Amex Platinum Cashback - Rejection 2

lisyloo

Bloody Amex!

They are entitled to choose not to lend to you if they don't want to.
Just as you have a choice as a consumer, they have a choice as a lender.
You don't have an automatic right to credit.
You have every right to be miffed if you want, but at the end of the day it's their choice.

jinkster

I'm 27 nearly 28 and have an AMEX Platinum Cashback card.

leetabix

lisyloo wrote: »

They are entitled to choose not to lend to you if they don't want to.
Just as you have a choice as a consumer, they have a choice as a lender.
You don't have an automatic right to credit.
You have every right to be miffed if you want, but at the end of the day it's their choice.

That's not too helpful a response - I think the poster is completely aware of this, his query seems to relate to why Amex might have rejected him, rather than the fact that they have actually rejected him.

It is indeed their right to refuse credit to a potential customer, however I would wager that to not offer at least the main reason of the score not being successful is demonstrating that Amex is acting irresponsibly as a financial institution. This is because a customer is being told they're being refused service, but not being told why - in this case, a customer who is wishing to improve their financial/credit is unable to take any action to improve their situation.

Financial institutions fund initiatives (voluntarily or involuntarily) through things like the recent addition to the bank levy (which will pay for a government fund used to pay organizations/charities offering debt advice to customers), but are free to refuse business (which the government is trying to encourage to stimulate the economy again) without having to give a good reason why. On this last point, if I was a bank/financial organization I wouldn't care (as they're only in it to make money, as all business' are), however the government should really change this to enable consumers more.

Also, if you look at the Amex website for the platinum cashback card, and click the apply button, you're presented with the following initial eligibility criteria:

Before you apply

Before you start your application, please check all these statements are true

• I am over 18,
• I have a current account with a UK bank or building society,
• I have an annual household income of at least £30,000 (i.e. your personal income plus your partner's income)
• I have a permanent UK home address
• I have no County Court Judgements against me for non-payment of debt
• My company has been trading for more than a year (only applicable if you are-self-employed).

Information you will need

• Your employment information
• Your bank account details
• Your gross annual income

- - -

Therefore, to be considered for eligibility, you need to be over 18. Being 25 by itself wouldn't (or shouldn't) be considered by Amex to be a reason for rejection by their statement of eligibility on their website.

lisyloo

That's not too helpful a response

I disagree.
It wasn't clear they understood the relationship at all, but I accept it is difficult to read tone/emotions in black & white.
So perhaps I misunderstood their attitude but there definitely was more than a whiff of expectation and entitlement and indignation at being refused the way I read it.

I would wager that to not offer at least the main reason of the score not being successful is demonstrating that Amex is acting irresponsibly as a financial institution

It's extremely common not to reveal their commercially sensitive lending criteria.
If they did people would manipulate their credit records (as they already try to do).
Why do you think it's irresponsible?

in this case, a customer who is wishing to improve their financial/credit is unable to take any action to improve their situation.

I'd call that trying to manipulate their factual credit history to suit, which is exactly what lenders don't want.
They want to see your historical behaviour, not a manipulated version of it.
That's exactly why they don't tell you the rules.

Also, if you look at the Amex website for the platinum cashback card, and click the apply button, you're presented with the following initial eligibility criteria

That's not their entire criteria.
It's probably a combination of factors that they are at liberty NOT to reveal.

So sorry I don't agree with you.

NickX

They rejected me too - no mortgage and income of over £50k

The £30k I owe on 0% cards may have something to do with it though.

I pushed them for a reason but they refused. No, they are not obliged to take me on as a customer, but their attitude to requests for further information was bordering on offensive.

I wish they would be honest and just say, "We don't want you because you'll use us for free cashback and 0% interest and you'll cost us money". If they did I'd say "Fair Play", as it is I'm left with a rather unspeakable opinion of American Express.

Typhoon2000

I dont think AmEx would decline if you regularly pay your ballance off in full. They seem to encourage it, always pushing that option when you phone to set up a direct debit. And thier minimum payment is the highest in the bussiness at 10%. It appears thay do charge merchants higher fees than Visa/MC, so they appear just as happy if you use the card regularly.

leetabix

Hi lisyloo, to address your remarks against my quotes below (numbered by quote):

1. I guess it depends on the way you read the post - although the main thrust was that the person was listing their financial situation which they regarded to be positive in relation to lack of 'bad debt,' while also noting that they weren't then able to correlate that with an understanding of why they had been refused for credit. Reference of this person's financial situation to the MSE guide on credit scoring also draws the same conclusion. Any note of them not being entitled to credit doesn't really serve to further resolution of the initial post, but merely is a commentary on the situation itself.

I guess it depends on your perspective - I try to put things in black and white and think of myself as quite a logical person. I either understand something or I don't - if I don't understand something I endeavor to understand it. If I do understand it and I see someone else not understanding it, I endeavor to assist them instead (if they even want my help!)

2. When you note 'manipulation of credit records,' this could only be legally done via a difference of behavior on a credit report, resulting in a higher/lower score as a general indicator of general 'creditworthiness.' For someone who has a perfect credit score at all of the british organisations, there's no financial/moral gain for me to make late/missed/minimum payments, or take up a debt of some other kind at an interest, to then give the indication to a company that there's money to be made by giving me a card.

Logically I can't see how this behavior holds together as the loss in time/money/effort spent in sculpting such a specific behavior over a long enough period of time to enable an acceptance by that one specific company wouldn't ever benefit an individual (assuming they publish their full lending criteria that is, which isn't what I proposed...only the main contributing reason for rejection which wouldn't enable a person to radically sculpt their behavior anyhow).

