Reply
Moderator
Posts: 15,075
Registered: ‎07-14-2009
0

Re: Crap 1 called me with an "opportunity" to opt in on over the limit fees.


txjohn wrote:

Hairy:

 

The new laws prohibit the CCC's from arbitrarily approving charges above the agreed or assigned credit limit if it results in charging a fee or increased interest unless there is a specific agreement (consent or "opt in") by the consumer that they understand these charges and wish to opt in.  Otherwise the default is that the CCC must decline the charge which results in an OL amount and thus refrain from OL fees or default interest rates due to OL.

 

P.S.  On a side note, I would like to remind everyone here that this forum is a place for the exchange of information, without reprisal and discrimination.  I would ask for those who are in "the know" to be kind in the manner by which you impart of your wisdom or knowledge and not post in a manner which may be inclined to feel like reprimand or put down.  If people begin to fear asking "dumb questions" then very few will be asked and this will become the ghost forum visited only by the wise having no place to impart of their wisdom. 

 

Some have "dry" humor or humor which borders on satire.  Please be aware that this is less than endearing to some.  Too often a question or even "vent" becomes a battle field of words.


I couldn't have said it better. Thanks.

Super Contributor
Posts: 5,702
Registered: ‎10-06-2007
0

Re: Crap 1 called me with an "opportunity" to opt in on over the limit fees.

Many banks have been doing this for years with debit cards.  One of the few things right I did with credit many years ago was to disable this option for my debit card.

 

I'll give Cap 1 this, they are the most creative in getting fees from their customers.

11/28/2014 FICO: EQ: 796 EX:788 TU:803
Regular Contributor
Posts: 155
Registered: ‎05-07-2008
0

Re: Crap 1 called me with an "opportunity" to opt in on over the limit fees.

My DH got this same phone call last week...he opted in, but they won't get any extra fees from us anyway - his card has a zero balance and is sock-drawered.  So nice try Cap1 - you'll have to be more creative than that. 
TU=564 EQ=??? EX=??? 4/4/06
TU=643 EQ=625 EX=618 1/24/08
TU=678 EQ=651 EX=665 10/24/08
TU=694 EQ=669 EX=??? 9/24/09
TU=706 EQ=691 EX=??? 10/8/09
CH7 BK 2001
Valued Contributor
Posts: 1,668
Registered: ‎02-18-2009
0

Re: Crap 1 called me with an "opportunity" to opt in on over the limit fees.


soccermomof4 wrote:
My DH got this same phone call last week...he opted in, but they won't get any extra fees from us anyway - his card has a zero balance and is sock-drawered.  So nice try Cap1 - you'll have to be more creative than that. 

 

maybe I just view things the wrong way, but I have n oidea how it is a "try" nice or otherwise.


it is something that they have had a huge customer base doing repeatedly and they want to make the option available to those that want it.

 

I do not see any malice or ill will on anyone's part.

Especially since as I have said, many people have been in the situation of  going "over the limit," have had the transactions approved, and by the time holds and such have fallen they have never been over the limit, but they now would be denied the transactions.

 

Signature line begins:
Credit is not a right, but a business transaction, one that takes into account risk, and charges accordingly based on that risk.
Your credit score is an aspect of your credit profile. Important? yes but just an aspect. Contributing/supplemental information determines the finer point of the deal. Ask any question, respect me not to get mad if the answer is not the affirmation you are looking for,
Valued Contributor
Posts: 1,668
Registered: ‎02-18-2009
0

Re: Crap 1 called me with an "opportunity" to opt in on over the limit fees.


marty56 wrote:

Many banks have been doing this for years with debit cards.  One of the few things right I did with credit many years ago was to disable this option for my debit card.

 

I'll give Cap 1 this, they are the most creative in getting fees from their customers.


I completely agree.

Thought my Paycheck Direct Deposit hit, used my debit card. Transaction went through.


Then used it 7 more times that day for all transactions including eating at Wendys.

$39.00 Fee on Every one of those "courtesy" approvals. That was the most expensive dollar menu ever!

8 Times. My paycheck hit, but was eaten by the fees.

 

Yet I did not blame them, I was mad that I had not verified beforehand. I ended up closing my account a year later when they wanted a 5.00 Fee to reissue me a Debit card when my wallet was stolen.

