Amex never forgets... an experiment.

InsideInsurance

BillJones wrote: »

This is true, and at any time since the original problems, let's say when those circumstances did improve, the OP could have chosen to make good on the debts that they did not pay back in full as part of the bankruptcy.

If they've chosen not to do so, then of course a company is not going to be keen to deal with them again, as it shows that either they are still the sort of person who chooses not to pay back money, even if they can, or that they are still in trouble.

I wonder how far back these things are held in a systematic way for? I know a long time ago I "forgot" to cancel a service when moving address. More than a decade later met up with an old friend who handed me a bunch of mail he'd been saving me including a load of threatening letters from a few months after I left. I called them to make good my error and was told they had no record of me ever being a customer let alone any debt I owed.

Now banks probably have more systematic/ long term records but as per the ICO/ DPA comments they dont necessarily keep all data indefinitely.

ambc

RichL74 wrote: »

I dont understand why if you defaulted with a company before and owed them however much you owed them, that after however many years you think its okay to wait, you jump into bed with the EXACT same company again and wonder why you get declined?

Maybe it's just me.

I understand your point.

However, credit card contracts aren't a personal/emotional relationship with a finance company. They're a business relationship, and they solely exist to make money for that finance company. Unpaid/bad debts, to an extent, are factored in as part of the company's business model (not that I'm condoning being a bad debtor).

Secondly, another poster commented above that not everyone's financial circumstances remain constant throughout their lives, and mine certainly haven't.

I was in a reasonably good position for a long time before the BR and I'm now (pretty much) back in a similar reasonably good position.

The chain of events that caused the BR could happen to anyone - it certainly wasn't reckless spending and an immature attitude to finances that did it!

I don't need the Amex card as such. Now that I'm back on track again, I was just interested to find out how they'd deal with another application from me, after having recently heard that they blacklist people for life.

Seems they might do just that!

I have no idea whether it's legal/ethical/right/wrong/sensible/whatever for them to do that. What I do know is that I've become even more vigilant about finances and am probably now more of a model credit card customer than ever.

Which means that in terms of the business relationship I mentioned earlier, I would almost certainly be a good choice for them (or any credit card company) and they'd likely make a couple of quid off me in interest.

Still, yes, it's ultimately their decision. And hopefully this experience will help someone else.

I may even write to them to try to get into a discussion about their policies that cover this kind of situation - again, just out of interest; I like asking questions.

If I do, I'll post any replies here.

This is true, and at any time since the original problems, let's say when those circumstances did improve, the OP could have chosen to make good on the debts that they did not pay back in full as part of the bankruptcy.

If they've chosen not to do so, then of course a company is not going to be keen to deal with them again, as it shows that either they are still the sort of person who chooses not to pay back money, even if they can, or that they are still in trouble.

Just wanted to reply to this as a side note: you're not actually allowed to pay back any of the debts that were included in your BR, unless it's via the Official Receiver who will distribute any payments amongst all of the original creditors, after first taking their own costs out.

So, even if I wanted to settle the original Amex debt directly with a view to using this as leverage for a new account, I'm legally bound not to and therefore couldn't have legally chosen to.

RichL74

Situations do change of course however once bitten twice shy and all that.

Say you take your car to a garage and they rip you off for thousands of pound worth of work that you didnt need - do you go back as they may be better now?

You go to a restaruant and get served dog. Do you go back because it says 'we only serve 100% cat'?

Your girlfriend cheats on you, do you ever forget?

You owe a couple of grand on a credit card and you didnt pay - do you really apply to the same company?

Anyway, it doesn't matter, it looks as if you have found out your answer for the fact they declined you. Good luck

System

As long as they don't share the information with a 3rd party and as they have a legitimate reason (amongst other things) then I doubt the ICO would have an issue with it.

GingerBob wrote: »

There are data protection rules (ha!) which state that personal data must not be kept for longer than is necessary to perform a specific function (or words to that effect). Clearly the function here is lifetime blacklisting. It may be worth checking with the ICO to see what they think about it.

GingerBob_3

Heng_Leng wrote: »

As long as they don't share the information with a 3rd party and as they have a legitimate reason (amongst other things) then I doubt the ICO would have an issue with it.

Keeping longer than reasonable is the issue here. It would be worth the OP checking with the ICO to get their take on it. I would say noting a default on someone aged 18, then holding it against them when they were 60 would not be reasonable.

BillJones

ambc wrote: »

So, even if I wanted to settle the original Amex debt directly with a view to using this as leverage for a new account, I'm legally bound not to and therefore couldn't have legally chosen to.

Rubbish. Once you are discharged you can pay back anyone you choose.

Mr_Goodkat

GingerBob wrote: »

Keeping longer than reasonable is the issue here. It would be worth the OP checking with the ICO to get their take on it. I would say noting a default on someone aged 18, then holding it against them when they were 60 would not be reasonable.

I am sure the ICO will have no problem with a company keeping on record individuals who have spent their money and not paid it back it is a very legitimate reason.


I see no problem with lifetime blacklisting is all part of being a responsible lender.

GingerBob_3

Mr_Goodkat wrote: »

I am sure the ICO will have no problem with a company keeping on record individuals who have spent their money and not paid it back it is a very legitimate reason.


I see no problem with lifetime blacklisting is all part of being a responsible lender.

So you think the 60 year old should be penalised for an indiscretion when he was 18?

OP, I would check with the ICO. Lifetime anythings are intrinsically unfair; people change. Just sound them out about this particular scenario.

giblet10

Amex used to run a scheme in the US called 'Oasis'. It was for people who had defaulted (or the US equivalent) and if said people repaid their debt eventually, they would be able to apply for an Amex Oasis card.

Commentary suggests that Oasis was considered where people had been ill, lost a job etc i.e. the couldn't payers instead of the wouldn't payers.

giblet10

GingerBob wrote: »

So you think the 60 year old should be penalised for an indiscretion when he was 18?

Personally, no, I don't. I've often argued that even murderers are often pardoned by law. But the law doesn't require financial providers to grant pardons.

But, as others have said here, if you offend someone through non payment be they individuals or large corporates, perhaps they are going to be hesitant about further lending.