07-15-2009 10:00 PM
07-16-2009 07:12 AM - edited 07-16-2009 07:12 AM
07-16-2009 07:20 AM
I didn't get a letter either, and they said they had no way to fax me a copy, and that they kept no records of it. is that legal? don;t they have to keep proof that they sent it, or else be in violation of the FCRA?
1. yes it's legal.
2. no- card cancellation is not governed by the FCRA. an issuer can cancel a cc acct. at any time for any
reason. credit is not a right, it's a privilege.
07-16-2009 08:32 AM - edited 07-16-2009 08:39 AM
activity doesn't matter. I've had this $8000 card for 2 years, first with wamu, now chase. this card, and all of my other cards have been perfect. no late payments, never over-limit, not dormant, I dont understand. when I called them, they wouldn't give me a specific reason. they actually told me one of the reasons was the length of time I had the account. WHAT? that makes no sense. they were rude, and I even got hung up on by 2 different supervisors. and to add insult to injury, they doubled my interest rate 2 days before they cancelled it, again with no notification. (I found out it was cancelled when it was all of a sudden declined at the store. EMBARASSING!) I'm contemplating a lawsuit, and going to my attorney general, as well as BBB, FTC, and the local media. I am NOT taking this sitting down, like they expect me to.Message Edited by broncoman on 07-15-2009 07:10 PM
I feel your pain. But, after you cool down I think you will realize there is no basis for a lawsuit. Revolving credit has no obligation to be extended for any particular length of time. They may cancel at any time for any reason. The only hook is they must honor the terms for repayment, whether open or closed.
Did you have any changes in your CR or FICO prior to closure? Utilization gone up? Do you have any old baddied? Did you open any new accounts?
It may be that while Chase "inherited" your account, you did not meet their criteria to keep it long term. WAMU standards aren't necessarily going to be Chase standards.
I hope my card stays open, but I have moved over to several CU's so that I am not left hanging, just in case Chase, BoA or others AA me at some point.
07-16-2009 08:37 AM - edited 07-16-2009 08:41 AM
if If "high utilization" is reason to have an account closed, what is the point of a credit limit? If they are going to just clone an account in good standing, then they should stop charging intrest, or at least have some penalty on their end, for chastizing a customer with a good record. This is BS, and it has to stop. I can't afford to pay it off for a while, i'm now unemployed, and making minimum payments. but they are stil making interest off of me, so why close it? how can this be legal?
Really sorry to hear about the close. But be sure to pay as agreed so that this continues to be a good TL on your CR. Payment history will still be a factor after close and the TL will continue for another 10 years. This will lay the groundwork later for another good card.
Yes, what they did is legal. I think you actually outlined the reason. You are unemployed and making minimum payments. The CCC does not want you to run balances back up. So they either CLD (balance chase) or close to prevent the balance from doing anything but going down.
And while they don't "know" you are unemployed, they are getting signals that you might have financial issues: 1) account balances 2) payment amounts (minimum) 3) other open accounts (type, issuer, CL) as well as other reasons. They may also be looking at past derogs if you have any.
CCC's (prime) only want to do business with those who make frequent use of the card, but do not carry high balances and make 5x or more the minimum payment. This pattern "demonstrates" financial ability to pay and discretionary income, which is what they want. They don't like accounts which are on the edge paying minimums.
07-16-2009 11:15 AM
Wow, I guess I must have threatened them enough with BBB and the atorney general. they re-opened my account.
congrats! great news-my understanding was that there would be no reversals of these decisions.
it would be unusual for them to respond affirmatively to those type of threats.
07-16-2009 12:17 PM