within your letter when you have completed your investigations, as that issue is just another one of the strategies that MBNA use to confuse the FOS.

Yours sincerely,

[Angry Cat]

Re: Help Needed. MBNA redress calculations Do you have two spare stamps

Ms. Vicki McAusland
Lead Adjudicator
Financial Ombudsman Service
Exchange Tower
London
E14 9SR

Dear Ms McAusland

OUR ‘GROUP’ COMPLAINT ABOUT MBNA LIMITED

I am in receipt of your template letter dated 26 September 2014 and thank you for the same.

It should be noted that the above referenced template letter was sent out to all individuals who engaged in sending our ‘Group’ open letter of complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) to your previous Chief Ombudsman: Mr. Tony Boorman. But that Mr. Boorman has now been replaced by Ms Caroline Wayman. Our Group leader also submitted a substantial file of papers to Mr. Boorman as well as to the Chief Executive Office of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA): Mr. Martin Wheatley.

Please be advised that we did receive a response from Mr. Martin Wheatley’s office and that our serious complaint was looked into by Mr. Chris Preston of the FCA. We were then advised that the FCA had requested that the FOS investigate our most serious concerns but to report back to the FCA with their findings.

Frankly, I must say that I find it not only astonishing but also extremely very worrying that you have not investigated as to why MBNA Limited have been incorrectly calculating PPI redress claims correctly. It has taken you over eight (8) long months to provide a response which completely misses the point!

Furthermore, your response appears to be addressing “a forum” of which you have read the thread on MBNA and the way it calculates credit card redress when a PPI policy has been mis-sold. Please advise which “forum” you were referring to? It is also quite worrying that you make no mention of our substantial submission nor to the calculations contained therein? Why?

Unfortunately, I am unable to respond to your letter fully as you clearly have not investigated fully our concerns; you appear to be attempting to water down/sweep under the carpet our concerns, so to speak. Therefore, until you do investigate correctly and take the time to study our complete submission, I cannot comment further.

Turning to paragraph seven (7) of your response:

· “So while MBNA’s calculations may not be identical to the examples set out in PS 10/12, DISP App 3 or our own note on our own website. I don’t think this necessarily means their calculations may be unfair.”

In my view your above comment is absolutely ridiculous!

You refer to the FOS note on the FOS website, that note must be based upon PS 10/12.
MBNA Limited are required to follow PS 10/12 Appendix 2; Example 6 when calculating PPI redress on rolling account credit.
MBNA Limited is NOT following Appendix 2; Example 6 and as such is incorrectly calculating PPI redress.

One wonders, if one were to apply your logic to say; driving on the left hand side of the road, the FOS would think it fair for MBNA to drive in the middle of the road, as that would be near enough? Of course, they would reach their destination but that does not meet the Department of Transport rules.

I will deal with the final comment within your letter when you have completed your investigations, as that issue is just another one of the strategies that MBNA use to confuse the FOS.

Yours sincerely,


[your name here]

Copies to:
Mr. Martin Wheatley, CEO, FCA;
Mr. Chris Preston, FCA;
Ms. Caroline Wayman, Chief Ombudsman, FOS

The more members who send the above, the better![/QUOTE]

Thanks Di, you are a star!

[di30]

Re: Help Needed. MBNA redress calculations Do you have two spare stamps

I will get back to this (hubby lost his job, so we have been dealing with some matters), thanks for alerting me AC ,my mind all over the place at the mo lol x

[Angry Cat]

Re: Help Needed. MBNA redress calculations Do you have two spare stamps

For all MBNA victims the following is our Group Holding Letter, just add your own reference number and address details, thank you:


Your Reference: XXXXX XXXXXXX

Ms. Vicki McAusland
Lead Adjudicator
Financial Ombudsman Service
Exchange Tower
London
E14 9SR

Dear Ms McAusland

OUR ‘GROUP’ COMPLAINT ABOUT MBNA LIMITED

I am in receipt of your template letter dated 26 September 2014 and thank you for the same.

