01-06-2013 01:38 PM - edited 01-06-2013 01:41 PM
Hardly apples and oranges from the context I put it in. Both have concerns about whether your financial state meets their needs.
One, via a potentially intrusive process, allows you to prove otherwise, the other doesn't. But I don't see why the same argument given by Amex defenders doesn't apply, both have the right as they are offering you unsecured credit, and if you don't like the policy, choose a different card.
I can see where you are coming from , but I have to disagree with Barclays random AA, being the same as Amex Fr. I know in some cases people have been warned in advance by Barclay prior to action , but to instantly close a consumer account with no warning, or attempt to communcate with them is bad business. But like I have said before, I am not upset about it, I know Barclay is known for doing things like this, and you are right , I just simplely take my busniess else where.
Those complaining about FR find their accounts suddenly frozen, in some cases while they are abroad. So in both cases the immediate impact is the same, a card you may have expected to rely on doesn't work, and a simple phone call won't fix it. I agree that Amex does communicate, but it's really just a demand for documents, they won't explain the reasons for the FR, just give them what they want or your account will be closed. Barclays simply omits that step!
Also, "Barclays random AA" is just bias, you have no way of knowing if it is any more or less random than the Amex FR. I assume neither company does it without some perceived reason that for security reasons they do not disclose.
Well I'm not going to go into the Amex FR as this thread was about Barclay's. My point is this, the game that Barclay is playing is not entirely fair to consumers. Barclay's AA, if we go by what has been told here and in other threads, is due to nothing more than seeking additional credit within a few months of opening up a Barclays account. In the OP's case this was only a 500 CL when the OP had $20K in other CL's. The OP states that there is no negative info or any other activity other than what occurred after the opening of these additional accounts. So what other reason could it be other than they don't want you to do business with other creditors for some set period of time after you do business with them?
I really don't have a problem with that practice if they told you up front that this is their practice. But that's not their practice and it pretty much is a random draw of sticks that determines who will get ousted and who will not. And for a measely $500 CL, the closure process probably cost more time and money investigating the OP than to just leave it open.
We all get that if you don't like their business then you can go elsewhere as that is as obvious as the nose on our faces. Many people, including myself, were not aware of their practices until after opening accounts with them. Tell me up front before I sign up for your card that you're very sensitive to new accounts opened afterwards and it could potentially result in AA. They have a gazillion other T&C's on their disclosures so why not add this? If everyone knew this tidbit of info then these conversations about random AA's wouldn't need to take place. Don't get me wrong, I clearly understand that ALL creditors must protect themselves from losses and have every right to do so, but in the case of the OP, this action is a bit over the top IMO.
And I hope to not have to add to this story with my own AA with them .
01-06-2013 01:53 PM - edited 01-06-2013 01:55 PM
We don't know what causes Barclay AA. People are only piecing evidence together from some reports, and have concluded that opening accounts afterwards is the key. In a recent thread it was claimed this happens 99.9% of the time.
Both you and I represent counter-examples, we (and many others) have added several accounts since opening a Barclays account without a problem, so this is clearly NOT the only factor, and perhaps not a factor at all. So they can't tell us not to do that as it is not a rule and does not belong in the T&Cs.
Recall all of the threads about getting a card/CLI (any card). There are always stories that people with worse/better scores/history are getting accepted/rejected or getting higher CLs etc. Lots of apparent randomness. Without knowing more, we on this forum generate "rules" and complain when they are apparently broken, and in this case we are complaining about a bad rule that Barclays probably doesn't think exists!
Barclays will close your account when you do something "wrong", and JUST like Amex and others, they will not tell you the parameters of "wrong" as that exposes too much.
We all get that if you don't like their business then you can go elsewhere as that is as obvious as the nose on our faces.
Absolutely, and I said the same in one of many FR threads. But Amex FR "supporters" seem to view this as the trump card, so I wanted Barclays to get the same benefit!
01-29-2013 08:22 PM
I'm paranoid too. I got Barclay and Walmart in the same month, then 3 more cards in Nov and Dec. They have ben softing each report at least once a month. Then my score went down a bit due to high util from holiday spending but it's coming down now. Just got annual privacy notice in the mail and on account suspension, the wrote in bold they can close any acct any time for any reason without prior explanation.