BEWARE of Balance Transfer from Apple Card to Another

[Anonymous]

---

@Brian_Earl_Spilner wrote:

The consensus was not wrong as what was being posted is what is in the T&C for the card. You found a workaround, one that not everyone may be able to take advantage of, but those that can, will be happy to use.

---

Yes, they were wrong.  They were giving advice based on total inexperience in that area with the Apple Card.  Some might call it armchair quarterbacking.

And it is not a workaround.  Anybody who has a bank account is capable enough to set up billpay.  The only issue is your bank's billpay service provider.  There are several different billpay providers that compete for contracts at all the different banks.  USAA and Capital One, for example, use the same billpay service provider and for some strange reason payments to my OCCU credit card have to be sent by check.  But when I use Chase or Citibank, they make those same payments electronically.   

As for the T&Cs, they state you "may make a payment" using the app.  It doesn't say you must.  As for non-conforming payments, that's just an escape cause in case you mail them a check and it causes problems / delays with posting / interest.  Again, it's better to speak from practical experience than trying to give a theoretical answer based on legalese which one doesn't totally understand to begin with.  

[FinStar]

It's also worth noting that a Bill Payer service would also differ on how some payments are remitted to a specific payee that most banks would use for Balance Transfers as has been noted in a variety of past threads. This has to do with a variety of TPO agreements that lenders have with other institutions or companies. For a variety of lenders these can be separate payment platforms, whether remitted via ACH or a payment that would need to be sent through the standard USPS.

It was also mentioned that a payment could still be made with a linked bank account.

So, the advice that was provided based on how Citi processed the BT was not wrong.

[Anonymous]

Non-conforming payments are explicitly stated to be up to the discretion of GS whether they want to take them or not and if they do, when they will post them. Note that they also cite account closure here as something they may do in case of non-conforming payments. 

"Non-conforming Payments
We may reject any payments that do not comply with our payment instructions set forth in this Agreement or on your Monthly Statement (each a "Non-conforming Payment") in our discretion. If we accept a Non-conforming Payment, crediting your Account for the payment may be delayed and may result in additional interest billed to your Account.

We may accept any Non-conforming Payments, late payments, partial payments or payments with restrictive endorsements, without losing any of our rights, including our right to close your Account. We may deposit any payment you send us for less than the total outstanding balance of your Account that you mark "paid in full" or with any similar language or otherwise seek to provide as full satisfaction of a disputed amount. If we do, this payment will not fully satisfy the disputed amount or otherwise affect our rights to payment in full."

It definitely is outside of the scope of the terms of the agreement, regardless of what you believe to be true. They are under no obligation to accept payments this way and they make it clear that they don't want payments this way either. 

https://www.goldmansachs.com/terms-and-conditions/Apple-Card-Customer-Agreement.pdf

There are the terms if you would like to familiarize yourself with them. 

[Anonymous]

---

@FinStar wrote:
It's also worth noting that a Bill Payer service would also differ on how some payments are remitted to a specific payee that most banks would use for Balance Transfers as has been noted in a variety of past threads. This has to do with a variety of TPO agreements that lenders have with other institutions or companies. For a variety of lenders these can be separate payment platforms, whether remitted via ACH or a payment that would need to be sent through the standard USPS.

It was also mentioned that a payment could still be made with a linked bank account.

So, the advice that was provided based on how Citi processed the BT was not wrong.

---

Nobody knows for a fact that the bank uses a different system for balance transfer payments versus billpay payments.  They could use a variety of different methods such as a direct-through-Visa (or MC / AX /Discover)-payment service or even a paper check.  I've done BT's from CapOne to USAA and the resulting payment on the USAA side looks exactly the same as a payment made through billpay, even when you click on the option for "more payment details".  But nobody here knows for sure.

There's also the distinct possibilty that the person(s) the OP spoke to at Apple Card were clueless.  We have seen multiple instances here and on other forums where Apple Card / GS staff didn't know what they were talking about.  

The bottom line is that you can pay on your Apple Card from sources outside of the app.  If OP's BT were handled by his bank a different way, it may have been successful.  Do we even know what happened in the end with OP's BT? 

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Non-conforming payments are explicitly stated to be up to the discretion of GS whether they want to take them or not and if they do, when they will post them. Note that they also cite account closure here as something they may do in case of non-conforming payments. 

"Non-conforming Payments
We may reject any payments that do not comply with our payment instructions set forth in this Agreement or on your Monthly Statement (each a "Non-conforming Payment") in our discretion. If we accept a Non-conforming Payment, crediting your Account for the payment may be delayed and may result in additional interest billed to your Account.

