On March 27, 2009, a CNNMoney.com article by Marshall Eckblad announced partial good news for those of us who Chase “aimed at,” but I have some things to say because although I appreciate the small victory, we’re “not done yet.” Unfortunately, this will be a “Long Kiss Goodnight.“
We must continue to refute a defamatory portrayal cast upon 400,000 of Chase’s “most Valued Cardmembers“ before members of the media. The article was entitled, “JPMorgan To Refund Account Fees For 400,000 Credit Cards,” and apparently relied upon Chase’s spokesperson, Stephanie Jacobson, as a source. Let’s take it from the top, relative to corrections; quoting from the article:
In January, Chase Card Services, a unit of New York-based JPMorgan, notified nearly half a million credit card customers that they would be subject to a $10- a-month service charge for keeping their account open.
Correction: The “$10-a-month service charge” is in fact one that “is a finance charge.” Why do I correct this over and over, and over, again? Because it is one of the main points of the entire debacle for account holders. Since it is a “FINANCE CHARGE,” then Chase violated the previously promised promotional rates; this provided a basis for 12 class action lawsuits (plus 2 more that I have heard about through lead plaintiffs who have contacted me — just waiting on links to the suits).
I am fairly certain that well before any of the class action lawsuits were filed, I may have been the first person to have made this point about the “FINANCE CHARGE” and the fact that it changed the promotional rate (indicating that Chase made a strategic error) in my letter to Chase Card Services CEO Gordon Smith, which was dated December 3, 2008 (immediately after my receipt of my own change in terms notice).
Relative to “for keeping their account open,” that may be technically correct, but it does not reflect the actual wording in the change in terms document in a manner that conveys the situation with adequate richness: “This charge is owed whether or not you use your account, and you agree to pay it when billed.”
Finally, Chase has continued to engage in what can only be described as an obstructionist campaign based upon an outright lie relative to this so-called “service charge” (a.k.a., “fee”) as described to members of the media. According to the change in terms notice, Chase falsely stated: “Important: Your APRs will not be impacted by these changes” (Panel 1, Summary Section). I’m afraid that one probably does not even need to be “smarter than a fifth grader” to grasp that adding a charge that “is a finance charge” does absolutely, positively, and certainly impact APRs; it makes them HIGHER.
Next quote:
Chase also raised the minimum monthly payments for those customers from 2% to 5% of the account’s outstanding balance.
Correction: There’s a little more to it than that. Although any account holder may feel like this is “blackmail,” forcing him or her into switching to Chase’s premeditated option (designed to herd individuals into accepting higher interest rates, typically double the previous rate, e.g., from 3.99%-old to 7.99%-new), as non-lawyers and laypeople, they may not discern some of the finer points of legal language. Thus, here is a passage from the class action lawsuit, DAVID M. SKAGGS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CHASE BANK USA, N.A., Defendant, which explains Chase’s act in legal terms (p. 1, lines 16-21):
Chase reneged by placing a $10 per month finance charge on these accounts, and raising the minimum payment due each month. Chase then uses its unilateral implementation of these onerous terms to coerce cardholders to agree to a higher rate of interest or to pay the loan balances in full. 3. In doing so, Chase consistently misrepresents the facts applicable to these accounts and violates the Truth in Lending Act.
Switching back to plain talk, Chase planned to bully account holders who could not make the higher monthly payments. Especially in these hard economic times for individuals and families (and small business owners), Chase knew it had a powerful stick with which it could threaten account holders. It had a lot of people at a tremendous disadvantage and it planned to plunder and pillage, even after accepting $25 billion in bail out money. (Since this is a PG-rated site, I’ll not add the word that often accompanies “plunder and pillage,” that word being a form of sexual assault.)
For instance, an account holder with a $20,000 balance (not an atypical debt for a small business owner) would go from paying $400 per month to $1,000 per month; the $600 per month increase may be just about the right amount to support a part-time employee, or pay the rent and utilities for a small business owner’s office.
Next quote:
Jacobson said the decision to assess account fees at the rate of $120 a year applied to “less than one-half of one percent of our customers.” The credit card accounts in question, she said, carry low promotional interest rates and are tied to “a small percentage of customers that have made little progress in paying down these loans.”
