Is there a way around my error?

pqrdef

opinions4u wrote: »

I suspect not. Statement issued. Payment allocated against amounts on that statement. The purchase appears on the subsequent statement. It's not sharp practice and I doubt it's been done to deliberately catch people out.

There's no reason why the allocation of payments should make any reference at all to what was or wasn't shown on the previous statement. It can be done against whatever is owing at the time. The previous statement is a spurious and irrelevant consideration.

opinions4u

pqrdef wrote: »

There's no reason why the allocation of payments should make any reference at all to what was or wasn't shown on the previous statement. It can be done against whatever is owing at the time. The previous statement is a spurious and irrelevant consideration.

The statement is a perfectly sensible and logical reference point.

YorkshireBoy

opinions4u wrote: »

The statement is a perfectly sensible and logical reference point.

ssshhhh...MBNA haven't thought of this yet!...

2f If any payment made to your account is not enough to pay off the total account balance in full on the date that payment is applied to your account, it will be allocated towards paying off those different parts of that total balance that are charged at higher interest rates before those that are charged at lower interest rates, regardless of whether items making up those balances have appeared on any statement.

Who said MBNA weren't customer focussed?

opinions4u

YorkshireBoy wrote: »

ssshhhh...MBNA haven't thought of this yet!...Who said MBNA weren't customer focussed?

The irony being that they brought in the term and condition to exploit their interest allocation methods long before the current rules were dreamed up!

Jammi

newgirlhere99 wrote: »

This is the extract of the T&C

If you pay more than the amount due shown on your statement, we will use any remaining payment to pay off transactions that have not yet appeared on your statement in the same order as those that do appear on your statement.

This suggest to me that the payment should not have gone towards the £2400 transaction. Or have I got it wrong?

Still, its not a risk that I would take. And I can't understand why the OP would make an extra payment of £1850 to a card charging no interest.

opinions4u

Jammi wrote: »

This suggest to me that the payment should not have gone towards the £2400 transaction. Or have I got it wrong?

Only if the payment had more than cleared the full balance showing on the previous statement.

YorkshireBoy

Jammi wrote: »

And I can't understand why the OP would make an extra payment of £1850 to a card charging no interest.

It was only charging "no interest" on the balance transferred to it at some point in the past.

Any 0% purchases offer had long since expired, if it ever existed.

Jammi

YorkshireBoy wrote: »

It was only charging "no interest" on the balance transferred to it at some point in the past.

Any 0% purchases offer had long since expired, if it ever existed.

However, OP did state that the payment was allocated to the 0% balance, and further appears to suggest that it's only the £2400 (and no other purchases) that is now attracting interest.

chattychappy

Jammi wrote: »

However, OP did state that the payment was allocated to the 0% balance, and further appears to suggest that it's only the £2400 (and no other purchases) that is now attracting interest.

That was my understanding too. So unfortunately the OP now has to pay another £2400 before interest stops appearing (unless they reallocate).

thenudeone

opinions4u wrote: »

The statement is a perfectly sensible and logical reference point.

Well I would have though that the date of the transaction, or the date the transaction is charged to the account would both be reasonable dates to use. The statement date is just an arbitrary date chosen at random when the account was opened, and less easy to justify.

This clearly goes against the spirit (if not the letter) of the payment allocation rules.

I would certainly complain on this one.