limit slashed

jimbo26

jen_a_c wrote: »

it seems very very unfair to reduce your limit below the drawn balance and then charge you - is this even allowed????

I agree, I wouldn't have thought they could do this.

Izzie_Wizzie

jimbo26 wrote: »

I agree, I wouldn't have thought they could do this.

No they can't. :mad:

I would advise that you contact the company immediately, explain that your limit has been reduced to a level less than the balance on the card but that you were away on holiday and had not received notification of this until your return (after you had spent on the card). Request that they then increase your limit to a level above your balance (credit card companies can and will do this in these instances so there should be no problem with them doing it for you - please don't let them fob you off as this is causing you additional financial hardship). You should also request that the overlimit fee be refunded as you were well within your limit when you used the card.

If you don't get an acceptable response from them then you should request that the matter be escalated up - this is certainly not good practice and is not treating customers fairly.

Let us know how you get on!

Izzie

Moggles_2

Originally Posted by theleek
I missed a payment by two days on this card about three months ago.

Innocent_Guy wrote: »

Usually a marker would not added to your credit file unless the payment was 28 days late or the date that your next statement was produced.

Lenders' procedures vary. From feedback here, some (eg. Barclaycard) always report late payments, even when staff have promised otherwise :rolleyes:

Also, depends on where your payment due date falls in relation to CRA updates. If they happen to process the CRA batch run a day or so after your payment is due, even a couple of days late is marked '1' on your credit report.

OP, this is nothing to worry about.
Three or four months down the line, your report should look something like this:
0001000000000
which shows you have maintained the account perfectly since then

theleek

Thanks everyone,some good and sound advice there.

Yes,the two day late payment was Barclaycard,and my report does show the 1 for this but 0 on EVERYTHING else!

Anyway,i will keep updating with the result,yesterday it took 33 mins just to tell me that i should repay £300 ! and keep my account within the limit.

Maybe this is a blessing in disguise but the fact is that my credit rating will be damaged further if i dont get the matter sorted

Thanks for the replies

oscar52

poker-playa wrote: »

It is usually after the next statement is produced plus accounts report in arrears.

Agreed, but if you bring the account up to date after the 5 days, but before the next statement is produced, then it isnt in arrears -just a late payment.

oscar52

Innocent_Guy wrote: »

Interesting,

I have always been told from various sources that it will be marked on your credit file if you haven't paid by the time the next statement has been produced. This is deffo 100% correct at least with Virgin anyway.

Ahem - it USED to be true - MBNA are now going to align to industry standards - therefore, if more than 5 days late, it will now report.

never-in-doubt

Got to get in on this little act here. Regardless of what the lenders may think they can do, there are actually industry guidelines preventing them, especially if challenged for inaccuracies.

Lets assume the following, to make it easier to pan out:

Your statement date is 20th of month
Your payment date is 5th of month
The lender updates CRA CAIS data on 2nd of month

Ok, so the dates are agreed - feasible and realistic portrayal of dates....?

Right,

I get a statement 20/06/09 due for payment 05/07/09. I forget to transfer funds and decide to do this on 3rd July. This would mean that the account is not in arrears so on the 2nd July, the lender would be reporting my account conduct upto and inclusive of 2nd July, i.e. showing the account to be upto date (which it is at that point).

Now, remember I only sent the payment on 3rd July so this hits my account on 7th July, 2 days later than the payment date. The lender has already reported my account as being upto date for that month with the CAIS batch run on 2nd July. Therefore come 2nd August, the account would be up to date again and the lender cannot report the account as being a month late for that month when it was not, in essence it was for the previous month and so any update should be anulled by the CRA if you request it and have statements to prove it.

The other option, is to assume you forgot to pay altogether in which case because you never paid at all in July, by the time the new statement is produced on 20th July, you'll be outstanding a month and no matter when you pay, the lender will resort to adding a [1] indicator against you.

Barclays have for ages been known to add these markers, I do have a template to get them to remove them because as I say, we are protected under CCA1974 and Banking Code against lenders doing this when the account is not actually a month overdue. So long as the account is paid upto date within the statement period (in the above example this would mean so long as I paid before 19th July) then my account (at next statement date) is and would be rightfully classed as upto date.

Barclays are just wrong, but that does not surprise me!

oscar52

Im sure my explanation is far simpler!

Innocent_Guy

oscar52 wrote: »

Ahem - it USED to be true - MBNA are now going to align to industry standards - therefore, if more than 5 days late, it will now report.

Please provide a copy of these so called industry standards

never-in-doubt

Innocent_Guy wrote: »

Please provide a copy of these so called industry standards

Leave it mate - Oscar is alright..... :beer:

Industry Standards is what the CRA's use as their term for 'whatever we want'. There are no standards, it is simply referred to when there is nothing set-in-stone but instead 'the norm' meaning they are not law, and can be challenged....