What's so bad about "Rate for Risk"?

Moggles_2

nzseries1 wrote: »

But the thing is, with a flight, or whatever "product" you're buying, you're actually paying for it. You are actually losing money if you don't get the benefits.

Applicants may not have parted with money, but their hopes have been raised then dashed.

People feel cheated because the alternative card which turns up in the post is very often minus the very feature(s) that persuaded them to apply to that particular company in the first place.

LongTermLurker

clio wrote: »

Originally Posted by speedbird1973
I have little trouble understanding the T&C.

I'd suggest a lack of reading creates more problems than misunderstanding them.

Well thats because you're a rocket scientist with a masters degree in snide replies..

I'm not a rocket scientist, but I think Ts & Cs are a hell of a lot clearer than they used to be. Only 10 - 20 years ago they would be full of legal terms and phrases you wouldn't understand unless you were a solicitor, and you half expected to see the word "forsooth" to crop up, it all seemed so old fashioned terminology!

No, Ts & Cs these days are very clear and written in plain English. There may be a lot to read but it's important that you do - and more important that you pay them enough attention so that you understand them.

NickX

speedbird1973 wrote: »

I'm not being snide Clio, merely putting an opinion forward.. Quite probably the correct opinion too!

An interesting comment. I thought that opinions were subjective rather than factual, I don't think there is such a thing as a correct opinion, a correct answer to a question yes, but not a correct opinion.

NickX

LongTermLurker wrote: »

I'm not a rocket scientist, but I think Ts & Cs are a hell of a lot clearer than they used to be.

The reason that the Terms and Conditions are clearer now is not due to the kindness of the Card Companies, it is because of legislation that has made them do so brought about by people such as Martin championing the rights of the consumer.

If it was down to the Card Companies the Terms and Conditions would be as difficult to understand as Latin.

LongTermLurker

NickX wrote: »

The reason that the Terms and Conditions are clearer now is not due to the kindness of the Card Companies, it is because of legislation that has made them do so brought about by people such as Martin championing the rights of the consumer.

If it was down to the Card Companies the Terms and Conditions would be as difficult to understand as Latin.

I wasn't suggesting they were doing anyone a favour, I was stating a point, that the Ts & Cs are clear and not difficult for an average person to understand (sorry, that's not intended to sound patronising or to belittle anyone). I think the big issue is with people not being bothered to read them. I refer to another post today on another board, where someone said "I started reading the Ts & Cs but they were so long and I gave up - what are the changes?" - to which the reply (by someone else) was "don't expect someone else to read your terms and conditions for you". I agree with him entirely.

Actually, although Martin may have had an input, I suspect the Plain English Society may have had a bigger part to play in removing the garbled legal-speak. Thankfully, that's mostly gone now and as long as you can read English and have a certain degree of concentration, you should be able to understand what you're signing up to.

speedbird1973

Nickx

An opinion is subjective, it doesn't mean it's not fact. I think Man Utd are a very good football team. It's also a fact (unfortunately).

Whether CC companies are making T&C clear through love and loyalty to their clients, or because the says they do is not relevant. The point is they ARE clear. Including the bit about offering an alternative card.

NickX

I went out for a meal last night - paid on slow stooze card ofcourse

But it made me think about an analogy to this thread, sad I know.

If you go into a restaurant and order the fillet steak, then the waitress returns and says "I'm sorry sir we can't offer you a fillet steak, but perhaps you would like a sirloin steak ?". This is fine, you have the option to take the sirloin steak if you want or go for something completely different.

However if the waitress arrive at the table with the meals in hand and says, "We couldn't offer you a fillet steak sir, so we've given you a sirloin steak instead". No option whatsoever, ok you could refuse to eat it I suppose.

But this wouldn't be acceptable in my opinion and is exactly what these Card Companies are doing with this silly "Rate for Risk" policy :mad:

NickX

speedbird1973 wrote: »

I think Man Utd are a very good football team.

Still very much subjective

Moggles_2

NickX wrote: »

If you go into a restaurant and order the fillet steak, then the waitress returns and says "I'm sorry sir we can't offer you a fillet steak, but perhaps you would like a sirloin steak?". This is fine, you have the option to take the sirloin steak if you want or go for something completely different.

However if the waitress arrives at the table with the meals in hand and says, "We couldn't offer you a fillet steak sir, so we've given you a sirloin steak instead". No option whatsoever, ok you could refuse to eat it I suppose, but this wouldn't be acceptable in my opinion and is exactly what these card companies are doing with this silly "Rate for Risk" policy :mad:

I agree, Nick. I'm surprised that one or two posters on this thread are so relaxed about this development. Credit cards have always been issued subject to status, but this rate-for-risk policy, as currently practiced by Barclaycard, Capital One and Citi, takes things to a new level. The advantage to the lender is obvious. Their market-leading deals are heavily advertised to draw in new customers. If this results in a flood of applications, even though they're dishing out something less attractive to large numbers of applicants, they're laughing.

In more than a decade of card shuffling, I personally have not been treated to rate-for-risk (yet) but, judging from posts to this board, there's a lot of it about now and I can well understand why its victims feel aggrieved. Many suspect that there was never any real intention to issue the advertised card, although there's no doubt some applicants get the flagship deal. I can only assume that those that insist this doesn't matter (because it's all covered in the Ts & Cs), are among them.

Bismarck

NickX wrote: »

The reason that the Terms and Conditions are clearer now is not due to the kindness of the Card Companies, it is because of legislation that has made them do so brought about by people such as Martin championing the rights of the consumer.

If it was down to the Card Companies the Terms and Conditions would be as difficult to understand as Latin.

no...far worse than latin!