AMEX Letter

jay1804

Deleted_User said:

MoJoeGo said:

Farfetch - If you've not had an Amex for a couple of years then getting an intro and referral bonus won't be a problem. 

Although I'd be asking whether the bike dealer (are we talking motorised or not?) would take Amex in the first place? And then if they do, could you haggle a bigger discount out of them by putting most of it on a debit card (with a few quid on any CC to get you S75 protection) - on a £6k bike the dealer will be paying a fair bit to Amex in fees...

Anyway, if Amex is the way to go for you, I think the referrals board was demised but happy to help if you wanted to PM me. Hope it works out whatever you do.

Bicycle, custom built carbon one as a treat to myself, yes they do take AmEx - because it's a custom build to your body I doubt they would agree a discount and they already include the bike fitting and building the bike from components (plus paying import duty for the frame from Italy) for "free".

The reason I want it on card is to then BT it and pay off over a while, I have enough credit free on my BT card which is currently doing 2 years 0% at 2.49% fee and I'd rather have that money going into savings (S&S ISA which is doing rather nicely at around average 20% annual growth at the moment, not a piddly regular saver, rather than taking out 2/3 of the money now to pay by debit). 

Not sorting anything for a couple of months yet but if I time it right I could hopefully put the full cost onto the card (limit/acceptance depending of course), I plan it all carefully to ensure everything is paid at 0% and not a penny in interest.

I will ping a message if I decide to go down this route and can get a code.

Consider maybe applying for the Gold card, as with a good referral link you can get 32,000+ MR points worth which can be converted to £250+ worth of Nectar points. You will receive the points in a couple days after the spending rather than waiting a whole year for less cashback.

MoJoeGo

Well as a non-cyclist, I was going to say that £6k sounds nuts for a bike. But I'm sitting on a train and there are a couple of chaps close by talking about a £15k custom model, so it's all relative I guess 

Anyway, happy to help if and when the time comes.

[Deleted User]

jay1804 said:

Deleted_User said:

MoJoeGo said:

Farfetch - If you've not had an Amex for a couple of years then getting an intro and referral bonus won't be a problem. 

Although I'd be asking whether the bike dealer (are we talking motorised or not?) would take Amex in the first place? And then if they do, could you haggle a bigger discount out of them by putting most of it on a debit card (with a few quid on any CC to get you S75 protection) - on a £6k bike the dealer will be paying a fair bit to Amex in fees...

Anyway, if Amex is the way to go for you, I think the referrals board was demised but happy to help if you wanted to PM me. Hope it works out whatever you do.

Bicycle, custom built carbon one as a treat to myself, yes they do take AmEx - because it's a custom build to your body I doubt they would agree a discount and they already include the bike fitting and building the bike from components (plus paying import duty for the frame from Italy) for "free".

The reason I want it on card is to then BT it and pay off over a while, I have enough credit free on my BT card which is currently doing 2 years 0% at 2.49% fee and I'd rather have that money going into savings (S&S ISA which is doing rather nicely at around average 20% annual growth at the moment, not a piddly regular saver, rather than taking out 2/3 of the money now to pay by debit). 

Not sorting anything for a couple of months yet but if I time it right I could hopefully put the full cost onto the card (limit/acceptance depending of course), I plan it all carefully to ensure everything is paid at 0% and not a penny in interest.

I will ping a message if I decide to go down this route and can get a code.

Consider maybe applying for the Gold card, as with a good referral link you can get 32,000+ MR points worth which can be converted to £250+ worth of Nectar points. You will receive the points in a couple days after the spending rather than waiting a whole year for less cashback.

That £250 worth of points does sound good though I have about 100,000 on my account at the moment, even after spending £55 on birthday stuff on the card lol.

[Deleted User]

MoJoeGo said:

Well as a non-cyclist, I was going to say that £6k sounds nuts for a bike. But I'm sitting on a train and there are a couple of chaps close by talking about a £15k custom model, so it's all relative I guess 

Anyway, happy to help if and when the time comes.

