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

[colonelsensibl]

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

Bill, Ken - I would greatly appreciate your viewing those attachments in #129. It seems to me a given that if Vicki doesn't have a maths background, that she should have some mathematical help, and an appropriate email to head FOS/FCA should follow.

Plan B - you are my heroine on this board, and I welcome your advice on my proposal. You may need to view #129 attachments to help your advice.

[ken100464]

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

Bill, Ken - I would greatly appreciate your viewing those attachments in #129. It seems to me a given that if Vicki doesn't have a maths background, that she should have some mathematical help, and an appropriate email to head FOS/FCA should follow.

Plan B - you are my heroine on this board, and I welcome your advice on my proposal. You may need to view #129 attachments to help your advice.

Perhaps not accuse Vikki of being a music grad but point out that Maths does seem to be lacking beyond the 10 O levels which she has failed to reveal what they are.

She does seem more inclined to the arty stuff.

Of course that doesnt preclude her from being a maths wizard. But someone who is a project manager should you would hope employ the best people to resolve whatever the project is.

And if the problem revolves around complex maths you would have thought someone who has a remote understanding of maths would be required

[Bill-K]

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

Indeed, Ken - the ability to delegate intelligently would seem to be a pre-requisite of anyone who considers themselves as 'management' material - don't you agree ?

"I do Ron...Ron...Ron.
I do Ron...Ron..."
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgur...tart=0&ndsp=18

[ken100464]

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

Certainly do Bill

[colonelsensibl]

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

I've thought about this today, and am currently of the feeling that, rather than strike pre-emptively, we should wait to see what she has to say. If that isn't favourable, then the information can be used in an escalation to her boss.

How does that sit with everyone, in particular, Ken & Bill?

I also wondered if a couple of examples of the spreadsheets sent as evidence could be posted up here, so that some familiarisation and swatting could be done whilst waiting for her reply?

[Bill-K]

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

I agree with the Colonel - that we should allow a little more time for a response from Vicki and/or any others at the FOS. However, as it appears to have taken the FCA & FOS 8 - 9 months to digest the earlier submission that was sent to them before coming up with what amounts to no more than a feeble insult - I fear they have stretched the patience of far too many MBNA claimants to allow this farce to continue very much longer. Sooner or later, someone is gonna say "OK - No more Mr Nice Guy" - and do something decisive. The jungle drums are telling me that this will be sooner, and not later - as the natives in other forums are also becoming restless I hear.

I am in occasional contact with the group who sent the original submission to the FCA back in February, and will ask if they will allow me to post up some of the example spreadsheets they sent back then. What I can say from my own limited knowledge of credit card PPI claims is that the PPI redress should include all PPI premiums paid, along with the portion of account interest charged on the accruing total of PPI & interest over the period of the claim. The FOS have also made it clear that any other charges made which are directly attributable to the mis-sold PPI can be reclaimed - again, along with apportioned account interest. Finally - the account is theoretically 'reconstructed' in that the monthly account balance is calculated as if the PPI had not been charged to give what is termed the 'Notional Balance' in the FCA's PPI Redress Handbook within PS10/12 (Appendix 2, Example 6).

This Notional Balance is then referred to when determining if certain account charges (such as account overlimit fees, late payment fees, punitive interest charges, etc.) would have been made without PPI being charged. Theoretically (as I have yet to assist with such a claim) - these charges can then be deducted from the Notional Balance to reduce it further - and this process could be repeated until no further reductions occur.

At this stage - the 'final' Notional Balance is checked, and in any month where this now shows as a credit balance (due to the reductions) - then interest at the annual (Statutory) rate of 8% is added - calculated as 0.66667% (which is the annual 8% divided by 12) of the amount of the credit balance in each month. This is the final stage in the redress calculation.

There is, however, a further complication which MBNA appear to have brought in to the mix - and this involves a scenario described in the FOS online PPI resource pages where a claimant's payment history is considered. Where the claimant consistently made only the minimum (agreed or contractual) payment each month, then the Notional balance may be increased to take into consideration the smaller minimum payment that they would have made without PPI. This has the effect of slightly reducing the 8% interest where it applies - and also the assessment of PPI-attributable charges made. Vicki's letter clearly suggests that the word 'consistently' should be ignored - thus supporting MBNA's current use of this - and making a mockery of the FOS's PPI resource advice.

MBNA also appear to use the opposite scenario - where a claimant has always paid their account balance in full each month. However, they appear to have misunderstood this completely in their calculations. Their apparent constant misuse of what are supposed to be exceptional cases seems to be at the root of their unfathomable calculations - yet they clearly have the support of the FOS for this, who have themselves 'modified' their wording to suit MBNA's purposes. The tail wagging the dog, it seems.

