@pipeguy wrote:
@Aahz wrote:
Sorry to hear of your problems, but I don't really find them surprising.
Needing to do additional verification for an applicant costs a bank money. Blispay is saving money everywhere they can in order to offer the wonderful rewards they do. It's not a matter of not having their ducks in a row or being unable to provide such services. It's a business choice to not spend their resources on such things.
Comparing what they're willing to do to gain a customer to what big banks are willing to do is never going to fare well. They aren't Chase and aren't trying to be.
While you (and others who have had problems) have my sympathy I'd much prefer Blispay keep offering the rewards & benefits they offer then they spend that money to build out all of the infrastructure required to service a relatively small portion of the population with problems such as yours.
Not sure I agree with your "I got mine" mind set - Government and private studies estimate that overr 20% of credit reports contain errors and the general public is much less aware of this than dedicated sites like this one. If a new lender is going to be widely accepted, and at the same time not run into lawsuits as to selective acceptance - other than the obvious income, credit scores, etc. I think they have to look for the weak links in their "infrastructure" if in fact they are unable to "verify" 20% of the population.
Lenders can always come up with justification for their actions, think real estate red-lining and suing in low income areas because most suits won't be challeged, but I don't really think a new company that is trying to gain market share is interested in shortcuts, especially since the founders of Blispay are not exactly new to the game - just the new brand.
Yeah there will be growing pains where they work out the issues that pop up, but rejecting 65 million possible customers because they moved, or changed phone numbers or changed their name, etc etc doesn't seem to me to be smart business. Of course we don't know all the details of why this app was rejected, just what was reported by one side and subsquently reported here.
Some wildly misleading arguments in the above post. For one thing, having errors on 20% of the population's credit reports will not lead to being unable to verify the entirety of that very same 20% of applicants. Many mistakes are things like balances being slightly off due to slow updating or old accounts or delinquencies not dropping off when they should. Such issues are unlikely to result in denials, and certainly not "unable to verify identity" denials. My own credit reports have some minor errors, such as student loan info that should have dropped off years ago, but they're simply not worth correcting, and they're never led to any denials or other other problems either, so I'm not going to go to the trouble of having them fixed. even so, I am considered to be among the 20% with errors on my reports.
Another problem with this post is that it grossly misrepresents the volume of people wishing to apply for the card. Based on the math provided, it clearly assumes that the entire population of America, including children and infants, will ultimately apply. And to say that being unable to verify someone's identity equates to "selective acceptance" is also wholly inaccurate. All up, this was a very questionable response to the previous poster IMO.
G
. Guess I am just sick of lenders being lazy and being a new company is no excuse IMO.
