Credit limit reduction: reality vs. bureaucracy

BoGoF

God, is it me, or is the OP a condescending so and so. You're a risk, accept it.

praxisizer

zppp wrote: »

What would you like to know that you haven't already had an answer to?

See the final three paragraphs of my original post (though I see there is one (1) post here that relates in part to one of those questions -- one out of 20 is some sort of result, I guess :-/ ).

Conceivably there could be answers to some of those somewhere the referents of the long list of links that Paul_Herring posted -- my apologies if so: they appear on the surface to be another part of the somewhat zombie-like response to my comment about risk assessment that this thread has mutated into, rather than responses to my original queries.

CannyJock

praxisizer wrote: »

I think that's false, and I don't think that the definition of "risk" is a fruitful area for discussion.

Are you still trying to assert your unique world view that you're a good risk despite the banks and some fairly experienced heads on here telling you that you're not perceived to be by the credit company who reduced your limit?

Dylanwing

Risk is computer analysed, things like missed paymets don't look too good, and as far as I can tell, very few humans at credir card Companies can over-rule 'the computer'. Sadly, a computer cannot distinguish between somebody absent-minded, who should really set up a Monthly DD, or somebody skint, and quite frankly, in difficult market conditions I doubt that they give a stuff, and will minimise risk.
Anyway, credit card Companies are totally random, my Sainsburys card went from over £5,000 limit to £250, reducing every time I made a lump sum deposit, it then rose to £450 and has since gone back down to £400.

praxisizer

BoGoF wrote: »

God, is it me, or is the OP a condescending so and so. You're a risk, accept it.

If I respond with an attitude of superiority to arguments of the form "I'm right, you're wrong", I'm not in error. That's not condescension in its usual sense: I don't think I'm superior to you, I think my arguments are superior to yours, since you haven't presented any. Until somebody responds with rational argument rather than rhetoric or restating opinions, why would I not be justified in that attitude?

To be honest, I've run out of time for this.

I'm grateful to the single respondent who answered one of my questions -- very helpful, thanks!

praxisizer

CannyJock wrote: »

Are you still trying to assert your unique world view that you're a good risk despite the banks and some fairly experienced heads on here telling you that you're not perceived to be by the credit company who reduced your limit?

Absolutely, yes!

I'm sure it's not a unique view, though -- look through recent posts, and you'll find at least one other post on this very website expressing the same point of view (in another form). I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to find it

praxisizer

Dylanwing wrote: »

Risk is computer analysed, things like missed paymets don't look too good, and as far as I can tell, very few humans at credir card Companies can over-rule 'the computer'. Sadly, a computer cannot distinguish between somebody absent-minded, who should really set up a Monthly DD, or somebody skint, and quite frankly, in difficult market conditions I doubt that they give a stuff, and will minimise risk.

Right, I absolutely agree (up to the last half-sentence).

Anyway, credit card Companies are totally random, my Sainsburys card went from over £5,000 limit to £250, reducing every time I made a lump sum deposit, it then rose to £450 and has since gone back down to £400.

Interesting, thanks for that.

Now I really must be off.

BoGoF

One other view ?

You should form a club and force credit companies to change their attitudes to risk.

Paul_Herring

praxisizer wrote: »

You're simply parroting current procedures. You've made a statement, not given an explanation. They're different things, you know!

Rubbish. I've provided an explanation. But, then again, having been given a more down to earth explanation, your response was:

praxisizer wrote: »

Folksy analogies aside, do you have an actual argument to make?

Proof by analogy is fraud.

You're not going to get a consensus giving the answer you perceive to be correct, since most people around here don't think the answer you want *is* correct.

Deny all the 'wrong' replies all you want; the only person you're going to convince that "making late payments makes a person a good credit risk" is yourself.

Anyway, back to

See the final three paragraphs of my original post

...

One obvious question that occurs to me is: Why can't I simply volunteer to prove to them that I'm a good risk by revealing some of my bank / credit card records?

Addressed at length in this thread. You can't prove you're a good risk by paying late/missing payments; despite any denials you may have about the lots of evidence presented to the contrary.

Proof that you can make payments does nothing towards explaining why you're not actually making those payments. This is what matters more to your creditors.

They don't want to run the risk that you end up stopping paying them altogether (regardless of any savings you may have,) by reducing/not allowing you credit.

When I asked, they said I could "appeal" about the change in credit limit, which conjures up images of Terry Gilliam-esque insane bureaucracy for me. Has anybody here been through this appeal process?

If the lowering of limit is due to your inability to pay on time, is this not more evidence that not paying on time is a detriment to your credit record.

So, what should I do? Appeal? Just use the card for a few months and pay it off carefully each month?

Feel free to appeal. I doubt you'll have much success.

This also raises another issue: before this recent business with the credit limit reduction, I applied for a third card and was provisionally accepted. They then screwed up the application process (by their own admission), which means I have to apply again. Should I wait until my credit limit goes up again on card #2, or just try applying again now?

Credit limit going up on #2 will, if anything, be a detriment to you while your late payments remain on file, since you'll have increased your credit line available/in use. If you're set on attempting to get this card either apply for it now, or wait a few years and make sure you have no late/missing payments in the interim.

hur575

BadgerFace wrote: »

Look at it like this.

Your mate lends you £20 at work, which you say you'll give him back next week. Next week comes and goes, but you don't give him the cash back till much later.

Next time you ask him to lend you some cash, he's going to say NO and waving a statement in his face saying 'look at me I've got the money to pay you back' ain't going to make a rats !!! of difference, you don't stick to your word, you're a poor risk.

Best reply with real example, if you lose your credibility with your friend, how could you gain it back from the bank who does not even know you?
It does not matter how much money you have in the bank, if you are not organised computer will always say NO, the thing is about money management is not how much you have, organisation is key skills to keep it. That why some idiots lose their lottery win in few months.
Once you start missing payments, you get charged extra for late payment, over limit fees etc, make few miss payments in different accounts, and you easily can be short of money, so computer will say NO.