...Chase deserves to be slapped.

[Anonymous]

---

@Hopelives2 wrote:

---

@ReVeLaTeD wrote:

First gal was blatantly rude - in her 40's I wager, that's why. 

Pretty discriminatory against mid-40s women or something?  I find that statement to be insulting.

---

Actually, OP's wager appears to treat the women in their 40's equally, mid- or otherwise. Unless they somehow do manage to come across as alluring, I suppose. 

[Anonymous]

        

These off-the-wall comments about being alluring, or in your 40's are whatever based on a phone call are over the top!

What a hoot!

One day at work I took a call that was actually for my co-worker.  I transferred the call to her.  After she finished the call, she was in hysterics and told me that it was her high school son on the phone.  He just happened to be friends with my high school daughter at the time.  His first comment to her was, "Who was that hot chick on the phone?"  When she told him who it was he just about died.  Phenomenally funny!

When I answer the phone at home, the caller frequently asks to talk to my mother.     

I tell them I am the mom and patiently wait for them to take foot out of mouth. 

[Anonymous]

Just wanted to say congrats on the approval, sorry for the low limit and Best of Luck with the recon.

[ChesterPDexter]

I'd like to see someone speak with unidentified Amy Winehouse on the phone and then make a judgment, on her age, size, etc.  LOL

[ReVeLaTeD]

This is very simple.

In the first application I authorized Chase to run a credit report - not knowing which - and render a decision.  They declined.

During the recon I authorized Chase to run a credit report - specifically told Equifax - and render an alternate decision.  They accepted.

The terms of a credit card application are that you will consider the approval AND the terms of the credit card based on the credit report from which the APPROVAL decision was made.  The approval was NOT made from Experian.  The approval was made from Equifax.  Therefore, the terms were not correct, thus why I rejected the card.

The back of the paper that the card was attached to clearly states that they based their terms from the Experian report.  This will be sent to Equifax along with a letter to get the inquiry and the tradeline deleted as both were not permissible.  The card was never opened, never activated, never accepted, Equifax was not used to render the terms, therefore there shouldn't be any Chase references on that report, and there won't be by the time I'm done.

Some of you think I'm upset because I was declined.  I'm not.  I want what's fair.  If I tell you to run a clean report from a different bureau, at that point THAT report should guide your decisioning, EVEN IF the first report's contents affected that decision.  But given this scenario, you've done two adverse actions: you declined the initial app and offered the lowest possible least desirable terms - also considered adverse action.  I got one notice of that adverse action...the Experian denial.

Additionally, I was not given the opportunity ON THE PHONE to hear what limit was being offered, and to either counter with a different offer or reject prior to the credit card being issued.  That then tacked onto my credit report without any ability to stop it.

THAT is my problem.  It's not the decision.  It's how they got there.  And no, what they did is not the norm.  Most companies would recon to a different bureau and then use that report to make all of their future decisions, otherwise the nature of "permissible purpose" goes right out the window.

[drsmith]

---

@ReVeLaTeD wrote:

During the recon I authorized Chase to run a credit report - specifically told Equifax - and render an alternate decision.  They accepted.

This will be sent to Equifax along with a letter to get the inquiry and the tradeline deleted as both were not permissible.

---

 So it was permissable, but you aren't happy so now it isn't?

I didn't realize credit card companies operated on a sliding scale and issued set amounts for credit limits based on your report. In my opinion, you should feel lucky they reconsidered you at all.

[daylove]

---

The back of the paper that the card was attached to clearly states that they based their terms from the Experian report.  This will be sent to Equifax along with a letter to get the inquiry and the tradeline deleted as both were not permissible.  The card was never opened, never activated, never accepted, Equifax was not used to render the terms, therefore there shouldn't be any Chase references on that report, and there won't be by the time I'm done.

---

---

I assume the card come inside a letterhead that is standard for all, based on normal approvals and not reconns.

You should realize that you are not entitle to anything and the CC company does not have to disclose the credit line you will be awarded on the phone.

[Anonymous]

@ChesterPDexter regarding his Amy Winehouse comment.  Maybe some of the CSRs we deal with at the cccs are actually Hollywood celebs fulfilling their community service!

[Anonymous]

---

@ReVeLaTeD wrote:

This is very simple.

In the first application I authorized Chase to run a credit report - not knowing which - and render a decision.  They declined.

During the recon I authorized Chase to run a credit report - specifically told Equifax - and render an alternate decision.  They accepted.

The terms of a credit card application are that you will consider the approval AND the terms of the credit card based on the credit report from which the APPROVAL decision was made.  The approval was NOT made from Experian.  The approval was made from Equifax.  Therefore, the terms were not correct, thus why I rejected the card.

The back of the paper that the card was attached to clearly states that they based their terms from the Experian report.  This will be sent to Equifax along with a letter to get the inquiry and the tradeline deleted as both were not permissible.  The card was never opened, never activated, never accepted, Equifax was not used to render the terms, therefore there shouldn't be any Chase references on that report, and there won't be by the time I'm done.

Some of you think I'm upset because I was declined.  I'm not.  I want what's fair.  If I tell you to run a clean report from a different bureau, at that point THAT report should guide your decisioning, EVEN IF the first report's contents affected that decision.  But given this scenario, you've done two adverse actions: you declined the initial app and offered the lowest possible least desirable terms - also considered adverse action.  I got one notice of that adverse action...the Experian denial.

Additionally, I was not given the opportunity ON THE PHONE to hear what limit was being offered, and to either counter with a different offer or reject prior to the credit card being issued.  That then tacked onto my credit report without any ability to stop it.

THAT is my problem.  It's not the decision.  It's how they got there.  And no, what they did is not the norm.  Most companies would recon to a different bureau and then use that report to make all of their future decisions, otherwise the nature of "permissible purpose" goes right out the window.

---

It's only simple because you don't understand.

Many times a creditor will not tell you the limit or APR when they approve you over the phone.  If you felt it important to know, you should have asked.  They were under no obligation to tell you. 

How do you know what Chase did is not the norm?  There are hundreds of posts here with people getting approved with bad credit and then the card never grows even though their credit has improved significantly.  There are posts about people who have been approved for low limits upon recon or very high APRs.  Chase gave you $500 for a reason.  Maybe they didn't even want to give you that, but the analyst you spoke with gave you $500 for any one of a variety of reasons when they thought "fair" would have been to give you nothing.

Anyhow, good luck fighting with Chase.  Why not try to sue them under your novel interpretation of permissible purpose?  That should be interesting.

[Anonymous]

---

@ChesterPDexter wrote:

After referring to women repeatedly as a "gal," one was called an "alluring female" (I didn't know people could be diagnosed as alluring over the phone) and another was said to be grouchy specifically because she sounded to be in her forties.  This is all sort of weird.

Maybe they didn't find you the most pleasant to deal with on the phone.

---

Oh, I'm sure the adjectives would have been different if he had been approved for what he felt he was entitled to.