Mbna plevin

Gig1968

Hi
Has anyone heard from mbna about plevin. I know they have been working on this for a while.

dunstonh

I believe the forum has only seen one post so far on a Plevin complaint about MBNA and that was rejected as the commission was below the tipping point. (i.e. it was under 50%). That as an MBNA credit card.

Plevin is likely to be a big disappointment to many. Broadly speaking, virtually all regular premium standalone PPI is under the 50% mark. Credit card PPI is around the 30-60% mark (so some under/some over) with most single premium PPI being over 50%.

People could be waiting 2 years to find out as they not only have to deal with new complaints, they also have to deal with the backlog. Although if a provider knows all their PPI is under 50%, then it should be easy to bulk post out letters without having to deal with each one individually.

Gig1968

Thanks for your swift response as usual most helpful. Mbna have set up on their website a page for Plevin case complaints. So I thought I would contact them via the online form. . Two days later I had an email saying that they were allready looking into my case. It even quoted the card number as it was an old card. So I thought I'd phone them. Most helpful guy quoted that they had been doing an excercise over the past few months (even though plevin had not been finalised by then) to identify customers. He stated that an awful lot of cases had been identified for redress and that some letters had allready been despatched.
I'm interested in your comments that one case had been turned down as being below the 50% threshold. Would that not mean that all cards with mbna would have the same below 50% threshold. ?

dunstonh

I'm interested in your comments that one case had been turned down as being below the 50% threshold. Would that not mean that all cards with mbna would have the same below 50% threshold. ?

Not necessarily. Products change and get updated. You also have different distribution channels within the same company. So, one may be retailing a product with slightly different terms. i.e. a mailshot focusing on one target market may have a different cost applied to PPI than another market. PPI costs generally got cheaper over time. So, earlier ones may be breaching the tipping point but later ones not.

It is going to be very interesting in the coming months are more people post their plevin outcomes.

Gig1968

I agree interesting times ahead. I've reclaimed ppi on several loans and cards . The only one that rejected me was mbna. So I guess I hope their time to pay out will arrive soon. I get the feeling from the effort they seem to be going to in their investigations that this may cost them lots. They so deserve it.
Are you aware of redress being paid out for excess charges added on to loans by banks when they pass the collection of your debt debt to solicitors.?

dunstonh

Are you aware of redress being paid out for excess charges added on to loans by banks when they pass the collection of your debt debt to solicitors.?

Rules require the firms to take things like that into account when working out redress. However, in reality, very few do as you have to be able to show that the use of debt collection would have been avoided has there not been PPI. For the vast majority of cases, the PPI premium is small fry compared to the scale of debt and it wouldnt have changed the outcome.

Gig1968

Thank you again.
I'm interested in your thoughts about HSBC redress for debt collection charges added to loans when passed on to HSBC solicitors during the period 2003 to 2009. The charge added was 16.4%. I received redress last month for this situation. I'm slightly confused as my ppi claim was refused in 2016 as being time barred., Which I understand was correct. However in light of this new redress and the period being outside the barring period is 2003 to 2009, could or should the case revolving the ppi claim be reopened.

dunstonh

Gig1968 wrote: »

Thank you again.
I'm interested in your thoughts about HSBC redress for debt collection charges added to loans when passed on to HSBC solicitors during the period 2003 to 2009. The charge added was 16.4%. I received redress last month for this situation. I'm slightly confused as my ppi claim was refused in 2016 as being time barred., Which I understand was correct. However in light of this new redress and the period being outside the barring period is 2003 to 2009, could or should the case revolving the ppi claim be reopened.

The plevin ruling is not a back door into getting cases reopened. However, the plevin redress calculation does need to take into account associated costs. i.e. would you have avoided costs if the premium was lower (but not to zero but 50%. i.e. if commission was 65%, then the 15% excess is taken into account and if the charges and outcomes would have still been the same at 50%, then there is nothing extra to refund).

Gig1968

I'm still confused if the original ppi was rejected. How was it possible for them to redress me for excess debt collection charges as per the FCA ruling in January.

dunstonh

Gig1968 wrote: »

I'm still confused if the original ppi was rejected. How was it possible for them to redress me for excess debt collection charges as per the FCA ruling in January.

This would be something not linked to the PPI.

I dont know too much about the HSBC issue but I know they were ordered to refund some debt collection charges using an agreed method. That was a standalone issue for that specific thing. The PPI side is something different.

Ironically, for those that get a PPI refund and unreasonable debt collection charge refund, they could end up better off as the PPI redress is not taken into account with the unreasonable debt collection charge refund.

Gig1968

I had the loan refunded for ppi that I paid on time. The rest was passed to HSBC solicitors called restons which I fully paid. Should I contact them for the difference.