To answer the other part of your note, I think it's irresponsible when taking into context the role of the organization as one that is engaged in dealing with the dispensation of credit (or not as the case may be). I would therefore equally argue (to look at it on the flip side) that it is irresponsible to provide credit to customers that display behaviors that don't meet good credit worthiness as generally measured by external credit agencies, as these are the types of customers that are more likely to generate what is now known as 'toxic' debt - by some companies sculpting criteria to reward certain specific behaviors that run contrary to a good rating, they're acting irresponsibly. To then take this in the context of the poster, by providing advice on why a person has a good credit score, but is refused credit by that company, they're acting as a responsible lender two-fold - firstly they're demonstrating that they're not looking for behaviors that necessarily run contrary to what is considered as responsible financial behavior (again, measured typically by a good external credit ratings), and secondly they're indicating an action a customer could take to improve their behavior, to have a longer lasting effect on both themselves, while benefiting further applications (and creating a more sound, less risk-based relationship for both parties going forward).

3. In succession to the above point, this relates to what companies should be looking for, in the context of the above point of describing companies in terms of their ability to give/not give credit to customers, and the long-term effect this has on business, the customer, and the economy in general (relaxed availability of credit allegedly being a contributing factor to the current recession). If the company is looking for behaviors that will make them money I would wager they're acting irresponsibly in relation to the above context.

Also bear in mind that I've discussed in 2. and 3. above about the credit score/history a customer can change, resulting in a lower risk customer selection strategy (if a customer is able to demonstrate a certain behavior, it should only be positive/responsible behaviors that are taken into account which would benefit both parties for them to be publicized). If a customer puts a lie onto their application, they should be considered to have committed a criminal offense as this is a fraudulent application - I don't think this is what you were implying, but just thought I'd note that in case!

4. I only listed the listed criteria in the specific example of Amex, not because I was arguing that was their entire criteria - just that you can potentially get an Amex card by being over 18 as a remark against someone's earlier post of the person being 25 and this being a barrier to him obtaining the card.

As an additional remark on this point, I would wager that Amex may well have a gradient in their internal score that apportions a higher score to an older individual...so 18-25 in one bracket....26-30 in the next...and so on, with each increasing age group bracket having a slightly larger positive factor on their final internal score. So, the point was essentially that if I was 19 I could get a card if I ticked the boxes on everything else, but if I ticked all but one box, I could then need to be 26-30 to then tip the balance in my favour. Therefore, being over 18 is one of Amex's required criteria, however being 19 therefore means you can get the card, but not that you automatically will get it. I think this is perhaps what you meant by your comment, in which case I think we violently agree on this one .

It'll be interesting to see your responses to the above lisyloo (and anyone else who wants to contribute!), however please bear in mind that this forum is related to a website which is all about the consumer - consumer information, consumer empowerment, and above all, interests of the consumer above the interests of the business under discussion.

I would of course argue as you do that corporations act as they do because in the end, they're out to make money, and that if they're allowed to do something which conflicts morality with desire to increase financial gain, and therefore instigate debate (a recent example being a tax avoidance debate I recently watched) this isn't something that is worth complaining to the companies about, as they won't change their attitude, and will refer people to lobby to the government instead - as it is the government that rule this country and make the laws. A prime example of the conflict of interest between the consumer and company objectives is embodied by the simple existence of the Ombudsman organizations - these organizations are essentially consumer interest organizations without which companies would take no hesitation in acting contrary to the that specific behavior which acts on the consumer's behalf, if the regulations weren't in place to restrict them in the first place.

Hopefully taking the above paragraph into account makes my points seem more sensible, as I appreciate you can argue them from the company side too (i.e. "I don't care about customers thinking they want credit because they act responsibly, I just want ones that will give me money by having a history of late/missed/minimum payments, and by maximizing the money I make out of them with high APRs ready for when they do...and for the customers that act responsibly, I don't want them to actually take advantage of the cash-back offer I'm providing as I'll lose money on it if everyone I take on is a responsible lender and never pays off all their credit in full each month").

planteria

" dont think AmEx would decline if you regularly pay your ballance off in full. They seem to encourage it, always pushing that option when you phone to set up a direct debit. And thier minimum payment is the highest in the bussiness at 10%."

i agree. they are a charge card provder too, of course. they are very much in the business of providing 'spending' cards, and they generate huge incomes by doing so, charging retailers high fees in the process.

if Amex reject a customer, or offer a low limit, it is because they are, for some reason or other, unconvinced that the customer can settle their account regularly & on an ongoing basis. i've been a "Member" of Amex since 2004, but still my limit is only £3700 (my MBNA limit is £32,500, which a. illustrates how comfortable they are with my ability to pay, and b. perhaps explains why Amex are so cautious).

Amex are funny bunch, but i wouldn't give up my cashback card as it's a very useful card to carry.

lisyloo

Leetabix - sorry I don't have time to read your essay.
That isn't any kind of desire not to argue but I have to work today.

In one of two sentences what do you advise the OP to do about the situation?
Make a formal complaint to AMEX? or someone else?

Personally I think sometimes you have to accept you just aren't wanted for whatever reason and it's not necessarily the other party who are wrong. I think you are looking for someone else to blame as you don't like the answer they've given.

Thanks for the discussion and I accept everyone is entitled to their view but I simply don't have the time to read long essays today.

speedbird1973

lisyloo wrote: »

Leetabix - sorry I don't have time to read your essay.
That isn't any kind of desire not to argue but I have to work today.

In one of two sentences what do you advise the OP to do about the situation?
Make a formal complaint to AMEX? or someone else?

Personally I think sometimes you have to accept you just aren't wanted for whatever reason and it's not necessarily the other party who are wrong. I think you are looking for someone else to blame as you don't like the answer they've given.

Thanks for the discussion and I accept everyone is entitled to their view but I simply don't have the time to read long essays today.

I think she's implying you're a bit thick Lisy