...Chase deserves to be slapped.

[Anonymous]

---

@ReVeLaTeD wrote:

---

@TravellingNomad wrote:

but weren't you the one that insisted they look at EQ on your recon request?  is it possible that they went ahead and approved your recon request using your EQ report and then the terms using the EX report?

---

I was the one who insisted that they run another bureau, yes, with the express intention that the new bureau report be used to approve AND term the credit card.  The logic here is simple - if they were willing to issue an approval at all even disregarding the Experian report it means that they could have approved WITHOUT the Equfax report if they wanted to.  That means there was no need for the Equifax report at all.

I keep saying...I'm not asking anything more than what's fair.  If I authorize you to run Equifax as a reconsideration to an automated decision rendered from Experian, and you run Equifax after you run Experian, my sole expectation is that Equifax be used from that point forward to determine (A) whether you will approve and (B) what terms are granted.  Even if you decide to offer me a lesser card, or perhaps just do the higher APR as a result of the Experian report.  The credit limit given is not representative of a 700+ credit score on Equifax.  It's not representative of anything, considering my lowest limit card is nearly twice what Chase gave.  Again, I wouldn't have even cared if they said that all they could do was match HSBC - that would be fine and understandable.  Or maybe they just counter offer with a lesser card where the limit is not expected to be all that high, like the Chase Freedom, that would also have been fine.

---

True.  It's representative of a guy with bankruptcy still reporting on the other two CRs and scores of burned creditors. 

It's unfortunate that your theory of poor credit risks having the right to credit as long as they can keep at least one CR from showing real circumstances hasn't taken hold.

[score_building]

---

@ReVeLaTeD wrote:

---

@TravellingNomad wrote:

but weren't you the one that insisted they look at EQ on your recon request?  is it possible that they went ahead and approved your recon request using your EQ report and then the terms using the EX report?

---

I was the one who insisted that they run another bureau, yes, with the express intention that the new bureau report be used to approve AND term the credit card.  The logic here is simple - if they were willing to issue an approval at all even disregarding the Experian report it means that they could have approved WITHOUT the Equfax report if they wanted to.  That means there was no need for the Equifax report at all.

I keep saying...I'm not asking anything more than what's fair.  If I authorize you to run Equifax as a reconsideration to an automated decision rendered from Experian, and you run Equifax after you run Experian, my sole expectation is that Equifax be used from that point forward to determine (A) whether you will approve and (B) what terms are granted.  Even if you decide to offer me a lesser card, or perhaps just do the higher APR as a result of the Experian report.  The credit limit given is not representative of a 700+ credit score on Equifax.  It's not representative of anything, considering my lowest limit card is nearly twice what Chase gave.  Again, I wouldn't have even cared if they said that all they could do was match HSBC - that would be fine and understandable.  Or maybe they just counter offer with a lesser card where the limit is not expected to be all that high, like the Chase Freedom, that would also have been fine.

---

With a few notable exceptions issuers don't routinely offer alternative cards than the one app.  Why spend the time deciding what Chase could have or should have done?  It simply doesn't work that way.  Also given the rather specific criteria you set for acceptable responses to your app., definitely barking up the wrong tree with Chase, they're not typically known for being the most amenable to prospective or card holder requests.

[Anonymous]

Seems like you have two choices:  (1)  Accept the credit line Chase offered you or (2) Close the account.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Seems like you have two choices:  (1)  Accept the credit line Chase offered you or (2) Close the account.

---

Actually, three.  (3) Continue to cry about it and make empty veiled threats.

[ReVeLaTeD]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Seems like you have two choices:  (1)  Accept the credit line Chase offered you or (2) Close the account.

---

The card was long since rejected. 

However, regardless of what "Ken" might or might not want, this is a discussion forum.  I am discussing the topic.  If he doesn't care for the topic or the discussion, he can leave it.

I got confirmation that my first steps are in motion, and as soon as I hear back I will post the result(s) if any.