Correction: I have written about the defamatory nature of these statements made by Chase through its spokesperson(s). However, “the accounts in question” were most certainly not all associated with individuals who “have made little progress in paying them off.” Here is a previous post that I created after spending some time researching the Internet to determine if there were in fact other persons, who like me (as I discussed in response to a quote from me in the New York Times), paid more than the minimum — findings indicated numerous others.
Secondly, the portrayal of these account holders in a negative light, by virtue of suggesting that their “progress” was in some way deficient relative to their loan agreements with Chase, was and is unconscionable, and damaging to the reputation of those account holders. These account holders, all 400,000 of them (otherwise, they would have already been subjected to usurious 30-something percent rates) were meeting their obligations, have done nothing wrong, were not required to pay more than the minimum — even if that was the case, but many did pay more — and were previously praised as being among Chase’s “most Valued Cardmembers.”
This inappropriate negative portrayal of good-paying account holders should come at a cost to Chase. I for one, would like Chase to pay punitive damages and restore the good names of these good-paying account holders, all 400,000 of them, with a letter of apology published on the same newswires which it used to distribute the original misrepresentations and defamatory information.
Further, a letter of correction should be sent to every credit bureau, for each of the 400,000 account holders (given three major credit bureaus, I estimate approximately 1.2 million letters), specifically noting that these account holders “made the required amount of progress that was indicated in each monthly statement, and therefore faithfully and fully met their obligations.” Back to street language: “I’ll dare you Chase, insult the honor of these account holders” (since I am a college professor and the father of a teenager, I have the vocabulary to be even more colloquial: “Chase, you better say you’re sorry for dissin’ me and my peeps”).
Given that the “low promotional rates” to which Ms. Jacobson referred would have only been offered to good-paying account holders in the first place (with good to excellent credit — and that takes work on the part of account holders), who have in the interim fulfilled their payment obligations, Chase should be forced to make restitution as described above.
Because I have now become a public figure, essentially forced into doing so as the only apparent means of protecting my family’s interests in this matter, personally, I would still NOT be satisfied should Chase merely send the aforementioned retractions. The damage has been done, including tangible losses to my retirement account, from which I took an early distribution (incurring penalties and taxes as well as the loss of future retirement earnings) under the threat of higher monthly minimum payments to Chase. I’m not the only one who has suffered money damages, which by the way, were associated universally with account holders who were doing all that they could do to protect their good reputations, respectively.
Several site visitors have asked me privately, “what does this do to the lawsuits?” While I am not an attorney, I would assert that a “Nevermind!” from Chase does even come close to undoing the damage it has wreaked upon 400,000 account holders. I know my own sense of psychological as well as financial well being has been egregiously violated, and I would suggest that this is a common condition that has resulted from Chase’s actions.
Next quote:
“Our desire is to have these balances paid back in a reasonable period of time,” Jacobson said. “The minimum payment due will remain the 5% of their new balance.”
Correction: The backhanded implication of the above quote, consistent with the defamatory remarks, is that customers were not already paying their loans back as agreed, “in a reasonable period of time.” Nevertheless, if Chase had specific ideas or requirements (i.e., “desires”) regarding a loan payoff period, at the very least it should have said so in its promotional messages. It should have provided payment terms in statements that were consistent with these promotional messages as well. In other words, Chase set the minimum payment amount all along, and it has no right to gripe about account holders who met their obligations by paying the amount that was specified as being due as per their respective monthly statements.
Instead, Chase promoted a false impression of a “fixed APR Until the balance is paid in full” loan as a “Rate Reduction for our [Chase's] most Valued Cardmembers,” and by originally setting payments at 2% of the balance, mislead customers into believing that these payment terms could be expected to continue. Since it could not easily claim default on the part of individuals who were paying on time and subsequently engage in rate-jacking, Chase decided to try payment-jacking (again, this is also tied to bad faith and coerciveness).
One might note that no time period, whatsoever, was originally disclosed; and, whether from a legal or simply a practical point of view, such disclosure should be recognized as an obvious requirement so that a lender and borrower can communicate in connection with expressing mutual expectations.
As just about anyone who can drive a car is aware, if one knows the speed at which he or she is traveling, then the time to arrival (ETA) at a destination with a known distance can be calculated. Translated, this means that Chase knew when it lent money at a given rate of interest, that with payments set at 2% of the balance, accounts would be paid in full in a period of time that was easily calculable. Thus, for the initial period of the loan, account holders were erroneously led to believe that there was a certain rate of repayment and time associated with these loans. This illustrates a profound disclosure issue.