What MBNA appear to have done is use these scenarios to enable them to depart from the prescribed calculation method shown in PS10/12, and they have then further abused this to cobble together an unfathomable set of calculations in which they almost invariably appear to succeed in drastically reducing the 8% interest due to claimants. There are also further reports of the PPI-attributable account interest being wrongly calculated, and this needs looking into as well. But what do we get after 8-9 months ? Vicki's waffle.

[oscar]

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

I
There is, however, a further complication which MBNA appear to have brought in to the mix - and this involves a scenario described in the FOS online PPI resource pages where a claimant's payment history is considered. Where the claimant consistently made only the minimum (agreed or contractual) payment each month, then the Notional balance may be increased to take into consideration the smaller minimum payment that they would have made without PPI. This has the effect of slightly reducing the 8% interest where it applies - and also the assessment of PPI-attributable charges made. Vicki's letter clearly suggests that the word 'consistently' should be ignored - thus supporting MBNA's current use of this - and making a mockery of the FOS's PPI resource advice.

Surely, the counter argument would be the way in which MBNA used to calculate the minimum payment - that being all charges, interest etc plus £5. It was the case many times, especially if the customer was close to their limit that the following month the customer would incur charges as the minimum payment made was less than the estimated interest due to be applied! This occurred where the following month had more days in the cycle (probably preaching to the converted here!) - quite happened where there were additional bank holidays such as Easter or Christmas.

MBNA also appear to use the opposite scenario - where a claimant has always paid their account balance in full each month. However, they appear to have misunderstood this completely in their calculations. Their apparent constant misuse of what are supposed to be exceptional cases seems to be at the root of their unfathomable calculations - yet they clearly have the support of the FOS for this, who have themselves 'modified' their wording to suit MBNA's purposes. The tail wagging the dog, it seems.

This one I can believe, if a customer consistently paid their account in full each month then no interest or PPI would have been applied to the account. Been 2 or 3 years since I last had information, so this may have changed.

[Bill-K]

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

The minimum payment calculation was always a mystery to me, Oscar, as it was ostensibly presented as a 'straight' percentage of the monthly balance (around 2 to 5% ?) - but the addition of charges & interest complicated this. And as you point out - if the following month's charges & interest are higher than the current month's, with only the last month's minimum payment made - then the 'snowballing' would start with the overlimit charges, etc.

Regarding those who consistently clear their monthly balance, I believe it is still the fact that they are charged no interest and no PPI. However, if they are reclaiming PPI on previous months when it was charged, then their re-constructed 'Notional Balance' (without PPI) would be a credit balance, and they should receive 0.6667% interest on this for every month it is in credit. MBNA appear to penalise claimants for consistently (or regularly) clearing their balance, though !!!

[oscar]

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

The minimum payment calculation was always a mystery to me, Oscar, as it was ostensibly presented as a 'straight' percentage of the monthly balance (around 2 to 5% ?)

That is how it is now following industry amendments (cant recall the year - 2008 maybe?). When I started, 13 years ago, and for quite some time after (6/7/8) years, their minimum payment was always Interest+Charges+PPI (if taken) +£5. MBNA were known to have the lowest repayments going - its what made them ideal to many to "abuse" balance transfer offers.

Unfortunately it didn't help those that had run up balances.

With regards MBNA penalising customers, they used to regularly close down customers accounts if they were non profitable. They seemed to forget the merchant transaction fees they were raking in.

[Angry Cat]

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

That is how it is now following industry amendments (cant recall the year - 2008 maybe?). When I started, 13 years ago, and for quite some time after (6/7/8) years, their minimum payment was always Interest+Charges+PPI (if taken) +£5. MBNA were known to have the lowest repayments going - its what made them ideal to many to "abuse" balance transfer offers.

Unfortunately it didn't help those that had run up balances.

With regards MBNA penalising customers, they used to regularly close down customers accounts if they were non profitable. They seemed to forget the merchant transaction fees they were raking in.

I have always been of the opinion that the MBNA ingeniously designed PPI/PPC was simply a purely for profit product and have noted that the monthly benefit; 3% of the balance will not be less than £10 or more than £1,000 was created in order to keep a customer in debt to MBNA and not for any protection.
[quote] by Competition Commission May 2007: “MBNA was recently required by the US Office of Comptroller of Currency to increase the minimum monthly repayment on its credit card products to £25 to avoid negative amortization. (Neg Am) As a result, MBNA’s minimum PPI claim payment is in the process of being increased to 5% or £25, whichever is the higher (it currently stands at 5% or £10 to reflect the existing approach).

It would appear that they still have not learnt their lesson, either across the Pond or, here in the UK. But of course in the UK questions are now being asked as to why the Banks are still not being Regulated?
http://www.occ.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2014/nr-occ-2014-157b.pdf

For the avoidance of doubt, MBNA Limited is part of Bank of America BofA.

[Angry Cat]

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

http://www.fool.com/investing/genera...fines-and.aspx

[PlanB]

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

Plan B - you are my heroine on this board, and I welcome your advice on my proposal. You may need to view #129 attachments to help your advice.

