No credit card required
Browse credit cards from a variety of issuers to see if there's a better card for you.
@Remedios wrote:
@bourgogne wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
She Explicitly asked, 3 times, if there was an inquiry done. CSR EXPLICITLY told her that there was NOT. *Checks EX CR and alerts* 1 new inq JPMChase bank WTH?So there we have it, confirmation of a HP taken by Chase for a product that the applicant had zero chance of obtaining. I call BS on that.
bs or not that hp is going to stay imo, its nearly impossible to get them removed and they do have a permissible purpose outside the app as she already has a chase card. mistakes happen
Yeah mistakes happen, but this mistake is not on OP.
By that logic, if you walked into a furniture store and they tried to sell you a bed, you end up buying it, then they tell you " Though luck, that's floor model, cant be sold. We're keeping your money, though" you'd just walk away because ...?
There is no permissible purpose if product is not available.
With that said, if the AA letter states anything else, it will be very hard to remove.
the op's wife has a chase card. the lender has a permissible based on that to pull credit anytime no matter the reason.
@bourgogne wrote:
@Remedios wrote:
@bourgogne wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
She Explicitly asked, 3 times, if there was an inquiry done. CSR EXPLICITLY told her that there was NOT. *Checks EX CR and alerts* 1 new inq JPMChase bank WTH?So there we have it, confirmation of a HP taken by Chase for a product that the applicant had zero chance of obtaining. I call BS on that.
bs or not that hp is going to stay imo, its nearly impossible to get them removed and they do have a permissible purpose outside the app as she already has a chase card. mistakes happen
Yeah mistakes happen, but this mistake is not on OP.
By that logic, if you walked into a furniture store and they tried to sell you a bed, you end up buying it, then they tell you " Though luck, that's floor model, cant be sold. We're keeping your money, though" you'd just walk away because ...?
There is no permissible purpose if product is not available.
With that said, if the AA letter states anything else, it will be very hard to remove.
the op's wife has a chase card. the lender has a permissible based on that to pull credit anytime no matter the reason.
The pull is not associated with the existing card. If she asked for CLI, that would fit under permissible purpose.
Selling a bridge does not fit under permissible purpose.
A. Users Must Have a Permissible Purpose
Congress has limited the use of consumer reports to protect consumers' privacy. All users must have a permissible purpose under the FCRA to obtain a consumer report. Section 604 contains a list of the permissible purposes under the law. These are:
In addition, creditors and insurers may obtain certain consumer report information for the purpose of making "prescreened" unsolicited offers of credit or insurance. Section 604(c). The particular obligations of users of "prescreened" information are described in Section VII below.
How is credit going to get extended if there is no product?
@bourgogne if this was any lender other than Chase, you'd be in total agreement.
Strange. It’s not a huge loss, though, seeing as Slate is more of a BT card than anything else.
How is credit going to get extended if there is no product?@bourgogne if this was any lender other than Chase, you'd be in total agreement.
hey, are you calling me out?! lol
here is the deal. lets say legally you are correct, there is no permissible purpose. this is all academic; unless the op, his wife or a friend is a lawyer with time on there hands, nobody is going to take on chase for a $1k fcra violation. there is no punitive damage. as humans we make mistakes all the time. big companies are filled with humans, they are no different. we are talking about a 3-5pt mistake that will self-correct in a year. just thinking big picture here
@bourgogne wrote:
How is credit going to get extended if there is no product?@bourgogne if this was any lender other than Chase, you'd be in total agreement.
hey, are you calling me out?! lol
here is the deal. lets say legally you are correct, there is no permissible purpose. this is all academic; unless the op, his wife or a friend is a lawyer with time on there hands, nobody is going to take on chase for a $1k fcra violation. there is no punitive damage. as humans we make mistakes all the time. big companies are filled with humans, they are no different. we are talking about a 3-5pt mistake that will self-correct in a year. just thinking big picture here
The big picture is this is shady as can be. It also supports my Chase arrogance claim....”we are Chase. We will do whatever we want to. Nobody will challenge us.”
@Anonymous wrote:
@bourgogne wrote:
How is credit going to get extended if there is no product?@bourgogne if this was any lender other than Chase, you'd be in total agreement.
hey, are you calling me out?! lol
here is the deal. lets say legally you are correct, there is no permissible purpose. this is all academic; unless the op, his wife or a friend is a lawyer with time on there hands, nobody is going to take on chase for a $1k fcra violation. there is no punitive damage. as humans we make mistakes all the time. big companies are filled with humans, they are no different. we are talking about a 3-5pt mistake that will self-correct in a year. just thinking big picture here
The big picture is this is shady as can be. It also supports my Chase arrogance claim....”we are Chase. We will do whatever we want to. Nobody will challenge us.”
shady? really? its a mistake. just because you don't like or agree with something does not make it so nor does it make it intentional
@bourgogne wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
@bourgogne wrote:
How is credit going to get extended if there is no product?@bourgogne if this was any lender other than Chase, you'd be in total agreement.
hey, are you calling me out?! lol
here is the deal. lets say legally you are correct, there is no permissible purpose. this is all academic; unless the op, his wife or a friend is a lawyer with time on there hands, nobody is going to take on chase for a $1k fcra violation. there is no punitive damage. as humans we make mistakes all the time. big companies are filled with humans, they are no different. we are talking about a 3-5pt mistake that will self-correct in a year. just thinking big picture here
The big picture is this is shady as can be. It also supports my Chase arrogance claim....”we are Chase. We will do whatever we want to. Nobody will challenge us.”
shady? really? its a mistake. just because you don't like or agree with something does not make it so nor does it make it intentional
You’re saying that having a card, on their website, that you can apply for that, according to them, is being discontinued and will not result in any approvals but still an HP is a mistake? Come on, that’s a rookie mistake, not a mistake for a major lending/banking institution. You’re reaching far and hard to defend them.
@bourgogne wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
@bourgogne wrote:
How is credit going to get extended if there is no product?@bourgogne if this was any lender other than Chase, you'd be in total agreement.
hey, are you calling me out?! lol
here is the deal. lets say legally you are correct, there is no permissible purpose. this is all academic; unless the op, his wife or a friend is a lawyer with time on there hands, nobody is going to take on chase for a $1k fcra violation. there is no punitive damage. as humans we make mistakes all the time. big companies are filled with humans, they are no different. we are talking about a 3-5pt mistake that will self-correct in a year. just thinking big picture here
The big picture is this is shady as can be. It also supports my Chase arrogance claim....”we are Chase. We will do whatever we want to. Nobody will challenge us.”
shady? really? its a mistake. just because you don't like or agree with something does not make it so nor does it make it intentional
If the customer is expected to take responsibility for their mistakes, the lender must do so too. It is absolutely shady as all get out if Chase refuses to recode or remove their HP if the AA letter indeed says the product is no longer available. It’s not even up for debate. The permissible purpose does not exist if the product does not exist and therefore Chase made a mistake and its on Chase to fix that mistake.
You’re saying that having a card, on their website, that you can apply for that, according to them, is being discontinued and will not result in any approvals is a mistake? Come on, that’s a rookie mistake, not a mistake for a major lending/banking institution. You’re reaching far and hard to defend them.
you lost me. are you saying just because they are a big lender/company mistakes should not happen? not defending them but you are aimed for disappointment in life if your expectations are aligned like this. .02