Lloyds Bank brings fictional fraud to life?

Analyst

Lloyds Bank shows characteristics of Great Benefit, the insurer that never pays, in John Grisham’s novel, The Rainmaker.

Except the denial in this case, is denying mathematical reality, with full support from the FOS.

Like Great Benefit, Lloyds Bank are relying on the fact that the majority will not be able to afford expert advice, but forgetting that it is 2025, and AI is available.

It means anyone can interrogate an AI of their choosing, and confirm that no, their remaining mortgage term should not have increased by a third, resulting in a large over payment of interest, from artificially low mortgage payments.

For example:

“No, T does not increase when annual interest rates fall (e.g., from 5.4% to 2.4%), P is recalculated based on the new rate, and small variable overpayments are made each month. The remaining term T either stays the same as the scheduled term or shortens due to the overpayments. The provided formula confirms this behaviour:

T=log⁡(P / (P - (I x MB)) / log(1 + I)

Their mortgage balance would also have had to increase by a third, which is an obvious absurdity.

What then is the motivation of Lloyds Bank in refusing to discuss, 16 months into the complaint? Incompetence, or Great Benefit’s written procedure of deny, deny, deny?

 

Note

Where

T = Reduced term

P = Current monthly payment at time of recalculation

I = Decimal monthly interest rate (Annual interest rate divided by 100 then by 12)

MB = Mortgage balance excluding offset

Formula provided by Lloyds Bank.

 

So, your challenge over the Christmas break, is to explain how Lloyds Bank and the FOS, operate in a parallel universe, where mathematical laws do not apply. I will not comment on individual solutions that ignore the limitations given above, or basic common sense.

flaneurs_lobster

So, in essence, you have a complaint with Lloyds Bank as to how they calculate the remaining balance on your mortgage.

Lloyds have rejected your complaint.

You have taken your complaint to the FOS and they have not upheld your complaint.

Are you asking for advice on how to take your complaint further?

EDIT : If you add the FOS Decision Reference then those who are interested might be able to comment further.

kinger101

It would help if people could understand what you posted.

MWT

I would start reading here before deciding to post a reply:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6611013/beware-mickey-mouse-mortgages-from-lloyds-bank/p1

flaneurs_lobster

MWT said:

I would start reading here before deciding to post a reply:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6611013/beware-mickey-mouse-mortgages-from-lloyds-bank/p1

Ah.

Thank-you.

soolin

kinger101 said:

It would help if people could understand what you posted.

Worth noting possibly that the use of Ai is being used to ‘prove’ Lloyds and the FOS are wrong. 

This is the same Ai that is getting eBay users wound up as Ai is stating certain incorrect things as ‘fact’ when in fact they are both against eBay policy and UK law. 

Analyst

flaneurs_lobster said:

So, in essence, you have a complaint with Lloyds Bank as to how they calculate the remaining balance on your mortgage.

Lloyds have rejected your complaint.

You have taken your complaint to the FOS and they have not upheld your complaint.

Are you asking for advice on how to take your complaint further?

EDIT : If you add the FOS Decision Reference then those who are interested might be able to comment further.

The FOS did not even name our complaint in the decision, so the decision has no value.

Analyst

kinger101 said:

It would help if people could understand what you posted.

I have corrected the pigs ear copy and paste made of the formula. Hope that helps.

flaneurs_lobster

Analyst said:

flaneurs_lobster said:

So, in essence, you have a complaint with Lloyds Bank as to how they calculate the remaining balance on your mortgage.

Lloyds have rejected your complaint.

You have taken your complaint to the FOS and they have not upheld your complaint.

Are you asking for advice on how to take your complaint further?

EDIT : If you add the FOS Decision Reference then those who are interested might be able to comment further.

The FOS did not even name our complaint in the decision, so the decision has no value.

I don't understand this comment.

Could you confirm or otherwise that this is the FOS decision that you mention in your OP and that you claim has "no value"?

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-5750324.pdf

Analyst

soolin said:

kinger101 said:

It would help if people could understand what you posted.

Worth noting possibly that the use of Ai is being used to ‘prove’ Lloyds and the FOS are wrong. 

This is the same Ai that is getting eBay users wound up as Ai is stating certain incorrect things as ‘fact’ when in fact they are both against eBay policy and UK law. 

AI was not used to prove them wrong, but it is a simpler tool for most people trying to understand complex maths.

If used correctly, you can identify outliers, that may explain a situation, but yes, it will use outliers that are unrealistic if you are not careful. Understanding maths is about the limit of AI's ability, and you can check the reasoning used easily.

The conclusions are based on following the exact methodology described by Lloyds Bank, which differs in no respect to my view 16 months ago. Lloyds Bank are relying on a final letter that contains primary school level maths errors, like using a result that has not been calculated yet.

Also, the FOS will not accept any evidence without a paid for audit, so it is not the free service advertised.

ACG

If you have gone to Lloyds who have rejected your complaint. 
And the Ombudsman who have rejected your complaint. 
You might have the ability to appeal the decision - im not sure? 
But failing that, your next option is court. 

Regardless of what anyone (or AI - do not rely on that without at least verifying it) says you need are going to have to go to court. 

Are you actually going to do that? If not, then all of this is pointless.