 

 

Signature line begins:
Credit is not a right, but a business transaction, one that takes into account risk, and charges accordingly based on that risk.
Your credit score is an aspect of your credit profile. Important? yes but just an aspect. Contributing/supplemental information determines the finer point of the deal. Ask any question, respect me not to get mad if the answer is not the affirmation you are looking for,
Senior Contributor
Posts: 4,214
Registered: ‎09-12-2008
0

Re: Crap 1 called me with an "opportunity" to opt in on over the limit fees.


usmc58555 wrote:

soccermomof4 wrote:
My DH got this same phone call last week...he opted in, but they won't get any extra fees from us anyway - his card has a zero balance and is sock-drawered.  So nice try Cap1 - you'll have to be more creative than that. 

 

maybe I just view things the wrong way, but I have n oidea how it is a "try" nice or otherwise.


it is something that they have had a huge customer base doing repeatedly and they want to make the option available to those that want it.

 

I do not see any malice or ill will on anyone's part.

Especially since as I have said, many people have been in the situation of  going "over the limit," have had the transactions approved, and by the time holds and such have fallen they have never been over the limit, but they now would be denied the transactions.

 


 

usmc -

 

Having personally received the CapOne "opt-in" call, I can tell you that it is a on the "edge" IMO.  They call and use all of the normal sales pitch and propaganda methods in order to try to convince you that this is an important and desirable account enhancement.

 

They describe "emergency scenarios" and then imply that they will be able to provide you relief in those circumstances.  The problem with this is that CapOne has a history of "declining" charges above the CL, except for charges only minimumally above CL.  Often the amount they authorize above the CL is less than the amount of the OL fee they charge.  So a charge that is authorized for 1 cent to $20 above CL is approved, then hit with a $35 to $39 OL fee.

 

So I do believe that they are being at least somewhat obscure in the "value" they present this "option" to the consumer.  The fact that they are actively soliciting consumer opt-in with large scale sales calls initiatives is fairly convincing evidence that CapOne has relied upon these type of fees for profit, rather than traditional merchant transaction fees and interest.

 

The value to the consumer is so minimal that I believe it is misleading in how they present the option.  A $10 OL authorization that costs you $30 is pretty steep interest.  You might as well go to a payday loan office if you have such an emergency because the fees are no worse.

 

I do believe that a CCC has the right to offer and a consumer has the right to accept such arrangements.  But since CapOne does "cater" to the credit unsophisticated and less than perfect credit types, that this is a bit predatory, again IMO.

 

If you think about OL, generally this would be a FLAG of financial distress, and thus RISK to the CCC and prime lenders generally may consider declining the charge, possibly AA (CLD) the account or even close it.  But in this case, CapOne is seeking consumers who will opt-in to an OL and agree to pay a fee.

 

If CapOne is willing to extend the OL fee at the time of authorization, why not at that time have their system consider raising the CL for the $10 or $20.  If this is not about predatorily seeking these fees, and they are willing to extend the risk, why not make it official and raise the CL.  The fact of the matter is they are seeking easy money in these fees, while presenting it as an account enhancement.  They present it as protecting the consumer in the event of an emergency.

 

What would CapOne say, in the event I have an emergency, and I call and ask for a $100 CLI?  Will they provide it to me?  Or will they wait and watch for a $10 OL opportunity to collect $39 above and beyond any interest, merchant fees, annual fees, etc.  I don't really care how they package it, when you break it down and financially analyze it, it is not financially in the interest on the consumer and thus representations that it is, IMO, is misleading and predatory.

 

This is not a signature account.  This is not a prime feature for prime customers.  It is seeking opportunity to scalp those who generally can afford it least. 

 

And while I will never consent to the government taking away our right to enter into contracts, I personally advise AGAINST the opt-in as a good financial decision and think people should see this "option" for what it is.....a CapOne profit center that provides no real advantages to the consumer.  In fact use of this option is likely to prevent you from ever getting a true CLI since OL is one of the credit no-no's and goes against CCC policy for account review.  Yet they try to sell it none the less.

