What do they want??

Geenie

Ziggi, have you looked at what the actual costs are paying this person in cash withdrawn from a CC?! Once you add the interest and fees you are charged, you may consider on reflection that these things were not such a great deal after all.

You have saved the seller a lot of expense, work and probably tax on any revenue they make, but have incurred financial problems for yourself. I would concentrate on sorting out your 10k and forget about any more collectibles and furniture at this time. Good luck, and I hope you sort it out with the company.

ylesia

JMW77 wrote: »

I would cancel the card and get another one ,sure its fine to check that you have been using the card and it has not been stolen or cloned but what business is it of thiers what you spend it on!
As long as the card holder is responsible whats the problem!

I personally don't think there is anything wrong with them checking to make sure the card holder is being responsible. My mum is in a terrible mess due to irresponsible lending (and of course herself). She was taking cash out of 6 credit cards and using the money to pay the 6 credit cards! They didn't notice or bat an eyelid until the bottom fell out and my mum almost committed suicide over it. I'm not for one minute suggesting this is the case eveytime someone takes money out on a credit card but a bit of responsibile monitoring by the CC companies is a good thing, in my opinion.

Moggles_2

I agree. Egg has done nothing wrong, IMO

If the OP has run up a debt of £10,000 and can only afford to make the minimum payments required, s/he is in trouble.

OP, your post raises some other issues and you may want to post again on the *Debt-Free Wannabe* board. You'll get lots of advice and support there

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.html?f=76

benf90

JMW77 wrote: »

I would cancel the card and get another one ,sure its fine to check that you have been using the card and it has not been stolen or cloned but what business is it of thiers what you spend it on!
As long as the card holder is responsible whats the problem!

Sorry did not read you have a balance of £10,000 ,you seriously should get paying serious amounts of that and withdrawing cash is really a bad idea don't they really sting you on the APR for such withdrawals.They must be seeing you as a risk still its your debt and its still not their business what you spend it or don't spend it on,if you are within your agreement.
You obviously are not too worried to be buying collectables etc,and they are getting their money however slowly plus interest!

The thing is... it is their business what the OP is spending money on. It's their money the OP is spending.

How can they know if someone is being responsible unless they know what the money is being used for?

When it's purchases their systems will automatically see what types of business it is etc, but with cash it could be spent on anything.

What if the cash wasn't being used on furniture but on gambling, or being used to pay off other debts as others have said?

If Egg simply asked if it was the OP making the transactions rather than asking why they were made then they wouldn't get the full picture.

Banks and credit card companies get bad publicity when they mess up, and rightly so. I don't think we should think bad of them when they actually try taking a proactive approach to checking things out.

I'm not having a go at the OP. But I'm not going to look at Egg badly either, as they're doing the right thing.

never-in-doubt

benf90 wrote: »

The thing is... it is their business what the OP is spending money on. It's their money the OP is spending.

Wrong - it is the customers money as he has an agreement showing the limit, i.e. the loan amount!

benf90 wrote: »

How can they know if someone is being responsible unless they know what the money is being used for?

Its nothing to do with them what the money is for.

benf90 wrote: »

When it's purchases their systems will automatically see what types of business it is etc, but with cash it could be spent on anything.

Yes, but you'll find it was flagged cos the OP probably doesn't make loads of withdrawals so its standard security check.... i.e. irregular patterns (assuming OP doesn't usually take withdrawals that is)

benf90 wrote: »

What if the cash wasn't being used on furniture but on gambling, or being used to pay off other debts as others have said?

So what? Its within his limit so he can spend it on whatever he likes except criminal, drugs or illegal activities.

benf90 wrote: »

If Egg simply asked if it was the OP making the transactions rather than asking why they were made then they wouldn't get the full picture.

Again, its probably standard verification dept.

benf90 wrote: »

Banks and credit card companies get bad publicity when they mess up, and rightly so. I don't think we should think bad of them when they actually try taking a proactive approach to checking things out.

I'm not having a go at the OP. But I'm not going to look at Egg badly either, as they're doing the right thing.

Half true - egg are protecting the OP but at the end of the day they, aswith other banks, are no angels and still have to follow the laws set in place within their own agreement and if they offer cash advances then they should let them go through, unchallenged.

benf90

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Wrong - it is the customers money as he has an agreement showing the limit, i.e. the loan amount!

I don't think I am wrong. It has to be paid back and it's unsecured, it's Egg's money.

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Its nothing to do with them what the money is for.

I maintain that it is. Their T&Cs state they can withdraw use of the account at any time.

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Yes, but you'll find it was flagged cos the OP probably doesn't make loads of withdrawals so its standard security check.... i.e. irregular patterns (assuming OP doesn't usually take withdrawals that is)

I'm not denying that. However, this doesn't sound like the standard security check. It's more likely that the number of cash advances and the high limit has triggered alarm bells to do with the risk of defaulting.

never-in-doubt wrote: »

So what? Its within his limit so he can spend it on whatever he likes except criminal, drugs or illegal activities.

Egg have a moral and quite possibly a legal responsibility to ensure they're being responsible with who they offer credit to. In my view they have every right to ask questions to ascertain if one of their customers is facing financial difficulty. In order to do that they need the full picture.

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Again, its probably standard verification dept.

I don't think it is a standard verification. A lot of people, myself included, have been contacted by Egg to check transactions are genuine. This is something different.

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Half true - egg are protecting the OP but at the end of the day they, aswith other banks, are no angels and still have to follow the laws set in place within their own agreement and if they offer cash advances then they should let them go through, unchallenged.

I never said that banks are angels. I quite clearly said they get it wrong and rightly get bad publicity when they do. However, in this instance I believe they're not doing anything wrong at all.

As for following their own agreement, they are. See section 19: Limiting use of the account.