Further, noting that Chase has now, finally, indicated that “a reasonable amount of time” would be associated with payments at 5% of the balance per month (like stepping on the gas and accelerating from 40 mph to 100 mph), two questions would arise on the part of any consumer given the language quoted from the promotional offerings: 1) why (in the hell) didn’t Chase define “reasonable” in its original promotional messages?; and 2) if Chase had a specific (”reasonable”) time period in mind, then it is a basic premise of any loan to state as much in advance of providing that loan — hence, why didn’t Chase do so? (For example, car loans may typically be 48 to 60 months, and real estate loans may typically be 15 or 30 years.)
I remain astonished that Chase’s present statements ignore its initial failure to disclose its “desire” in a manner that was forthright. Further, its failure to disclose its desires essentially necessitates a need for mind-reading on the part of account holders. I also would point out that these are individuals who were previously praised in promotional messages, but who have now for no reason of default have more recently been defamed as essentially, “slow paying laggards who deserved it” from Chase.
Next quote (apparently a portrayal of the author’s now incorrectly skewed viewpoint):
Chase’s decision to assess the monthly fees before retreating only months later illustrates the struggle among credit card lenders to wind down open accounts tied to risky borrowers.
Correction: “Risky borrowers” exacerbates the damage inflicted by the initial defamatory portrayal (or at the very least, illustrates the result of Chase’s dissemination of misinformation by its spokesperson). As should be very clear by this point in my discussion, we, the 400,000 who have been defamed, are not the “risky borrowers.” We were selected for low promotional rates precisely because we were among the least risky borrowers. We have paid on time and as agreed. Perhaps the author of this article did not intend to “add insult to injury,” but by accepting what Chase has stated at face value and then providing further (inappropriate) justification to Chase’s misrepresentation, this is exactly what has occurred.
Therefore, I would like a correction that adds proper clarification from the publication and the author. I want to be respectful of the author as I can understand how this situation may have occurred. However, at the same time, I must strongly object to the added insult resulting from the suggestion that we are “risky” or otherwise unworthy borrowers (who from a social justice point of view, somehow “deserved it” relative to what Chase has done).
Next quote:
“Customer satisfaction is important to us,” Jacobson said.
Correction: ChangeInTerms.com is my primary means for providing customer feedback with regard to the credit card industry as a whole and its abusive treatment toward account holders.
If the 400,000 number quoted by the media (and in the article’s headline) is accurate from Chase, then there are at least 399,999 individuals, plus me, who are by no means remotely close to being “satisfied” by Chase’s unprecedented act of aggression (which I intend to make into a “textbook study” of how NOT to treat or otherwise “satisfy” customers).
I can guarantee that even though my wife does not have a Chase account that was associated with this present change in terms, given that ”Chase Card Services Stole Christmas,” and a few years ago a supervisor also flatly told her that Chase did not care whether or not she kept two accounts of her own open, she’s not “satisfied,” either. For the record, she did nothing wrong (perfect payment record, like me, and these 399,999 additional account holders). I have mentioned this instance of complete dissatisfaction on the part of my wife in my correspondence with Chase, but I don’t see that it has shown any interest in addressing my her situation.
The class action lawsuits against Chase, in effect, also constitute a form of feedback regarding “satisfaction.” Indeed, it would be an understatement to say that customers are anything less than outraged.
An additional form of feedback includes the notoriety of being included in a petition launched by Consumers Union (publisher of Consumer Reports — a premier objective and independent evaluator of what may be good, bad, or in-between relative to product offerings and promotional claims), against this egregious action on the part of Chase. The intended audience for the petition is the President of the United States. I’d say that when an organization such as Consumers Union has gone so far as to specify Chase’s actions in a petition all the way to the President, that is a good indication that overwhelmingly, “We can’t get no, sa-tis-faction; though we try, and we try and we try and we try.”
In closing, I would add that the article should also mention Chase’s original representations before Congress in testimony describing “opt outs” as the means by which it treated customers “fairly” (given that this change in terms under discussion is missing any such “opt out” as was portrayed in that testimony).
The author’s byline contains contact information. Please help me emphasize the needed corrections as indicated above, along with any other insights you may wish to provide to the author of this inflammatory piece (keep in mind that the author may not have understood that Chase has engaged in an ongoing campaign to spread misinformation, and its executives lied before Congress about opt outs — be polite):
Marshall Eckblad, Dow Jones Newswires; 201-938-4306; marshall.eckblad@dowjones.com
Loading ...
on Mar 30th, 2009 at 12:05 am
I’m one of those defamed “slow paying laggard” Chase credit cardholders.