 

<end of lecture :smileywink: >

Credit Scoring 101 - Tuscani   *  Guide to Common Abbreviations
Frequently Requested Threads * FICO High Achievers  *  FICO Score Estimator


09/03/2009 TU: 777, EQ: 776 ($8 balance on an account dropped me out of 780's)
03/28/2009 TU: 814, EQ: 810, EX: 781 (02/12/2009)
05/18/2005 TU: 563, EQ: 580, EX: 549
Senior Contributor
Posts: 4,214
Registered: ‎09-12-2008
0

Re: Crap 1 called me with an "opportunity" to opt in on over the limit fees.


usmc58555 wrote:

marty56 wrote:

Many banks have been doing this for years with debit cards.  One of the few things right I did with credit many years ago was to disable this option for my debit card.

 

I'll give Cap 1 this, they are the most creative in getting fees from their customers.


I completely agree.

Thought my Paycheck Direct Deposit hit, used my debit card. Transaction went through.


Then used it 7 more times that day for all transactions including eating at Wendys.

$39.00 Fee on Every one of those "courtesy" approvals. That was the most expensive dollar menu ever!

8 Times. My paycheck hit, but was eaten by the fees.

 

Yet I did not blame them, I was mad that I had not verified beforehand. I ended up closing my account a year later when they wanted a 5.00 Fee to reissue me a Debit card when my wallet was stolen.

 

 


 

But wouldn't you LIKE the option of "opting out" of any OL or OD transaction.  If your bank had declined each and every charge, you would have been alerted to the fact that there was a balance or deposit issue, and would have the opportunity to call and fix.

 

The fact that many banks and CCC's did not even allow for you to opt-out, thus preventing you from creating a fail-safe was not because it is difficult technology or would be an inconvenience.  The only reason banks and CCC's did not provide the opt-out option is because it was too darn profitable.

 

The new regs require the CCC's to offer the opt out option, by requiring the CCC to get a consent and opt in before ever allowing an OL or OD charge.  The CCC's should have done this voluntarily as self regulation and good customer service.  There would have been some of us who opted out and some who would opt-in, by CHOICE.

 

This is not about BLAME.  This is about the fact that nobody is 100% perfect, not the consumer and not the bank.  So fail safes should be allowed and provided for.  The CCC's seeking opportunity to charge the fees is at fault, because they had a conflict of interest, being the interest of the consumer to protect their money and the interest of the CCC to maximize profits through notorious means.  Either they make money on standard fees or they don't.  If they don't, they need to raise the fees to show real market conditions and costs and not mask them through others, IMO.

Credit Scoring 101 - Tuscani   *  Guide to Common Abbreviations
Frequently Requested Threads * FICO High Achievers  *  FICO Score Estimator


09/03/2009 TU: 777, EQ: 776 ($8 balance on an account dropped me out of 780's)
03/28/2009 TU: 814, EQ: 810, EX: 781 (02/12/2009)
05/18/2005 TU: 563, EQ: 580, EX: 549
Valued Contributor
Posts: 1,668
Registered: ‎02-18-2009
0

Re: Crap 1 called me with an "opportunity" to opt in on over the limit fees.

[ Edited ]

We will have to agree to disagree.

 


txjohn wrote:

 

usmc -

 

Having personally received the CapOne "opt-in" call, I can tell you that it is a on the "edge" IMO.  They call and use all of the normal sales pitch and propaganda methods in order to try to convince you that this is an important and desirable account enhancement.

 

They describe "emergency scenarios" and then imply that they will be able to provide you relief in those circumstances.  The problem with this is that CapOne has a history of "declining" charges above the CL, except for charges only minimumally above CL.  Often the amount they authorize above the CL is less than the amount of the OL fee they charge.  So a charge that is authorized for 1 cent to $20 above CL is approved, then hit with a $35 to $39 OL fee. yes!

 

So I do believe that they are being at least somewhat obscure in the "value" they present this "option" to the consumer.  The fact that they are actively soliciting consumer opt-in with large scale sales calls initiatives is fairly convincing evidence that CapOne has relied upon these type of fees for profit, rather than traditional merchant transaction fees and interest. it has value to those that need it.

 

The value to the consumer is so minimal that I believe it is misleading in how they present the option.  A $10 OL authorization that costs you $30 is pretty steep interest.  You might as well go to a payday loan office if you have such an emergency because the fees are no worse. In many cases the people so not have the luxury of doing a payday loan.