Yeah custom bikes can get silly, the manufacturer does frames up to about £7k before you factor in components. If you ride once in a blue moon it's nuts, 100%. Even if you ride for fun, £2000 all in is really the most you'd need to spend including getting the bike fitted for comfort. If your main hobby is doing it and you ride up to 100m at a time and it's going to be a "forever" bike then it's no bad thing. My current main one was £1650 in a sale, lasted a car crashing into me and getting on for 7 years, it's like say a classic car if you're into that sort of thing, might leak oil or whatever but if you love it, you love it

Vinknut

I've received the same rate change too. And like most people here I clear the balance every month, so it has no impact on me.

pecuniam_hominem

I also got the letter, spend around £700 per month and pay it off in full each month. I think it is just across the board.

Vinknut

Apologies for the bump, but I just received the letter too, and then a few days later got a credit limit increase.

No idea what that's all about. Always paid off in full, however I am running a lower running/paid off balance this year as opposed to last year, and last year got two credit limit reductions.

Go figure.

[Deleted User]

ThisnotThat said:

Deleted_User said:

Sandtree said:

Deleted_User said:
Someone who pays in full every month is not profitable, the whole intention is that they dont. 

If that were the case please explain the American Express Blue Card? Its a charge card so has to be paid off in full each month and it has no annual fee https://www.americanexpress.com/uk/charge-cards/basic-card

Its a fiction that its not profitable to have customers paying off the balance in full each month... its just more profitable if they let it roll over.

I think you missed the point, the other poster suggested that a customers credit limit would be reduced on a non amex facility because they didnt pay it in full, thats not even remotely realistic.

Anyway in general I believe that lenders should only reduce credit limits if there is solid evidence of financial mismanagement for example late payments, missed payments ect, doing so willy nilly because the computer has decided that person "may" become a problem can have serious consequences, for example if someone unexpectedly has their overdraft pulled from under their feet, they may not be able to feed themselves of their children and then be placed in financial hardship as a result, and their credit score ruined if direct debits bounce.

The whole point of reducing credit limits should be to protect the consumer from excess unaffordable borrowing if they cannot meet exsisting commitments, if they can then reducing credit facilities is not justified and im some cases can actually make the problem worse.

Someone who has temporary financial difficulties may need to borrow more to tide themselves over until they can get back on top of things, if that person does not have any previous history of defaulting on credit agreements then its very unlikely that they will on any new ones they take out, so its fundimentally wrong that some credit risk system decides to naughty step them as a result. 

So it's "won't someone please think of the children?"

They're placed in financial difficulty because they have no savings in place to cover emergencies, not because a bank decided to stop lending to them.  Credit is a privilege, not a right, and you certainly should not be reliant on it.

Banks are damned if they do, damned if they don't.  People get into a debt spiral and it's "I can't believe the banks are so irresponsible lending money to people like this and how dare they charge interest for it" and if they pull overdrafts/credit limits they get demonised for "putting people in financial hardship."  You can't make it up.

That's a completely ignorant sentiment, for a start you know no one circumstances and having credit is not a "privilege" if the banks are willing to give it to that person in the first instance.

They may not have savings in place because of an abusive partner stealing their savings, or a friend/family member taking advantage of a vulnerable person. 

I love the financial snobbery of some people on MSE, think they know everything, when they clearly know nout !

Also I said it depends on the circumstances, a person that's missed alot of payments and has a lot of defaults then yes, but someone who has a resonable credit score and the bank just makes a random decision to pull that facility from them willy nilly then absolutely not. 

Banks are an essential service, like gas and electricity, but thats abit like saying to a family of a severe asthmatic their loved one died because the electricity board decided to cut them off with no or minimal notice and the person couldn't switch on their nebuliser as a result, because electricity is a "privilege" ! 

If a landlord cant chuck someone out whenever they like or the electricity company cannot just cut supply for "commercial reasons", then why the hell should banks be allowed to close accounts and remove credit facilities whatever the hell they want, regardless of the potential impact it could have for that customer even though they may well have an excellent repayment history.

[Deleted User]

Deleted_User said:

ThisnotThat said:

Deleted_User said:

Sandtree said:

Deleted_User said:
Someone who pays in full every month is not profitable, the whole intention is that they dont. 

