@maksimfa wrote:Good thing you are an accountant, because your grammar and spelling clearly suck.
Their lead, not there lead.
follow advice, not advise,
also, as far as being an accountant, you should know most banks will not really consider it dependable income unless you have at least 5 years of positive records.
Absolutely update your records with Barclays and give them copies of your tax returns if they need proof.
Self employed yee income is much tougher to depend on for most lenders, unlike w2, even though for established business owners, nothing can be further from the truth.
good luck.
Let's remember to be respectful in your comments, as to not violate myfico's TOS and User Guidelines.
~Lexie, myFICO Moderator
@SorenX wrote:
@enharu wrote:
so you want to make risk management illegal....?
the lack of risk management was precisely what got the economy into its current state.
OP got a lot of new credit over a short period of time. To any bank, this is regarded as risky behavior. We don't know what his income is, but there's also a possiblity that Barclays may have decided that OP has too much CL compared to his income.
Edit: To add, Barclays isn't punishing him. Barclays is simply not wanting to lend OP as much money as before. They are not obliged to. Neither is OP obliged to remain as a customer. What you are claiming is essentially saying just because I let a friend stayed overnight at my house once, he is now entitled to stay at my house for the rest of his life.
I am particularly sensitive to the issue of taking action against someone when they haven't specifically done anything to warrant such action.
Barclays is reacting to the POTENTIAL for bad behavior, not bad behavior itself. And so no, I don't like that. It's no different to me than prohibitionists wanting to outlaw alcohol for EVERYBODY simply because SOME individuals would get drunk and cause trouble. This also was a form of "risk management" (no drunkards in the streets if there's nothing to drink) but I hope you'd agree that it was misguided and punished responsible people of good character for other people's mistakes.
I believe that when a creditor issues a credit card, they are making a pact with the borrower: "Okay, so I'm going to extend this credit to you, and as long as you're responsible with it we will maintain this arrangement." At this point, the borrower will place a certain faith in the lender and will expect that the credit will be there if and when they need it. But what Barclays is doing is reneging on this pact and saying, "Yeah, we know you didn't actually do anything to harm us or our business, but we're worried you MIGHT in the future. So we're going to take back what we gave you."
That is not okay to me and would certainly piss me off as a customer after I had remained loyal to them for three years.
The "alcohol" analogy you used is flawed... here's a better one:
"OP said he was going to the bar, could he borrow Barclay's car?" Barclay of course has every right to say no even if they've said Op can borrow the car when they need to. While it's true the Op hasn't done anything wrong and might not do anything wrong (he/she could simply go into the bar and play pool while sipping a coke. He could even just have one drink, sit for an hour or so, never getting a buzz. But Barclay would be on the hook if they were not responsible."