 

I do believe that a CCC has the right to offer and a consumer has the right to accept such arrangements.  But since CapOne does "cater" to the credit unsophisticated and less than perfect credit types, that this is a bit predatory, again IMO. "Predatory" is subjective

 

If you think about OL, generally this would be a FLAG of financial distress, and thus RISK to the CCC and prime lenders generally may consider declining the charge, possibly AA (CLD) the account or even close it.  But in this case, CapOne is seeking consumers who will opt-in to an OL and agree to pay a fee. You agree to pay fees when you get most cards

 

If CapOne is willing to extend the OL fee at the time of authorization, why not at that time have their system consider raising the CL for the $10 or $20.  If this is not about predatorily seeking these fees, and they are willing to extend the risk, why not make it official and raise the CL.  The fact of the matter is they are seeking easy money in these fees, while presenting it as an account enhancement.  They present it as protecting the consumer in the event of an emergency. I just got a letter in  the mail from GEMB for Paypal where they offered to protect my good credit from me having financial hardship at the cost of 1.50 for every 100 revolving every monthly. Kinda a rip to me but some people see value in it

 

What would CapOne say, in the event I have an emergency, and I call and ask for a $100 CLI?  Will they provide it to me?  Or will they wait and watch for a $10 OL opportunity to collect $39 above and beyond any interest, merchant fees, annual fees, etc.  I don't really care how they package it, when you break it down and financially analyze it, it is not financially in the interest on the consumer and thus representations that it is, IMO, is misleading and predatory. Making money is not predatory. They are not charities

 

This is not a signature account.  This is not a prime feature for prime customers.  It is seeking opportunity to scalp those who generally can afford it least. 

 

And while I will never consent to the government taking away our right to enter into contracts, I personally advise AGAINST the opt-in as a good financial decision and think people should see this "option" for what it is.....a CapOne profit center that provides no real advantages to the consumer.  In fact use of this option is likely to prevent you from ever getting a true CLI since OL is one of the credit no-no's and goes against CCC policy for account review.  Yet they try to sell it none the less. I think that people who make in excess of a hundred thousand dollars a year and have multiple accounts/credit lines and ways to access  money have failed to pplace themselves in the situation of most consumers. I applaud them but do think they are forgetting how life is for  a lot of people. Much like how Senior Staff NCOS would forget what it was like to be an e3 living in the barracks with no car. I think the phrase I want to use is "if the people do not have bread to eat, why do they not eat cake?"

 

<end of lecture :smileywink: >


I think it is no more "predatory" then many situations we encounter in daily life.

 

1- My cell phone provider has 4 different tier rates for text messaging: (which by the way texts COST NOTHING the bandwidth is in use already)

a) no text and I get billed .25 for any text sent or received.

b) 200 texts for 2.00 and I get billed .20 for every text sent/received over that

c)1500 texts for 5.00 and I get billed 10 cents over that.

d) unlimited texts for 9.99.

 

At no point do they bump me to the next tier when I go over a limit.

 

And it is the same by the way for my used talking minutes!!!!

 

2- My car payment. be 5 days late and I get a late fee of $55.

call them one day before the due date and I can defer a payment for 30 days for free.

 

3-Janumet 50/1000 from Merck. $220 a month if bought retail at a pharmacy.

If you submit a patient assistance application to Merck and get approved- FREE no co pay or even cost of shipping- income to qualify under $49K.

 

4- Medical care: Go to the emergency room with no insurance and get billed 10,000. An insurance company has negotiated the cost for the same services to $6000, thats what they pay. You as Joe Consumer are expected to pay the full $10,000.

Message Edited by usmc58555 on 11-06-2009 08:09 AM
Signature line begins:
Credit is not a right, but a business transaction, one that takes into account risk, and charges accordingly based on that risk.
Your credit score is an aspect of your credit profile. Important? yes but just an aspect. Contributing/supplemental information determines the finer point of the deal. Ask any question, respect me not to get mad if the answer is not the affirmation you are looking for,
Super Contributor
Posts: 5,744
Registered: ‎01-28-2008
0

Re: Crap 1 called me with an "opportunity" to opt in on over the limit fees.