It should be noted that the above referenced template letter was sent out to all individuals who engaged in sending our ‘Group’ open letter of complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) to your previous Chief Ombudsman: Mr. Tony Boorman. But that Mr. Boorman has now been replaced by Ms Caroline Wayman. Our Group leader also submitted a substantial file of papers to Mr. Boorman as well as to the Chief Executive Office of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA): Mr. Martin Wheatley.

Please be advised that we did receive a response from Mr. Martin Wheatley’s office and that our serious complaint was looked into by Mr. Chris Preston of the FCA. We were then advised that the FCA had requested that the FOS investigate our most serious concerns but to report back to the FCA with their findings.

Frankly, I must say that I find it not only astonishing but also extremely very worrying that you have not investigated as to why MBNA Limited have been incorrectly calculating PPI redress claims correctly. It has taken you over eight (8) long months to provide a response which completely misses the point!

Furthermore, your response appears to be addressing “a forum” of which you have read the thread on MBNA and the way it calculates credit card redress when a PPI policy has been mis-sold. Please advise which “forum” you were referring to? It is also quite worrying that you make no mention of our substantial submission nor to the calculations contained therein? Why?

Unfortunately, I am unable to respond to your letter fully as you clearly have not investigated fully our concerns; you appear to be attempting to water down/sweep under the carpet our concerns, so to speak. Therefore, until you do investigate correctly and take the time to study our complete submission, I cannot comment further.

Turning to paragraph seven (7) of your response:

• “So while MBNA’s calculations may not be identical to the examples set out in PS 10/12, DISP App 3 or our own note on our own website. I don’t think this necessarily means their calculations may be unfair.”

In my view your above comment is absolutely ridiculous!

You refer to the FOS note on the FOS website, that note must be based upon PS 10/12.
MBNA Limited are required to follow PS 10/12 Appendix 2; Example 6 when calculating PPI redress on rolling account credit.
MBNA Limited is NOT following Appendix 2; Example 6 and as such is incorrectly calculating PPI redress.

One wonders, if one were to apply your logic to say; driving on the left hand side of the road, the FOS would think it fair for MBNA to drive in the middle of the road, as that would be near enough? Of course, they would reach their destination but that does not meet the Department of Transport rules.

I will deal with the final comment within your letter when you have completed your investigations, as that issue is just another one of the strategies that MBNA use to confuse the FOS.

Yours sincerely,

Copies to:
Caroline Wayman, Chief Ombudsman FOS;
Mr. Martin Wheatley CEO FCA

The more members who send the above, the better!

[colonelsensibl]

Re: Help Needed. MBNA redress calculations Do you have two spare stamps

Just looked up a profile on LinkedIn. It's an impressive array of talents...

Lead Adjudicator

Financial Ombudsman Service

April 2011 – Present (3 years 7 months)(Open)2 courses

• Business Influencing Skills
• Project Delivery Skills

See more




Customer Service Assistant

John Lewis

November 2003 – February 2011 (7 years 4 months)

Legal Clerk

Block & Co Solicitors

June 2008 – May 2009 (1 year)



Courses

Independent Coursework

• Introduction to Project Management

Financial Ombudsman Service

• Business Influencing Skills
• Project Delivery Skills

[Angry Cat]

Re: Help Needed. MBNA redress calculations Do you have two spare stamps

For all MBNA victims the following is our Group Holding Letter, just add your own reference number and address details, thank you:


Your Reference: XXXXX XXXXXXX

Ms. Vicki McAusland
Lead Adjudicator
Financial Ombudsman Service
Exchange Tower
London
E14 9SR

Dear Ms McAusland

OUR ‘GROUP’ COMPLAINT ABOUT MBNA LIMITED

I am in receipt of your template letter dated 26 September 2014 and thank you for the same.

