MBNA declining to reissue card after wife changed name

oscar52

fathabit wrote: »

I find it all a little odd, other card providers changed her name straight away and reissued cards. MBNA also said on the phone that they were sending out the new card, so we've asked for a copy of the telephone conversation.

I can probably guarantee the response you will get will be "At MBNA, we do not record 100% of our calls....."

bengal-stripe

fathabit wrote: »

Had a snotty letter today declining to reissue card due to current financial standing/and or conduct. Usual blah blah Equifax Experian etc.

Are you and your wife finacially linked (joint account etc.)? - Maybe the problem is your credit rating.

Curt.

chattychappy wrote: »

If you're keen to fight it, you could try on PC/discrim grounds. "The wife" should write a complaint saying nothing has changed except becoming a married woman. She chose to take her husband's family name (as is common) and this has triggered a loss of credit facility. Remind them of their regulatory obligation to treat customers fairly. Then the FOS if no success.

Well, there could be legitimate reasons behind all this and it might not be worth the candle...

No that will be a hilarious waste of time, they have a right to remove the facility any time they want for any reason and or demand the immediate re-payment of a balance immedietly according to their own and pretty much everyone's T&C's.

Not to mention he would literally get laughed out of court for that one..

Curt.

oscar52 wrote: »

I can probably guarantee the response you will get will be "At MBNA, we do not record 100% of our calls....."

Yeah, asking for a recorded copy of everything usually only can save you when the burden may be upon them to prove a dispute, and asking for a backlog may take a while anyway...

Curt.

noah271007 wrote: »

Ok fair enough, MBNA can decide whether to reissue her card or not (under terms and conditions) BUT COME ON, she rang to inform them that she now is married and have a different surname and need a new card to update her new name.

Actually that may be half of it, Fat, did she just ring and tell them or send in a verified copy of the marriage license??

MBNA dont have branches like some other CC companies so you have to fax or mail in the original i think - when my wife was asked to do the same for some card companies she closed off the accounts instead in her old maiden name than trust some idiot with our marriage license.

But, if you just happened to tell them and give no verification then they know your details dont match the account at the moment and that they have no proof of the new details (i.e. on the electoral roll and CRA's it will have not yet updated and be the old information) and thats why they will have almost certainly closed off her account.

chattychappy

Curt. wrote: »

they have a right to remove the facility any time they want for any reason and or demand the immediate re-payment of a balance immedietly according to their own and pretty much everyone's T&C's.

They certainly don't have any right to immediate re-payment of a balance - that is usually an overdraft term, not a credit card term. As for "any reason" - what about because they discovered you were jewish, gay or Chinese?

The "real" T+Cs is what is written by them and signed by you as modified by statute, case law and other sources of regulation. T+Cs are often drafted in the knowledge that they might be unenforceable in the hope that when shown them consumers will back down.

Too often people are told in these forums that "the T+Cs say X, that is what you signed, therefore you're bound by it." Sometimes true, but not necessarily true.

Curt.

Nope, they absolutely do, in this case, have a right to demand immediate repayment if they suspect (which is enough) that fraud is involved and that is what it amounts to if they have a notification of a change of name without any proof which nullifies the whole credit agreement...in fact i think the SFO and FSA have all approved this somewhere along the line. It may take a while to find it but i can even find the relevant statute or law in regards if you like? This even goes beyond lending, i think it is part of the anti terrorism and money laundering laws passed in 05 through 07.

In regards to the reasons - well the irony is they dont even have to, nor will they ever even tell you why...even for credit application refusals, other than when you fail to meet elligability do they even bother to tell you why you were declined? They may feed you a load of crap about creit scoring and what not but they never get into their own lending policies do they?

Enforcable or otherwise, he hasnt got a leg to stand on if they chose to call for immediate repayment/cose accounts etc in the relevant context to any suspected fraud, if that is the case. Advising a lawsuit would be a further cost and use of his time and resources to chase a losing case imo.

jamesd

The credit agreement is between a person and a company, not between a name and a company. Women changing names on marriage is routine, not grounds for belief that fraud is happening. Money-laundering identification processes might require checking identity with what will usually be an online check with a credit reference agency, which will give a match once the electoral roll is updated. Or can be other documentation.

If there's some real reason to believe that money laundering is involved that can prompt all sorts of things but marriage is just routine business.

They are also required to give something other than a generic answer when it comes to credit refusals. Merely saying credit score isn't really sufficient, they are supposed to at least be identifying the most significant items, if asked. Though lenders vary in how good they are at doing this.

chattychappy

Money Laundering Regs might trigger freezing whilst a Suspicious Activity Report to SOCA under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is filed and processed - but that's about as far as it would go - and changing the name on a credit card account that has been running for a while would fall far short of that in the absence of other data. Fraud on application might give the credit card provider the power to rescind a contract and demand instant repayment at common law, but that's about it. Note that if they really did suspect terrorism/ML then by closing the account and demanding immediate repayment (even if they were entitled to) they could incur liability under tipping off. NB this is more of a SOCA matter than the FSA/SFO.

But this is a long way from the original claim that a credit card company can merely close an account at any time, demanding immediate repayment and don't have to give reasons.