I haven't received any calls or letters from Capital One.  I don't think they even acknowledge my account any more... since they never made any money off me. My card is 9 years old wih a slim $750.

 

Now my question is:  Is Cap 1 taking AA on cardholders with high CL and a high balance?  . 

Senior Contributor
Posts: 4,214
Registered: ‎09-12-2008
0

Re: Crap 1 called me with an "opportunity" to opt in on over the limit fees.


usmc58555 wrote:

We will have to agree to disagree.

 


txjohn wrote:

 

usmc -

 

Having personally received the CapOne "opt-in" call, I can tell you that it is a on the "edge" IMO.  They call and use all of the normal sales pitch and propaganda methods in order to try to convince you that this is an important and desirable account enhancement.

 

They describe "emergency scenarios" and then imply that they will be able to provide you relief in those circumstances.  The problem with this is that CapOne has a history of "declining" charges above the CL, except for charges only minimumally above CL.  Often the amount they authorize above the CL is less than the amount of the OL fee they charge.  So a charge that is authorized for 1 cent to $20 above CL is approved, then hit with a $35 to $39 OL fee. yes!

 

So I do believe that they are being at least somewhat obscure in the "value" they present this "option" to the consumer.  The fact that they are actively soliciting consumer opt-in with large scale sales calls initiatives is fairly convincing evidence that CapOne has relied upon these type of fees for profit, rather than traditional merchant transaction fees and interest. it has value to those that need it.

 

The value to the consumer is so minimal that I believe it is misleading in how they present the option.  A $10 OL authorization that costs you $30 is pretty steep interest.  You might as well go to a payday loan office if you have such an emergency because the fees are no worse. In many cases the people so not have the luxury of doing a payday loan.

 

I do believe that a CCC has the right to offer and a consumer has the right to accept such arrangements.  But since CapOne does "cater" to the credit unsophisticated and less than perfect credit types, that this is a bit predatory, again IMO. "Predatory" is subjective

 

If you think about OL, generally this would be a FLAG of financial distress, and thus RISK to the CCC and prime lenders generally may consider declining the charge, possibly AA (CLD) the account or even close it.  But in this case, CapOne is seeking consumers who will opt-in to an OL and agree to pay a fee. You agree to pay fees when you get most cards

 

If CapOne is willing to extend the OL fee at the time of authorization, why not at that time have their system consider raising the CL for the $10 or $20.  If this is not about predatorily seeking these fees, and they are willing to extend the risk, why not make it official and raise the CL.  The fact of the matter is they are seeking easy money in these fees, while presenting it as an account enhancement.  They present it as protecting the consumer in the event of an emergency. I just got a letter in  the mail from GEMB for Paypal where they offered to protect my good credit from me having financial hardship at the cost of 1.50 for every 100 revolving every monthly. Kinda a rip to me but some people see value in it

 

What would CapOne say, in the event I have an emergency, and I call and ask for a $100 CLI?  Will they provide it to me?  Or will they wait and watch for a $10 OL opportunity to collect $39 above and beyond any interest, merchant fees, annual fees, etc.  I don't really care how they package it, when you break it down and financially analyze it, it is not financially in the interest on the consumer and thus representations that it is, IMO, is misleading and predatory. Making money is not predatory. They are not charities

 

This is not a signature account.  This is not a prime feature for prime customers.  It is seeking opportunity to scalp those who generally can afford it least. 

 

And while I will never consent to the government taking away our right to enter into contracts, I personally advise AGAINST the opt-in as a good financial decision and think people should see this "option" for what it is.....a CapOne profit center that provides no real advantages to the consumer.  In fact use of this option is likely to prevent you from ever getting a true CLI since OL is one of the credit no-no's and goes against CCC policy for account review.  Yet they try to sell it none the less. I think that people who make in excess of a hundred thousand dollars a year and have multiple accounts/credit lines and ways to access  money have failed to pplace themselves in the situation of most consumers. I applaud them but do think they are forgetting how life is for  a lot of people. Much like how Senior Staff NCOS would forget what it was like to be an e3 living in the barracks with no car. I think the phrase I want to use is "if the people do not have bread to eat, why do they not eat cake?"

 

<end of lecture :smileywink: >


I think it is no more "predatory" then many situations we encounter in daily life.