It should be noted that the above referenced template letter was sent out to all individuals who engaged in sending our ‘Group’ open letter of complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) to your previous Chief Ombudsman: Mr. Tony Boorman. But that Mr. Boorman has now been replaced by Ms Caroline Wayman. Our Group leader also submitted a substantial file of papers to Mr. Boorman as well as to the Chief Executive Office of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA): Mr. Martin Wheatley.

Please be advised that we did receive a response from Mr. Martin Wheatley’s office and that our serious complaint was looked into by Mr. Chris Preston of the FCA. We were then advised that the FCA had requested that the FOS investigate our most serious concerns but to report back to the FCA with their findings.

Frankly, I must say that I find it not only astonishing but also extremely very worrying that you have not investigated as to why MBNA Limited have been incorrectly calculating PPI redress claims correctly. It has taken you over eight (8) long months to provide a response which completely misses the point!

Furthermore, your response appears to be addressing “a forum” of which you have read the thread on MBNA and the way it calculates credit card redress when a PPI policy has been mis-sold. Please advise which “forum” you were referring to? It is also quite worrying that you make no mention of our substantial submission nor to the calculations contained therein? Why?

Unfortunately, I am unable to respond to your letter fully as you clearly have not investigated fully our concerns; you appear to be attempting to water down/sweep under the carpet our concerns, so to speak. Therefore, until you do investigate correctly and take the time to study our complete submission, I cannot comment further.

Turning to paragraph seven (7) of your response:

• “So while MBNA’s calculations may not be identical to the examples set out in PS 10/12, DISP App 3 or our own note on our own website. I don’t think this necessarily means their calculations may be unfair.”

In my view your above comment is absolutely ridiculous!

You refer to the FOS note on the FOS website, that note must be based upon PS 10/12.
MBNA Limited are required to follow PS 10/12 Appendix 2; Example 6 when calculating PPI redress on rolling account credit.
MBNA Limited is NOT following Appendix 2; Example 6 and as such is incorrectly calculating PPI redress.

One wonders, if one were to apply your logic to say; driving on the left hand side of the road, the FOS would think it fair for MBNA to drive in the middle of the road, as that would be near enough? Of course, they would reach their destination but that does not meet the Department of Transport rules.

I will deal with the final comment within your letter when you have completed your investigations, as that issue is just another one of the strategies that MBNA use to confuse the FOS.

Yours sincerely,

Copies to:
Caroline Wayman, Chief Ombudsman FOS;
Mr. Martin Wheatley CEO FCA

[Angry Cat]

Re: Help Needed. MBNA redress calculations Do you have two spare stamps

Would its impact be heightened if it was cc'd to Martin Wheatley and Caroline Wayman?

Absolutely, and that is exactly what I intend on doing!

[colonelsensibl]

Re: Help Needed. MBNA redress calculations Do you have two spare stamps

Would its impact be heightened if it was cc'd to Martin Wheatley and Caroline Wayman?

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: Help Needed. MBNA redress calculations Do you have two spare stamps

For all MBNA victims the following is our Group Holding Letter, just add your own reference number and address details, thank you:


Your Reference: XXXXX XXXXXXX

Ms. Vicki McAusland
Lead Adjudicator
Financial Ombudsman Service
Exchange Tower
London
E14 9SR

Dear Ms McAusland

OUR ‘GROUP’ COMPLAINT ABOUT MBNA LIMITED

I am in receipt of your template letter dated 26 September 2014 and thank you for the same.

It should be noted that the above referenced template letter was sent out to all individuals who engaged in sending our ‘Group’ open letter of complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) to your previous Chief Ombudsman: Mr. Tony Boorman. But that Mr. Boorman has now been replaced by Ms Caroline Wayman. Our Group leader also submitted a substantial file of papers to Mr. Boorman as well as to the Chief Executive Office of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA): Mr. Martin Wheatley.

Please be advised that we did receive a response from Mr. Martin Wheatley’s office and that our serious complaint was looked into by Mr. Chris Preston of the FCA. We were then advised that the FCA had requested that the FOS investigate our most serious concerns but to report back to the FCA with their findings.

