Citibank Restsricted Privileges - disappointed that CITI blacklists

[Scuba]

I am surprised this kind of thread doesn't come up more often.  Citi is more than a little goofy so this must have happened to lots of folks. 

I am blacklisted by Citi for restricted privileges.

I never filed BK, they never lost a cent on me, nothing was written off.  I paid them late over a 4 month period as I remember in 2008.

A couple years back I posted a thread about my restricted privileges since up to that time I never heard of this.  Very few forum members posted anything about being "restricted".

I am going to try for an AA card probably in March or April of this year and see if after 6 years I am still in their dog house. 

[FinStar]

---

@gdale6 wrote:

---

@jre wrote:

---

@gdale6 wrote:

Oh ya I IIB them in 96 apped for first time with them in Nov was declined for the same reason, I took it all the way to the EO, no satisfaction. Personally I believe if one has filed a BK it should be illegal to even consider old accounts past the 10 year time frame.

---

This comment is absolutely hilarious. You want to make it illegal for lenders to consider past customer's relationships with them, i.e. burning them. I'd like to see how profitable of a business you would run if the government forced these types of restrictions on your business.

---

---

@jre wrote:

---

@gdale6 wrote:

Oh ya I IIB them in 96 apped for first time with them in Nov was declined for the same reason, I took it all the way to the EO, no satisfaction. Personally I believe if one has filed a BK it should be illegal to even consider old accounts past the 10 year time frame.

---

This comment is absolutely hilarious. You want to make it illegal for lenders to consider past customer's relationships with them, i.e. burning them. I'd like to see how profitable of a business you would run if the government forced these types of restrictions on your business.

---

Ok I wasn't going to say anything else on this but you have irked me. The entire point & purpose of the US Bankruptcy law is to allow someone a fresh start and wipe the slate clean, the penalty is a 10 year period of reduced abilitiy to get credit and higher interest rates. Now if the law allows a fresh start which is its purpose then it becomes a violation of the spirit and intent of the law to continue to use it against someone past the 10 year period. The ones who should be on a BL are the ones who never file a BK and stuff their creditors possibly multiple times with COs and never ever pay them off. The final comment I will make. Have a great day

---

It irked you so much that you had to quote it 2x...LOL... hilarous!!! 

[FinStar]

---

@Scuba wrote:

I am surprised this kind of thread doesn't come up more often.  Citi is more than a little goofy so this must have happened to lots of folks. 

I am blacklisted by Citi for restricted privileges.

I never filed BK, they never lost a cent on me, nothing was written off.  I paid them late over a 4 month period as I remember in 2008.

A couple years back I posted a thread about my restricted privileges since up to that time I never heard of this.  Very few forum members posted anything about being "restricted".

I am going to try for an AA card probably in March or April of this year and see if after 6 years I am still in their dog house. 

---

And that would likely would be the only way to know for sure.  This of course varies by individual so it may be non-issue for you when you apply...best of luck!

[Open123]

Sometimes blacklists may seem unfair, but as consumers, we're likewise free to blacklist issuers.

I can't even count the amount of threads where consumers have blacklisted Cap One.  Personally, I've blacklisted a few banks, just for some "minor" indiscretions on their part.  Nothing major, or even rational, but just because I felt like it, which is my right.

Equally, so long as it isn't based on discrimination, financial institutions should have the equal rights to blacklist whomever they wish, and for whatever reason.

[FinStar]

---

@Open123 wrote:

Sometimes blacklists may seem unfair, but as consumers, we're likewise free to blacklist issuers.

I can't even count the amount of threads where consumers have blacklisted Cap One.  Personally, I've blacklisted a few banks, just for some "minor" indiscretions on their part.  Nothing major, or even rational, but just because I felt like it, which is my right.

Equally, so long as it isn't based on discrimination, financial institutions should have the equal rights to blacklist whomever they wish, and for whatever reason.

---

+1

They're not violating any laws by doing so, therefore they do have that right...gdale6.

[gdale6]

@ Finstar

No I didnt mean to quote it 2x, my mistake, still havent really fig out how to properly use the quote. LOL

[FinStar]

---

@gdale6 wrote:

@ Finstar

No I didnt mean to quote it 2x, my mistake, still havent really fig out how to properly use the quote. LOL

---

LOL. Sometimes, depending on the browser, it can feeze and it may double-post.  It's all good

[CreditScholar]

---

@FinStar wrote:

---

@Open123 wrote:

Sometimes blacklists may seem unfair, but as consumers, we're likewise free to blacklist issuers.

I can't even count the amount of threads where consumers have blacklisted Cap One.  Personally, I've blacklisted a few banks, just for some "minor" indiscretions on their part.  Nothing major, or even rational, but just because I felt like it, which is my right.

Equally, so long as it isn't based on discrimination, financial institutions should have the equal rights to blacklist whomever they wish, and for whatever reason.

---

+1

They're not violating any laws by doing so, therefore they do have that right...gdale6.

---

+2. Blacklists are something seperate from the "spirit of the bankruptcy laws" that was mentioned earlier.

The "spirit" behind bankruptcy is that it allows individuals who file relief from their previously outstanding debts, or a fresh start if you will. Without this, some might be forever in debt because the interest (and principle) on old debts would continue to accrue faster than one might be able to pay it off.

However while it may wipe clean previously outstanding debts, it does not mean all is forgiven. Yes they can't legally chase you anymore for the money you burned them for, but it makes no guarantees on future lending practices. Expecting a lender that one has previously burned to be required to lend to you again just because 10 years has passed is ridiculous.

[Open123]

---

@CreditScholar wrote:Expecting a lender that one has previously burned to be required to lend to you again just because 10 years has passed is ridiculous.

---

Right, and the moment you set the time frame legally, then everyone can strategically plan for bks based on a 10 year time frame.  It is impossible to prove or disprove intent, and fraud provisions will be impossible to enforce.

Take for example, the CC bonuses and sign up games, where all the players know the rules.  One can imagine the sort of "gaming of they system" that would occur if we were to mandate that no one can be legally adversely affected by a BK after a set number of years.  The stakes could be immense with the number and dollar amounts of strategic insolvencies.

BK rules were meant relieve the cascading burdens of the interest on debt, and give one a fresh start.  Nothing more, and nothing less.  

[drkaje]

Never let the same dog bite you twice.