My increase on my egg card is to go up by six per cent.

Murray

Reply to elhadders:

Having a card that you dont use does go against your credit rating because it is credit that you already have access too. If you applied for credit elsewhere it would probably reduce the amount that they were prepared to offer you.

Generally the advice is to cancel unwanted cards.

Joe_Bloggs

Some say the whole Prudential group is up for grabs.
J_B.

brightonman_2

Joe_Bloggs wrote:

Some say the whole Prudential group is up for grabs.
J_B.

That might help explain this move to a certain extent. Thanks for finding this.

pinkfluffybabe

Joe_Bloggs wrote:

@pinkfluffybabe
What do you doubt ? I guess it is the increase in the 4% in credit balance rate.
The egg 'money' is still a good card but there is always time for egg to wreck it with rule changes.
J_B.

Yeah, I meant the 4% increasing. Although many other banks are increasing rates, perhaps I am overly cynical towards Egg

Murray

Booby's_Place wrote:

Higher risk customers = more bad debt = less profit. Therefore charging a higher rate of interest to higher risk customers makes good business sense.

They have encouraged high risk people to join by advertising a competitive interest rate and then have bunged this up by nearly 40% - that is the bit I have a problem with.

Good business sense for Egg maybe, but what about the people who are affected by the interest rate hike? This site is about money saving and consumer revenge not supporting the big corporations!

billion25

"For example, I'm self-employed: does that make me a bad person? Does the fact that some months my business makes more than in other months make me a 'bad risk', even if I have always made the payments? "

Statistically, you are higher risk. Sorry.



"And as for Egg's shareholders -- caveat emptor.

The irony? As one of the early takers of Egg's products, I held a small number of their shares until the end of last year, but because their results were so poor, I sold them. Which is exactly what the rest of Egg's shareholders can do if they have any sense or morals."

Does this not exactly apply to Egg customers as well? If you don't like the product, pay it off and move on. If you can't pay it off, then you are higher risk and should be priced higher.

mr-mac_3

billion25 wrote:

"And as for Egg's shareholders -- caveat emptor.

The irony? As one of the early takers of Egg's products, I held a small number of their shares until the end of last year, but because their results were so poor, I sold them. Which is exactly what the rest of Egg's shareholders can do if they have any sense or morals."

Does this not exactly apply to Egg customers as well? If you don't like the product, pay it off and move on. If you can't pay it off, then you are higher risk and should be priced higher.

I see rather than comment on my reply to the last time you said this same thing you have just trundled it out again, think, discuss and try to help

Is there not a point where the changes and increases are not just a step to far but such a large change to how the product operates to the one you signed up for makes it dodgey on legal ground and yes I agree with you re risk based pricing if I took out a risk based priced product at the outset... but I didn't... egg havn't changed the goal post but had them re-painted and moved to a new park, so far away from the first park it's to far away to play on now ....

elhadders

Thanks Murray. Time to get on the blower and then get out the scissors! :-)

brightonman_2

billion25 wrote:

Does this not exactly apply to Egg customers as well? If you don't like the product, pay it off and move on. If you can't pay it off, then you are higher risk and should be priced higher.

I can see that we're on completely different wavelengths here. I'm struggling to see why you persist in supporting Egg. Do you work there?

Hmm, silly me, I thought it was the banking institutions who employed all that powerful marketing over many years (using our money, incidentally) to convince us that we were safe in their hands. And in fact, it's only in the very recent past that, as a result of legislation, banks have been forced to point out just how risky taking out a mortgage, loan or credit card can be because their attempts at cosy 'self-regulation' failed miserably.

If, when a product is first sold, it is made clear that your interest rate will be 'individualised', then I have no problem with that -- as a buyer, you can make an informed decision. When, however, both the interest rate and the way you are assessed by the institution are completely changed mid-stream, that is something completely different. And in my book, it's immoral.

So great -- buyer beware, absolutely, yes, you're right. Feel better? But I wasn't in the process of buying: I was already a customer, like everyone else here who has been shocked by this news. Try putting yourself in someone else's shoes.

jnd

maffew wrote:

My Secure Message to them


Regarding the email sent to me about the 6% rise on my interest rate

...Reading internet message boards it appears that people subject to this significant rise are regarded as higher risk or people struggling with payments.

Hmmm..... I've never struggled with payments and I'm employed on a good wage so I wouldn't class myself as high risk. They upped me by the 6% as well but in my case I hadn't used my Egg card for almost a year (anniversary offer), then after phoning them up about the 75% cashback on the lounge pass deal, they offered me 5.9% fixed for the life of the balance. My intention is to close the account after the debt is repaid though.