At the same time Chase changed my terms, it also RAISED my credit limit.
on Mar 30th, 2009 at 2:34 am
Elly, me too, me too. People should stop apologizing (oh, I pay more than minimum). They don’t have to. If they can, it’s fine, if not, it’s fine too.
Chase must apologize.
Dr Lahm, thank you. Although the criminal absurdity of Chase’s behavior was obvious to me from the moment I saw the infamous insert, I did little more than to compile a Chase collage (epinions, Liz) – promotion, bailout, insert, a letter advising how be financially savvy (indicating the direction they would take – blaming the victims). No Chase, there is nothing wrong with our managing of our finances. There is everything wrong with your management.
Dr. Lahm, you are of course correct in stressing the fact that Chase’s abuses affect primarily small businesses.
on Mar 30th, 2009 at 11:05 am
Hi Anna22,
Just so it is clear, my main interest in continuing to go back to the “more than the minimum, only the minimum: that’s all that is contractually required” discussion is to discredit Chase’s attempt to portray account holders as a group that “deserves it.” I am also quite confident in the claim of defamation (and I do think that is “really a slap in the face from Chase” — sounds like a good future post title!).
Also, very important: I have continued to document specific instances where I can “call Chase out” for lying (before Congress, before the media, et cetera). It is critical to pound the no opt out issue, in particular, and the instance of lying before Congress is the most damning relative to what Chase has now turned around and done to account holders. It is an absolute must to show the entire industry that Chase crossed the line and got burned (again, as a textbook case study of mismanagement and a PR disaster).
So, in other words, “Being able to prove Chase tells a lot of lies — Priceless!”
Take care.
on Mar 30th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
If the 5% min payment is suppose to help us, how do they justify reducing it back to 2% with a higher APR? That should have to come up in the the classaction(s). I am also reading from other sites that they are receiving letters saying that they were incorrectly sent the change in terms and are setting everything back including the 2% min. Do you know anything about that??
Thanks for a great site and keep up the fight!!!!
on Mar 30th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
I too am one of the ‘Chase 400,000′. I have been following this issue and your website quite closely, as I have 2 accounts with Chase affected by this issue. I have had discussions with Chase, with seemingly no success. I have had discussions with attorneys from one of the class action firms. They wanted me to be the named plantiff, but I declined due to the negative publicity that it might cause for my business/profession (I am a CPA).
I just received a letter from Chase stating that they made an ‘error’ and were returning one of my accounts back to its orginal terms, including the 2% minimum payment, and crediting the account for the $10 monthly fees. No return of the extra principal paid, of course.
I have yet to receive any correspondence regarding my other account with them.
This whole issue has taken hours of my time and energy (and sleep) daily. I cannot imagine how much time you have spent, Dr. Lahm, on this issue. You have been truly inspirational with this website. Thank you for your efforts, and I will continue the battle to make Chase correct their ‘error’. I doubt that they will come close to restoring a fraction of their reputation, but I hold hope that they will attempt to fix the damage, both to the finances and to the reputations, of the ‘Chase 400,000′.
on Mar 30th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Hi Marge11,
I do know that some people are receiving letters that retract the change in terms entirely. I will be posting a copy of one such letter that was sent to me as soon as I can (I told the sender, an account holder who provided a copy, I would use some software to edit out any personal information before posting). In case you have not noticed, the reality is that most of the credit card companies don’t do things to help customers, they send change in terms notices that are designed to enrich themselves (i.e., the banks). I have more to post regarding Chase — working on it! Take care.
on Mar 30th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Dear Jim,
I have not appreciated the sleepless nights that I have had, displaying my personal problems before the world. I worked so hard in graduate school, and I am in debt for an honorable reason (trying to become qualified to teach). It’s too bad Chase could not simply have left me alone; I was/am paying back my debts as I planned to do all along — I always thought that education was a long-term “investment.” I have grave concerns that my reputation, for taking a stand while employed (or anywhere — even if I was once again self-employed), could be used against me. People who have the same issues with credit card companies understand, but others, especially if they have never been in debt or started a business, they do not necessarily “get it.” Happy tax season (my brother is also a CPA, named Jim)! Take care.
on Mar 30th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Here is one for you.