Frankly, I must say that I find it not only astonishing but also extremely very worrying that you have not investigated as to why MBNA Limited have been incorrectly calculating PPI redress claims correctly. It has taken you over eight (8) long months to provide a response which completely misses the point!

Furthermore, your response appears to be addressing “a forum” of which you have read the thread on MBNA and the way it calculates credit card redress when a PPI policy has been mis-sold. Please advise which “forum” you were referring to? It is also quite worrying that you make no mention of our substantial submission nor to the calculations contained therein? Why?

Unfortunately, I am unable to respond to your letter fully as you clearly have not investigated fully our concerns; you appear to be attempting to water down/sweep under the carpet our concerns, so to speak. Therefore, until you do investigate correctly and take the time to study our complete submission, I cannot comment further.

Turning to paragraph seven (7) of your response:

• “So while MBNA’s calculations may not be identical to the examples set out in PS 10/12, DISP App 3 or our own note on our own website. I don’t think this necessarily means their calculations may be unfair.”

In my view your above comment is absolutely ridiculous!

You refer to the FOS note on the FOS website, that note must be based upon PS 10/12.
MBNA Limited are required to follow PS 10/12 Appendix 2; Example 6 when calculating PPI redress on rolling account credit.
MBNA Limited is NOT following Appendix 2; Example 6 and as such is incorrectly calculating PPI redress.

One wonders, if one were to apply your logic to say; driving on the left hand side of the road, the FOS would think it fair for MBNA to drive in the middle of the road, as that would be near enough? Of course, they would reach their destination but that does not meet the Department of Transport rules.

I will deal with the final comment within your letter when you have completed your investigations, as that issue is just another one of the strategies that MBNA use to confuse the FOS.

Yours sincerely,

already sent off amended

[Bill-K]

Re: Help Needed. MBNA redress calculations Do you have two spare stamps

After 8 months, we have nowt to lose, I reckon AC. A broadside seems necessary now, and I reckon you are delivering it.

The more who send it to her, the more it may hit home.

[Angry Cat]

Re: Help Needed. MBNA redress calculations Do you have two spare stamps

For all MBNA victims the following is our Group Holding Letter, just add your own reference number and address details, thank you:


Your Reference: XXXXX XXXXXXX

Ms. Vicki McAusland
Lead Adjudicator
Financial Ombudsman Service
Exchange Tower
London
E14 9SR

Dear Ms McAusland

OUR ‘GROUP’ COMPLAINT ABOUT MBNA LIMITED

I am in receipt of your template letter dated 26 September 2014 and thank you for the same.

It should be noted that the above referenced template letter was sent out to all individuals who engaged in sending our ‘Group’ open letter of complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) to your previous Chief Ombudsman: Mr. Tony Boorman. But that Mr. Boorman has now been replaced by Ms Caroline Wayman. Our Group leader also submitted a substantial file of papers to Mr. Boorman as well as to the Chief Executive Office of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA): Mr. Martin Wheatley.

Please be advised that we did receive a response from Mr. Martin Wheatley’s office and that our serious complaint was looked into by Mr. Chris Preston of the FCA. We were then advised that the FCA had requested that the FOS investigate our most serious concerns but to report back to the FCA with their findings.

Frankly, I must say that I find it not only astonishing but also extremely very worrying that you have not investigated as to why MBNA Limited have been incorrectly calculating PPI redress claims correctly. It has taken you over eight (8) long months to provide a response which completely misses the point!

Furthermore, your response appears to be addressing “a forum” of which you have read the thread on MBNA and the way it calculates credit card redress when a PPI policy has been mis-sold. Please advise which “forum” you were referring to? It is also quite worrying that you make no mention of our substantial submission nor to the calculations contained therein? Why?

Unfortunately, I am unable to respond to your letter fully as you clearly have not investigated fully our concerns; you appear to be attempting to water down/sweep under the carpet our concerns, so to speak. Therefore, until you do investigate correctly and take the time to study our complete submission, I cannot comment further.