[Anonymous]

Okay, kids.  Let's play nice on the playground.

Please remember to be friendly, supportive and respectful!

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Okay, kids.  Let's play nice on the playground.

Please remember to be friendly, supportive and respectful!

---

As a semi-noob, I am still calibrating myself to the spirit of this board. Beautiful thing, I do not think I have ever seen the "pay your bills deadbeat" in response to a random revolving balance question. Yet the determination in this thread to use the fact that credit is not a right as some "proof" that a customer does not have the right to reject the potential creditor's terms just the same, this just does not seem to fit. But what do I know.

[Anonymous]

---

@ReVeLaTeD wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Seems like you have two choices:  (1)  Accept the credit line Chase offered you or (2) Close the account.

---

The card was long since rejected. 

However, regardless of what "Ken" might or might not want, this is a discussion forum.  I am discussing the topic.  If he doesn't care for the topic or the discussion, he can leave it.

I got confirmation that my first steps are in motion, and as soon as I hear back I will post the result(s) if any.

---

We're all discussing here.  Some, however, don't discuss the same conspiracy theory for three years.

The fact is you have BKs and baddies galore reporting and Chase knows it.  For some reason they exercised their right not to give you what you think you deserve.  And it's good that they did lest anybody with only one good CR could get in, burn Chase again and leave all the rest of us holding the bag in the form of higher interest rates.  The system works as it should.

I sure hope your fight with Chase works out better than your fight with the mortgage lender.  Good luck! 

[ReVeLaTeD]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Okay, kids.  Let's play nice on the playground.

Please remember to be friendly, supportive and respectful!

---

As a semi-noob, I am still calibrating myself to the spirit of this board. Beautiful thing, I do not think I have ever seen the "pay your bills deadbeat" in response to a random revolving balance question. Yet the determination in this thread to use the fact that credit is not a right as some "proof" that a customer does not have the right to reject the potential creditor's terms just the same, this just does not seem to fit. But what do I know.

---

The prevalent thought process is that a consumer is always wrong.  Even when a creditor fails to do due diligence in (A) proper disclosure before credit exposure, (B) proper credit terms based on active credit report, or (C) extension of credit based on what is, not what was.  What most want you to do is cry rivers about how you made mistakes and are struggling.  They don't want to hear that someone is standing up for what's right, because there's no way a consumer is right.  Big banks are always right.  Then there are those who feel compelled to add their two cents in instead of just moving on when their comments are not constructive.

Chase did not handle this situation properly, thus the reason this thread exists, to make sure others hear the story.  What some want you to do is be "grateful" that they issued a card at all.  That applies with HSBC, Capital One and other such "non-prime" lenders.  Not Chase, not when the risk is relatively low either way.  The Slate averages roughly $6,000 in credit limits.  Issuing a card for $1,000 won't make a dent in their overall risk when that person has never missed a payment on any of their existing credit cards for years.

1 - the first denial is perfectly fine.  Experian, derogs, system auto denies.  That's fine.

2 - during recon if you offer to pull another bureau but have NO intention of using THAT report to determine terms IF I am approved, that should be clearly disclosed BEFORE running the second report.  Then I can decide whether to do it or not.

3 - If you're going to offer credit based on the recon the offered limit should have been disclosed over the phone with an opportunity to reject right then and there.

[drsmith]

---

@ReVeLaTeD wrote:

2 - during recon if you offer to pull another bureau but have NO intention of using THAT report to determine terms IF I am approved, that should be clearly disclosed BEFORE running the second report.  Then I can decide whether to do it or not.

---

They obviously did use it since they reconsidered your denial, and allowed you to become their customer. I don't understand your feelings of entitlement. With only one good bureau not showing your baddies I can't understand why you don't feel lucky they reconsidered you at all. You seem to be forgetting that credit is not a right, and you aren't guaranteed anything based on your score. Especially when only one of your scores is any good.