If that were the case please explain the American Express Blue Card? Its a charge card so has to be paid off in full each month and it has no annual fee https://www.americanexpress.com/uk/charge-cards/basic-card

Its a fiction that its not profitable to have customers paying off the balance in full each month... its just more profitable if they let it roll over.

I think you missed the point, the other poster suggested that a customers credit limit would be reduced on a non amex facility because they didnt pay it in full, thats not even remotely realistic.

Anyway in general I believe that lenders should only reduce credit limits if there is solid evidence of financial mismanagement for example late payments, missed payments ect, doing so willy nilly because the computer has decided that person "may" become a problem can have serious consequences, for example if someone unexpectedly has their overdraft pulled from under their feet, they may not be able to feed themselves of their children and then be placed in financial hardship as a result, and their credit score ruined if direct debits bounce.

The whole point of reducing credit limits should be to protect the consumer from excess unaffordable borrowing if they cannot meet exsisting commitments, if they can then reducing credit facilities is not justified and im some cases can actually make the problem worse.

Someone who has temporary financial difficulties may need to borrow more to tide themselves over until they can get back on top of things, if that person does not have any previous history of defaulting on credit agreements then its very unlikely that they will on any new ones they take out, so its fundimentally wrong that some credit risk system decides to naughty step them as a result. 

So it's "won't someone please think of the children?"

They're placed in financial difficulty because they have no savings in place to cover emergencies, not because a bank decided to stop lending to them.  Credit is a privilege, not a right, and you certainly should not be reliant on it.

Banks are damned if they do, damned if they don't.  People get into a debt spiral and it's "I can't believe the banks are so irresponsible lending money to people like this and how dare they charge interest for it" and if they pull overdrafts/credit limits they get demonised for "putting people in financial hardship."  You can't make it up.

That's a completely ignorant sentiment, for a start you know no one circumstances and having credit is not a "privilege" if the banks are willing to give it to that person in the first instance.

They may not have savings in place because of an abusive partner stealing their savings, or a friend/family member taking advantage of a vulnerable person. 

I love the financial snobbery of some people on MSE, think they know everything, when they clearly know nout !

Also I said it depends on the circumstances, a person that's missed alot of payments and has a lot of defaults then yes, but someone who has a resonable credit score and the bank just makes a random decision to pull that facility from them willy nilly then absolutely not. 

Banks are an essential service, like gas and electricity, but thats abit like saying to a family of a severe asthmatic their loved one died because the electricity board decided to cut them off with no or minimal notice and the person couldn't switch on their nebuliser as a result, because electricity is a "privilege" ! 

If a landlord cant chuck someone out whenever they like or the electricity company cannot just cut supply for "commercial reasons", then why the hell should banks be allowed to close accounts and remove credit facilities whatever the hell they want, regardless of the potential impact it could have for that customer even though they may well have an excellent repayment history.

The gimmick credit "score" you see has no bearing at all on whether you have/get/retain credit facilities or not. Lenders score you internally based on the data on your record

Further, you are mixing up access to a bank (which is certainly comparable with electricity supply) with credit which absolutely is not. Access to a bank is like being able to buy a car for cash. Access to credit is like being able to get PCP. The former, anyone can do, the latter, the lender decides if they rate you as a suitable risk or not.

If someone cannot live without running up credit cards, the bank is quite right to reduce / remove that facility due to the FCA imposed responsible lending / persistent debt rules - if they allow the customer to run up a load of unaffordable debt, they may even be made liable for it or be forced to write off the debt. That customer needs to learn to control their spending - shop cheaper, go to debt charities for help, cut back on non-essentials - this forum has a whole section devoted to this full of helpful people who can assist with a budget.

[Deleted User]

Deleted_User said:

Deleted_User said:

ThisnotThat said:

Deleted_User said:

Sandtree said:

Deleted_User said:
Someone who pays in full every month is not profitable, the whole intention is that they dont. 

If that were the case please explain the American Express Blue Card? Its a charge card so has to be paid off in full each month and it has no annual fee https://www.americanexpress.com/uk/charge-cards/basic-card

Its a fiction that its not profitable to have customers paying off the balance in full each month... its just more profitable if they let it roll over.