Turning to paragraph seven (7) of your response:

• “So while MBNA’s calculations may not be identical to the examples set out in PS 10/12, DISP App 3 or our own note on our own website. I don’t think this necessarily means their calculations may be unfair.”

In my view your above comment is absolutely ridiculous!

You refer to the FOS note on the FOS website, that note must be based upon PS 10/12.
MBNA Limited are required to follow PS 10/12 Appendix 2; Example 6 when calculating PPI redress on rolling account credit.
MBNA Limited is NOT following Appendix 2; Example 6 and as such is incorrectly calculating PPI redress.

One wonders, if one were to apply your logic to say; driving on the left hand side of the road, the FOS would think it fair for MBNA to drive in the middle of the road, as that would be near enough? Of course, they would reach their destination but that does not meet the Department of Transport rules.

I will deal with the final comment within your letter when you have completed your investigations, as that issue is just another one of the strategies that MBNA use to confuse the FOS.

Yours sincerely,

[Angry Cat]

Re: Help Needed. MBNA redress calculations Do you have two spare stamps

Just a line to let AAD MBNA victims know that we are still on the case.
And that Ms. Vicki McAusland will be shortly in receipt of a Group communication proving, beyond doubt, that MBNA has been incorrectly calculating PPI redress claims!

If, there is any attempt of sidestepping, both the Regulator and the FOS will be 'Red Faced'; Shamed by the Press.

We have had enough...

[Angry Cat]

Re: Help Needed. MBNA redress calculations Do you have two spare stamps

I agree entirely with Oscar & Ken. Some time ago, I worked on a claim for charges on a current account that was used to 'service' a series of consolidated loans, and the PPI-attributable charges, plus apportioned account interest plus 8% simple interest was a four-figure sum.

And as Ken suggests - it looks as though they are trying to deflect the spotlight away from their calculation methods.

Yes Bill, that is exactly MBNA's strategy:
'to deflect the spotlight away from their calculation methods'!

[Angry Cat]

Re: Help Needed. MBNA redress calculations Do you have two spare stamps

Bullshit.

I saw many an account where the application of PPI caused the account to go over limit, and trigger the over limit (or default fee as they prefer) to be applied.

Of course PPI can cause an account to go over limit!! - If your balance say £1950, and you have a £2000 limit, the interest, and then the PPI would cause that account to go over limit - saw it several times.

And as for working "with" he FOS - that must be a change in stance from trying to pull the wool over their eyes!!

Many, many members of the MBNA Fan Club knew/are fully conversed with the MBNA strategies...
And, let us not forget, that it was MBNA themselves who were majorly chastised for having the lowest minimum monthly payment RE: credit cards; same was well reported in the press both over the pond and here in the Which? Magazine.
Their low monthly minimum was designed to keep customers in debt. It doesn't take much intellect to work out what the consequences of same would have been when the monthly PPI premiums were applied!

I myself, was fined 22 times whilst I had a PPI claim on my first MBNA policy in place; the fines were NOT caused by my behaviour.

I was also fined when the idiots lost one of my cheques: over limit and then swiftly followed by the default fee. In fact when I look back, it was mind boggling to see just how many times they fined me but I hasten to add non of the fines were caused by my behaviour.

The latest MBNA missive that bangs on about 'Default fees' (punitive fines) was conceived by MBNA as a strategy to detract the incompetent minds of the FOS, who need to pull their socks up and deal with our concerns correctly, instead of them cosying up to MBNA, as threy always have done...!

[Bill-K]

Re: Help Needed. MBNA redress calculations Do you have two spare stamps

I agree entirely with Oscar & Ken. Some time ago, I worked on a claim for charges on a current account that was used to 'service' a series of consolidated loans, and the PPI-attributable charges, plus apportioned account interest plus 8% simple interest was a four-figure sum.

And as Ken suggests - it looks as though they are trying to deflect the spotlight away from their calculation methods.