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

[Angry Cat]

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

Sounds just like MBNA;
they fined me 22 times, whilst I had a claim in place and yes they do like to blame the insurer, who in turn blames Chester Towers. But IMHO both London & Edinburgh (part of the disgraced Norwich Union) and MBNA Europe Bank /MBNA Limited were/are totally incompetent...!

So, which insurer were they blaming; London & Edinburgh or, St Andrews? (MBNA changed their PPI insurer from London & Edinburgh to St Andrews in early 2005)?

Well, here is an interesting turn of events;

I recently sent a letter chasing my request for a recalculation of my PPI redress to Chester Towers and;
bearing in mind that I am one of the mass complainants who contributed to the presentation being sent to both the FCA and FOS. I was sent the FOS Vicki McAusland letter dated 26 September 2014, in which Ms. McAusland totally missed the point contained within our mass complaint...!

Ms. McAusland, stated within her letter dated 26 September 2014:

"The issue of credit card charges and whether some of them should be refunded as part of the PPI redress has been raised recently. Although that wasn't part of your original query, I though it might be helpful to summarise the position. We have been clear that all credit card fees that were caused by the mis-sale of the PPI should be refunded to consumers.
MBNA has argued that there are circumstances where fees were not caused by the mis-sale of the PPI but by a consumer's own behaviour. We are working through these issues with MBNA..."
Not half, I bet they (FOS) are; cosy, cosy!

So, you can just imagine how my eyebrows raised when I read the following MBNA missive dated 02 October 2014, (but received yesterday 08 October 2014); sent out via 3rd class contract mail UKMail and;
a strangely worded template letter, which has obviously been strung together in order to pull the wool over the eyes of both FCA and FOS;
almost as though the letter is being directed towards Vicki McAusland's eyes:-

MBNA Limited 02/Oct/2014

Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding your redress payment and the suggestion that the exclusion of default fees in our calculation, has resulted in your request for your redress payment to be reviewed.

(I didn't mention Default fees!)

I would like to clarify MBNA's position on this matter. We are confident that our Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) redress is correct; we have considered our methodology carefully and in detail. Our confidence is reinforced through external independent reviews which supported the way we approach default fees. I didn't mention default fees)

Fees of this nature are required to b e refunded when they are "caused" by the mis-sale of PPI. Not all credit card fees are the same between lenders. There are aspects of MBNA's fees and charges and the way they are charged (or not charged) which are highly relevant to whether MBNA might be able to refund them. For example, our system operates so that the cost of PPI is only applied after the customer has gone over limit and after the over limit fee has been applied. As such, in our view PPI could never cause our customers to be over limit or cause the fee to be applied.

MBNA has always worked to ensure its PPI redress calculations and the payments it makes to customers follows guidance issued by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and are informed by the decisions of the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS).

If MBNA were to find that an error was made regarding calculations, then consideration of previous complainants would be made. MBNA would inform all impacted customers of our actions and decisions.

If any subsequent redress payment was due, this would be provided along with a full explanation. The relevant regulator would then require an open communication channel and evidence of our compliance to their request. This should give you the comfort that if a redress payment was calculated outside of the expectations of the FCA or the FOS you would be compensated appropriately.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Wyn Williams - MBNA Case Manager."

Answers on a postcard!!!

[oscar]

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!!

[ken100464]

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

As Oscar says on a monthly basis I am sure this would happen

But surely the bank (because it suits) the regulator and the ombudsman are missing the cumulative effect. The effect that PS10/12 so clearly sets out they should be compensating.

So this bank is so correct but all the other banks are wrongly applying PS10/12 to the loss of these banks?????

Default sums are not what we are on about but the bank seems to be happy to muddy the water with them

Both the FCA and FOS need a good looking into by the press IMO.

The maths is actually simple once you get your head around the method. It reduces the claims. Its the reason the bank uses it. And FCA and FOS have fallen hook line and sinker for it.

Hope if we get eventual success the FCA fine this disgraceful bank millions and kicks its sorry ass all the way back across the atlantic.

[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.

[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...!

[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

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

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,

[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.

[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

[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?

[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!

[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

[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

The more members who send the above, the better!