I think you missed the point, the other poster suggested that a customers credit limit would be reduced on a non amex facility because they didnt pay it in full, thats not even remotely realistic.

Anyway in general I believe that lenders should only reduce credit limits if there is solid evidence of financial mismanagement for example late payments, missed payments ect, doing so willy nilly because the computer has decided that person "may" become a problem can have serious consequences, for example if someone unexpectedly has their overdraft pulled from under their feet, they may not be able to feed themselves of their children and then be placed in financial hardship as a result, and their credit score ruined if direct debits bounce.

The whole point of reducing credit limits should be to protect the consumer from excess unaffordable borrowing if they cannot meet exsisting commitments, if they can then reducing credit facilities is not justified and im some cases can actually make the problem worse.

Someone who has temporary financial difficulties may need to borrow more to tide themselves over until they can get back on top of things, if that person does not have any previous history of defaulting on credit agreements then its very unlikely that they will on any new ones they take out, so its fundimentally wrong that some credit risk system decides to naughty step them as a result. 

So it's "won't someone please think of the children?"

They're placed in financial difficulty because they have no savings in place to cover emergencies, not because a bank decided to stop lending to them.  Credit is a privilege, not a right, and you certainly should not be reliant on it.

Banks are damned if they do, damned if they don't.  People get into a debt spiral and it's "I can't believe the banks are so irresponsible lending money to people like this and how dare they charge interest for it" and if they pull overdrafts/credit limits they get demonised for "putting people in financial hardship."  You can't make it up.

That's a completely ignorant sentiment, for a start you know no one circumstances and having credit is not a "privilege" if the banks are willing to give it to that person in the first instance.

They may not have savings in place because of an abusive partner stealing their savings, or a friend/family member taking advantage of a vulnerable person. 

I love the financial snobbery of some people on MSE, think they know everything, when they clearly know nout !

Also I said it depends on the circumstances, a person that's missed alot of payments and has a lot of defaults then yes, but someone who has a resonable credit score and the bank just makes a random decision to pull that facility from them willy nilly then absolutely not. 

Banks are an essential service, like gas and electricity, but thats abit like saying to a family of a severe asthmatic their loved one died because the electricity board decided to cut them off with no or minimal notice and the person couldn't switch on their nebuliser as a result, because electricity is a "privilege" ! 

If a landlord cant chuck someone out whenever they like or the electricity company cannot just cut supply for "commercial reasons", then why the hell should banks be allowed to close accounts and remove credit facilities whatever the hell they want, regardless of the potential impact it could have for that customer even though they may well have an excellent repayment history.

The gimmick credit "score" you see has no bearing at all on whether you have/get/retain credit facilities or not. Lenders score you internally based on the data on your record

Further, you are mixing up access to a bank (which is certainly comparable with electricity supply) with credit which absolutely is not. Access to a bank is like being able to buy a car for cash. Access to credit is like being able to get PCP. The former, anyone can do, the latter, the lender decides if they rate you as a suitable risk or not.

If someone cannot live without running up credit cards, the bank is quite right to reduce / remove that facility due to the FCA imposed responsible lending / persistent debt rules - if they allow the customer to run up a load of unaffordable debt, they may even be made liable for it or be forced to write off the debt. That customer needs to learn to control their spending - shop cheaper, go to debt charities for help, cut back on non-essentials - this forum has a whole section devoted to this full of helpful people who can assist with a budget.

You clearly arent getting my point are you, first of all the persons credit report would show weather they are struggling, not their score.

Furthermore FCA rules dont allow banks to remove overdrafts/reduce credit card limits if doing so would place the person in a worse financial situation than they are already in but some have been caught doing it anyway and then banging unarranged fees on the person, so no its clearly not acceptable to cut arranged facilities without speaking to that person and finding out more about their financial situation first. FCA persistent debt rules are specific and only apply in circumstances where the cardholder is only paying bare minimum over a period of 18 months, not because someone is suspected as you put it of "living" on their credit card. 

You also have to remember that electricity supply is also a form of credit if its billed to a person, but they cant cut that persons supply off or force them to have pay as you go willy nilly,