credit card limit reduced with no notification

p1an0player

Intreast does nevertheless make some interesting points. After all one of the principles of this site is revenge against the big companies.

For the benefit of the less informed readers like myself, can anyone provide more concrete reasons why this "scam" is flawed (rather than simply dismissing it)?

Intreast appears to be correct in saying that credit card debt is unsecured and so one's house cannot be touched.
Based on the many TV/radio adverts for individual voluntary agreements, it would also appear to be correct that debts can be, and often are, written off.

Personally I don't have a problem with using txtspeak but as a minimum I would ask that intreast splits up some of the sentences (by leaving blank lines) rather than presenting one impregnable paragraph.

Cerenia

gem4 wrote:

I personally would be able to understand you better if you found the 'full stop' key on your keyboard and also the 'shift' key for capital letters.

If it was a son of mine who was doing what you do, with the same attitude as you I would have something to say to him.
What about an honest living instead of a series of scams?

Or learnt Ctrl + Alt + Del, hitting them twice

toomanyshoes

The_Boss wrote:

Just because NatWest is based in Essex, no need to talk like someone from there!

I'm Essex born and bred, I hope you can understand me :rolleyes:

First Direct did this to me a few months ago. My credit limit was £6200 and they cut it to £3100, just like that. They said it was to do with a BOE directive and offered to review it but I didn't need the extra so left it as it was. I did get a letter though informing me of the immediate cut.

Paul_Herring

p1an0player wrote:

Intreast does nevertheless make some interesting points. After all one of the principles of this site is revenge against the big companies.

For the benefit of the less informed readers like myself, can anyone provide more concrete reasons why this "scam" is flawed (rather than simply dismissing it)?

Do you really think that what they are doing is 'revenge' against the big companies? What in fact happens is the big companies put up charges/interest rates/fees which affect the rest of us. While this may not be flawed against the person doing it, it's also 'anti-social' in that the rest of us are paying for it, one way or another.

Look (no don't, honestly) at the bank charge reclaimant threads, and speculation that the banks/CC Companies are going to introduce monthly charges/put up debit interest rates as a result. The implication being that because of a few people 'getting back at the big comanies' the big companies have turned round and making everyone worse off.

p1an0player

Paul_Herring wrote:

Do you really think that what they are doing is 'revenge' against the big companies? What in fact happens is the big companies put up charges/interest rates/fees which affect the rest of us. While this may not be flawed against the person doing it, it's also 'anti-social' in that the rest of us are paying for it, one way or another.

Look (no don't, honestly) at the bank charge reclaimant threads, and speculation that the banks/CC Companies are going to introduce monthly charges/put up debit interest rates as a result. The implication being that because of a few people 'getting back at the big comanies' the big companies have turned round and making everyone worse off.

I think that it is a type of revenge, although a few steps too far.

I take your point about such things being anti-social and it affecting other customers. However, banks are businesses, here to make as much money as possible, so I am surprised that, if customers will tolerate higher interest rates etc, why they were not already pitched at the maximum that the optimum number of customers would tolerate.

I wonder if it would be fairer to everyone if banks etc charged for the services they offer - ie it does cost them money to run a current account so charging £5 a month for all customers, or £20 a year for a credit card, would be a better reflection of their costs. They would then need to have lower charges and interest rates. I understand that in most other countiries, current accounts carry monthly charges.

Personally I don't ever intend to default on a loan agreement and the main point of my thread was not to agree with intreast, but to get more people to demonstrate through their experiences why intreast's ideas are flawed (other than ethically). It would be easy for someone to read his/her comments on here and see it as an easy way to make money.

Again I point out that the TV/radio adverts on daytime TV watched by thousands of "lay" people imply that you can easily get eg 75% of debt wiped off. One could easily think, right, "I've got £15k unused credit on my cards, I'll spend it now while it's still available and get it wiped off later". I know it is not so simple but I struggle to explain why not.

ex-egghead

The process is flawed because:

(1) You will have a very very bad credit rating therefore if you've done it once, its unlikely your credit rating will be good enough to get a high limit
(2) You will have debt collection agencies etc contacting you all the time to get you to make payments. You will also cause any property you are living at to have a bad credit rating
(3) You presumably are lying to the banks by saying you are unemployed. If they find out you've lied you'll also be done for fraud
(4) You would have to have an extreamly good job with huge earnings to deal with the sort of money he's talking about. 30 - 40k on a credit card! You'd probably have to earn something like 80k to get that much I'd imagine. If your earning that much anyway, why do you need to bother with a credit card!
(5) There is no such thing as 'legal fraud'. If your getting money isn't yours its not legal! I don't think its a good thing this guy is posting stuff on here boasting about comitting fraud on a site aimed to help people. This guy should be banned, IP reported and info sent to the police about his claims, YOU are paying higher interest on your credit card balance because of HIM.

Sorry, bit of a hungover rant there!:mad:

netwalk

Well, I've received a letter this morning from MBNA advising that the limit on my Dogs Trust credit card has been more than halved from £12,100 to £6,000 for one of the following reasons:

1) You have applied for an additional credit card issued by MBNA and in order to provide you with the highest possible credit limit on your new account we have reduced the limit on your existing account.
2) Your limit has been reduced in order to provide you with the loan you have requested.
3) Your limit has been reduced further to your recent request.

The problem is, I haven't requested the reduction, I don't have a loan and my only other MBNA card was opened in April 2006 with a limit of just £4,000.

The card they are referring to was opened in June 2003 with the Bank of Scotland who "transferred" it to MBNA at the beginning of September.

BOS stated that the transfer would not have any impact on cardholders and that T&Cs would remain the same however this halving of my credit limit may prove inconvenient to say the least.

What recourse do I have against MBNA? I will write to them at least asking for an explanation as none of the reasons given are applicable to my account. Is it possible that MBNA do not want to honour the BOS credit limits and are trying to reduce them? If so, should I contact BOS as well for compensation?

Thanks, Julian.

shepwood

Just got to the end of my 0% period, account management and credit rating exemplary, £3000 balance owing paid in full, two days later without notification they have dropped the limit to £250!!!!!. Its a rip off either to dispose of unwanted customers or to catch you with overlimit charges. If i had not been watching my account on internet login I would not have known until it was too late, Spoke to customer service (joke) avoiding the 0870 scam, they asked if I wanted to cancel the card, its now with customer complaints but i think i can see the game plan.