We may accept any Non-conforming Payments, late payments, partial payments or payments with restrictive endorsements, without losing any of our rights, including our right to close your Account. We may deposit any payment you send us for less than the total outstanding balance of your Account that you mark "paid in full" or with any similar language or otherwise seek to provide as full satisfaction of a disputed amount. If we do, this payment will not fully satisfy the disputed amount or otherwise affect our rights to payment in full."

It definitely is outside of the scope of the terms of the agreement, regardless of what you believe to be true. They are under no obligation to accept payments this way and they make it clear that they don't want payments this way either. 

https://www.goldmansachs.com/terms-and-conditions/Apple-Card-Customer-Agreement.pdf

There are the terms if you would like to familiarize yourself with them. 

---

If you read carefully, that does not mean they will close your account for not making payment with the app.  Your theory would imply they can close your account because you pay less than the full balance on your statement.  What they are saying is that if they want to close your account they can do so even if you have payments in the pipeline and making those payments -- or any payments for that matter -- do not mean they can't close an account.  

Yes, they can reject any non-conforming payment.  But I have seen that they will not.  There are probably dozens of types of non-conforming payments and their language is just a CYA in case you happen to make one that is too weird.

Then there is simple common sense, which seems to be lacking.  If I owe Apple Card $40,000 and lose my Apple account or simply quit Apple all together, they will close my Apple Card.  Fine.  But not being able to pay with the app means it's impossible to make anythig but a non-conforming payment.  Wow!  Great!!  Hallelujah!!!!!!!!  GS Bank doesn't want their money and I am prohibited from paying them!!!!!  NOT.

I have made over 1/2 dozen "non-conforming" payments and the sky didn't fall.

[Anonymous]

If you wish to take your chances, that is your choice. The lost phone argument doesn't hold water since Goldman takes payments by phone in those cases. 

The point is that they are not required to take these payments and there are a whole bunch of added asterisks when making them. 

[FinStar]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@FinStar wrote:
It's also worth noting that a Bill Payer service would also differ on how some payments are remitted to a specific payee that most banks would use for Balance Transfers as has been noted in a variety of past threads. This has to do with a variety of TPO agreements that lenders have with other institutions or companies. For a variety of lenders these can be separate payment platforms, whether remitted via ACH or a payment that would need to be sent through the standard USPS.

It was also mentioned that a payment could still be made with a linked bank account.

So, the advice that was provided based on how Citi processed the BT was not wrong.

---

Nobody knows for a fact that the bank uses a different system for balance transfer payments versus billpay payments.  They could use a variety of different methods such as a direct-through-Visa (or MC / AX /Discover)-payment service or even a paper check.  I've done BT's from CapOne to USAA and the resulting payment on the USAA side looks exactly the same as a payment made through billpay, even when you click on the option for "more payment details".  But nobody here knows for sure.

There's also the distinct possibilty that the person(s) the OP spoke to at Apple Card were clueless.  We have seen multiple instances here and on other forums where Apple Card / GS staff didn't know what they were talking about.  

The bottom line is that you can pay on your Apple Card from sources outside of the app.  If OP's BT were handled by his bank a different way, it may have been successful.  Do we even know what happened in the end with OP's BT? 

---

Actually, I'm fairly familiar with how a variety of institutions use some of these payment presentment platforms which include Chase, BoA, Commerce, FNBO (to name a few), which would be known as practical experience. 

Bottom line, integrated payment settlement platforms work well for some institutions, but not for others who have multiple systems for a variety of remittance processes.  So, yes for plenty of institutions, there's a separate system that supports the bill payer platform and there's another that is used to execute BT originations.  The perfect scenario is the situation that the OP in the other thread brought forward.  While Citi has made great efforts to revamp and innovate their legacy platforms, it's still not perfect.  Some interface systems don't "communicate" with each other so there's that gap, regardless if GS may be registered in one of their systems as a payee.

If the OP has an update to their BT situation, they're welcome to send that update to a Moderator to close the loop on that thread or start a new one. 

[Anonymous]

News Flash:  Mail-in payments are accepted.  They must be sent to GS Bank at their Salt Lake City Branch.  Strangely enough, the address they gave me over the phone is the SLC Branch, but with a Pennsylvania address.  

They say that the payment may not necessarily post on the date of receipt, but will be backdated to the date of receipt.  It may take some time before the funds clear and reflected in available credit.

OP's BT would have worked if sent to the correct address.  

[Anonymous]

News Flash: This thread is spinning in circles.

Not sure why the OP is so hostile on this topic. If you want to help spread useful info, it would probably be better received with less negative undertones.

[FinStar]

As the premise of the topic has been fairly well-covered in the original thread, this thread has run its course and is now locked/merged and closed to new messages.