 

1- My cell phone provider has 4 different tier rates for text messaging: (which by the way texts COST NOTHING the bandwidth is in use already)

a) no text and I get billed .25 for any text sent or received.

b) 200 texts for 2.00 and I get billed .20 for every text sent/received over that

c)1500 texts for 5.00 and I get billed 10 cents over that.

d) unlimited texts for 9.99.

 

At no point do they bump me to the next tier when I go over a limit.

 

And it is the same by the way for my used talking minutes!!!!

 

2- My car payment. be 5 days late and I get a late fee of $55.

call them one day before the due date and I can defer a payment for 30 days for free.

 

3-Janumet 50/1000 from Merck. $220 a month if bought retail at a pharmacy.

If you submit a patient assistance application to Merck and get approved- FREE no co pay or even cost of shipping- income to qualify under $49K.

 

4- Medical care: Go to the emergency room with no insurance and get billed 10,000. An insurance company has negotiated the cost for the same services to $6000, thats what they pay. You as Joe Consumer are expected to pay the full $10,000.

Message Edited by usmc58555 on 11-06-2009 08:09 AM

 

Your examples, IMO, are not apples to apples.

 

You failed to address that most banks would not allow you to OPT OUT of OL authorizations.  And while it is the responsibility of the consumer to avoid such occurrence, the ONLY reason banks did not provide a method to prevent it was because the fees were far too profitable to do so.

 

I was an E-3 in the barracks without a car.  I went through Bankruptcy in 1998 due to reasons I won't get into at this time.  I have 6 children and have worked very hard to get where I am.  And it is following SOUND FINANCIAL PRACTICES that got me there....and the OL fees you are advocating are not inline with sound financial principles. 

 

By your logic, you should be advocating lottery tickets and slot machines as well....after all this COULD potentially be of benefit IF they happen to win, after all some lucky dog is going to win, and the consumer is responsible for themselves.  I'm not asking to outlaw the slots, I'm just not advocating it as a wise decision or use of funds when there is little or no discretionary income or cash.

 

By getting a $10 "loan" in the form of an OL fee for a cost of $39 fee is most likely going to worsen the financial position of the individual, not help it.  If a person can get a credit card, they probably can get a payday loan.

 

While you banter the possible benefits you still have failed to address the wisdom, financially speaking, of such a fee.  You have often posted about not incurring interest.  To not buy more car than can afford and denounced unwise credit decisions....yet you are now suggesting that this is potentially a wise decision.

 

Please describe for us, when you feel this would be a useful fee to incur and worth the cost.  This is my last post, as I'm don't like arguing with the devil's advocate, which is exactly what you are doing....because you have far too often argued the other side of financial wisdom on too many occassions. 

 

This discussion was never about a right to charge  fee, it was about the wisdom of opting in and agreeing to pay one for the mythical benefit of an OL charge.  You say it is useful to some....I ask to who?  I believe it is a myth and sales pitch on the benefit and not a real benefit and I highly recommend people to avoid the opt-in.  I'd be interested in hearing of anyone who had a CapOne subprime card who got an OL authorization for more than say $50.  And anyone who did I am suggesting is an exception to the rule, and not the rule itself.

 

 

Credit Scoring 101 - Tuscani   *  Guide to Common Abbreviations
Frequently Requested Threads * FICO High Achievers  *  FICO Score Estimator


09/03/2009 TU: 777, EQ: 776 ($8 balance on an account dropped me out of 780's)
03/28/2009 TU: 814, EQ: 810, EX: 781 (02/12/2009)
05/18/2005 TU: 563, EQ: 580, EX: 549

myFICO is the consumer division of FICO. Since its introduction 20 years ago, the FICO® Score has become a global standard for measuring credit risk in the banking, mortgage, credit card, auto and retail industries. 90 of the top 100 largest U.S. financial institutions use the FICO Score to make consumer credit decisions.

>> About myFICO
FICO Score - The Score that matters
Click to Verify - This site chose VeriSign SSL for secure e-commerce and confidential communications.
Fair Isaac Corporation is a BBB Accredited Financial Service in San Rafael, CA
FOLLOW US Social Media Facebook Twitter Pinterest Google+
}