1. Interest charged for the period between the transaction date and the
statement date
2. Interest charged on non retail purchase (i.e. ATM or cash withdrawal)
transactions where the customer has not made a prior card purchase.
3. Interest charged where a customer has been a full balance payer for at least two consecutive months
Some of these calculations are very complex (with accuracy of calculation being quite a particularly difficult thing to pin down), difficult to capture in computer systems and this is often amplified by the volumes of the transactions. While understandable, however, that is not really excuse for inaction or proper testing and controls.It does go to show that the automated interest & fees charging system of any financial institution is only as good as the way it is programmed/set-up to begin with, though
I would say that is because error's in the companies' favor would be written off in most circumstances. Can you imagine the uproar if MBNA went chasing customers if they had undercharged interest?it’s amazing how these things don’t seem to be checked on a regular basis by internal audit departments. It’s funny how these sort of errors never seem to be in the customer’s favour.
No letter received here.
Some of these calculations are very complex (with accuracy of calculation being quite a particularly difficult thing to pin down), difficult to capture in computer systems and this is often amplified by the volumes of the transactions. While understandable, however, that is not really excuse for inaction or proper testing and controls.
The issue at present has nothing to do with the computer systems. It appears they were calculating correctly but incorrect terms and conditions were sent out to cardholders.
There are two issues:Some of these calculations are very complex (with accuracy of calculation being quite a particularly difficult thing to pin down), difficult to capture in computer systems and this is often amplified by the volumes of the transactions. While understandable, however, that is not really excuse for inaction or proper testing and controls.
The issue at present has nothing to do with the computer systems. It appears they were calculating correctly but incorrect terms and conditions were sent out to cardholders.
Some of these calculations are very complex (with accuracy of calculation being quite a particularly difficult thing to pin down), difficult to capture in computer systems and this is often amplified by the volumes of the transactions. While understandable, however, that is not really excuse for inaction or proper testing and controls.
The issue at present has nothing to do with the computer systems. It appears they were calculating correctly but incorrect terms and conditions were sent out to cardholders.
..and further to Papercuts reply if the computer systems are not calculating interest in accordance with the terms and conditions (drafted incorrectly or otherwise) then they are not working correctly.
..and further to Papercuts reply if the computer systems are not calculating interest in accordance with the terms and conditions (drafted incorrectly or otherwise) then they are not working correctly.
MBNA never said there was an issue with their systems, what they did say and I quote from their own press release
"We have identified an error in the way the charging of interest
was described to customers in the terms and conditions of our credit card product."
They did to me when I rang them. If you are in any doubt you should ring & hear it from the horse’s mouth.
Freephone: 1800 818 704
No problem Blackberry….I wasn’t implying that you were foolish in any way – be that foolish enough to have a card with them or foolish enough to post misinformed information about them…I was merely clarifying the facts regarding their computer programming error!!Thanks Papercut.......Don't need to ring them........Not foolish enough to have a card with them!!!!
Mr O’Rourke [Chairman of the Consumer Panel] is seeking a meeting with the regulator over the €18 million being repaid by credit card company MBNA to customers it overcharged.
The panel wants to know why MBNA was not fined for overcharging when much smaller operators are penalised for minor infractions.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?