Ooops Colonelsensibl I've only just seen this post and your proposal (I don't get many of those these days )

I've also got a charming email from Bill which I will answer in the morning. I've got some homework to do catching up on the backstory of this thread.

I'm happy to add my thoughts to your campaign. I may be rubbish at maths (I'm a woman so it goes with the territory) but it does seem that the FOS and/or FCA may need a nudge from the *Press* to take this matter a bit more seriously.

[Bill-K]

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

Plan B - many thanks indeed for your kind comments. I needed to try and 'joust' for your affections, and the Colonel is more than a worthy opponent !!!

Niddy has been good enough to back this MBNA quest from the word 'go,' and I thank him for that. You have been a good friend throughout the previous few years, and I love you for that (yes !!!)

Sure - this is a maths-based thing that MBNA are using against their customers - and I reckon they have realised that most peeps cannot fight against that. I also reckon that neither the FCA nor the FOS have any b100dy idea what the feck is going on. We have tried the 'gentle' approach, and supplied them with all the info we have, and they have ignored it completely. Good lady - do please read up on what seems useful - and question me and my cohorts accordingly. We seem to have moved beyond the illusory 'regulated' realm, and regressed to the mediaeval heirarchy of serfdom. As regards the Colonel - I look forward to future discussions.

Carry on, chaps...!!!

[Turboman]

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

Amazing thread----well done to especially Bill,AC,Ken,Colonel,Oscar & many others who participated in helping Bill & Ken both here and elsewhere

The discussion on when PPI is applied when paying the minimum payment is particularly interesting and Oscar's posts very relevant.

Re the quotes below-Bill (composite)

You dozy sod-

-MattyA sent us them on 19/12/2010
You commented on 21/12/2010
..and you even sent him a revised SS on 7/1/2011

Could be your age---69 is it??

Well done to you (Bill) by the way for coming across to help us , we were in contact on the other side , where I dont know if you remember I provided Turboman with a copy of my own spreadsheet for calculating redress , which blew Turbomans mind.

Thanks and keep up the good work.

Matty

I can't remember that spready that you shared with Turbo, but maybe he didn't send me a copy, as he has had a lot to deal with lately, I believe. I would be interested to see it, and to learn further, if I may.

Yes - do please send me a copy of the spready, Matty. Anything which blows Turbo's mind interests me - which is probably why I enjoyed discussing guns recently - LOL !!!

[Angry Cat]

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

Can MBNA Limited count?

We are small Group of MBNA Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) claimants who are representative of a much larger group of claimants from across the internet Consumer forums.

It has emerged that MBNA Limited have created a very clever non-standard method of calculating PPI redress which drastically reduces the claim ‘quantum’. It appears that the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) have accepted that this method complies with the FCA rules (PS10/12) – but it seems very clear that it does not.

Our Group have looked very carefully at the differences between the MBNA method and the ‘prescribed’ FCA method and have concluded that the MBNA method must be challenged. It seems quite possible that neither the FCA not the FOS have actually checked that the MBNA method is compliant with FCA rules, and have merely accepted MBNA’s assurances that it is.

Claimants are being offered PPI redress which is far below that which would be due if the standard FCA calculation method were used – but they are being given insufficient information as to how this redress is calculated. Naturally, most claimants simply accept that the calculation is correct – and then accept the settlement “in full & final.”

Our Group believes that MBNA have devised an excessively complex method that neither the FCA, FOS nor the claimant can understand – and that this method reduces most claim settlements by 50% or more. Thus, MBNA Limited is not putting consumers back into the position they would have been but for the mis-selling of PPI.

The Group has concluded that MBNA’s method is not compliant with FCA rules, and that this needs to be addressed by the FOS & FCA. We encouraged every MBNA claimant to send our Group open letter to the FCA and FOS.

The Group believes that the regulators are not enforcing their own rules because they are not investigating potential departure from them.

Since sending at least 20 copies of our Group open letter to Martin Wheatley, FCA and the Chief Ombudsman, FOS in February 2014 we have been given the run around. We even backed our assertions with actual proof showing actual individual cases, which included the MBNA spreadsheets and our own calculations. Together with a detailed analysis explaining exactly how the MBNA methodology is incorrect and that it does not comply with the FSA/FCA rules on calculating PPI redress.

We have followed up our findings for 10 long months now. But neither the FCA nor the FOS appears to want to take any action!?

We would refer to the following:

If there is evidence of systematic mistakes by the banks then the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) should investigate and take tough action against any bank found breaching the rules. But even though we have provided extensive proof to both the FOS representative;
Ms. Vicki Mc Ausland; Lead Adjudicator and to;
Mr. Chris Preston, Manager – Specialist – Supervision Division and Mr. Martin Wheatley (CEO) of the FCA, none appear to have taken any action whatsoever!

We can of course provide our detailed analysis to back our assertions.