I had a Washington Mutual account for years. Right before WaMu went under and Chase bought them, for free, my APR on Washington Mutual was 8.99%. I get a letter in the mail in January that my new rate will be 10.24% starting March 6. I can opt out by Feb 20 if I wanted to. Since I do not carry big balances, I was not worried about this rate hike. I did not opt out.
I got my new statement last week and the rate was raised to… 17.99%. What the hell!?!?!?!.
I called Chase and they said, “Oh, that letter in the mail you got in January was a mistake. We sent you another letter right after that stating your APR would actually be 17.99%. Sorry for mistake.”
Well, I never received a letter about 17.99%. I told them I want to opt out of the changes and they said, “Sorry, you can not longer opt out. You had until Feb 20.”
I told them I never received any change in terms in regards to 17.99% and this was a violation in the TILA. They claim the letter was sent on January 29th. I asked them give me the name and phone numbers of three people that also got this phantom Jan 29th letter. “Sorry, privacy laws prevent this.”
I went up the food chain and got no where. Next stop… FedeX letter to the CEO.
on Mar 30th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Hi Stacie,
After you write Gordon Smith, make sure you also send a complaint to the OCC. I does not matter where you start relative to the food chain at Chase. You have to use bad PR, regulators, class action lawsuits, and other means to get Chase’s attention, apparently. Take care.
on Mar 30th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
I see that New York State Attorney General, Cuomo is taking credit for pressuring Chase into stopping the illegal $10 per month charge. I just sent him the following communication regarding the Chase spin:
“Thank you for your efforts in getting Chase bank to stop charging their $10 “screw the customer” monthly finance charge. As one of the affected individuals, I am deeply troubled by the misleading spin that Chase spokeswoman Stephanie Jacobson has put in media releases about the charges. She states that “there has been a small percentage of customers that have made little progress in paying down these loans, and our desire is to have these loans paid in a reasonable amount of time”. Because of the low interest rates, the vast majority of payments on these loans go towards the principal. Therefore, these customers are making excellent progress towards paying off the loans, even if they have only been making the 2% minimum payment. In my case, I have paid off over 40% of my loan in the last two years, and was on track to completely pay the loan off in another two years. If 4 years for a $25,000 loan is not a “reasonable amount of time”, I don’t know what is! From internet discussions, most of the affected customers are in the same boat. If we had not been making our payments in a timely manner, we wouldn’t still have our low promotional rates since Chase immediately jacks the rates up in the event of a late payment. I feel like my reputation (and those of my fellow 400,000 Chase customers) has been thoroughly trashed in the media. Ms Jacobson makes it sound as if we are a bunch of deadbeats who don’t pay our bills. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most of us are hard-working, honorable people who have fully lived up to our end of the bargain, and have every intention of paying Chase every penny that they are owed. We are smart people who read the fine print associated with these loans, and determined that the low finance charges were appropriate to help us manage our debt in a responsible manner. Chase, on the other hand, did not live up to their end of the bargain. In addition to restoring the original terms, I would like to receive a public apology from Chase acknowledging that most of the affected individuals HAVE been making excellent progress towards paying off their debts.
Good luck- and thank you again for taking on Chase and the other greedy bankers.
on Mar 30th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Thank you, Dr. Lahm, for all the great work you have done on behalf of the much maligned “400,000.”
I have a pristine credit history. I am FURIOUS (and humiliated) at the intentional, willful and reckless DISTORTIONS and MISREPRESENTATIONS made by Chase’s representavie about the targeted “400,000″ credit cardholders.
For these outrageous and defamatory statements, I agree that punitive damages are necessary and, I believe, will be found to be meritorious.
IMO.
on Mar 30th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
How stupid does Chase think we are? IF their decision to refund the $10 monthly finance charge was really based on “customer feedback”, they could have and should have made that decision months ago when the first wave of customer protests began.
How intelligent do you have to be to know that ALL customer feedback regarding a punitive, illegal additional monthly finance charge would be NEGATIVE???
Quoting from one AP news story: “New York’s attorney general has pressured Chase Bank into ending what he said was an “illegal” $10 monthly fee imposed on thousands of credit card accounts last November.
The bank has also agreed to give refunds totaling $4.4 million to about 184,000 customers.”
By Chase’s own count, the number of affected accounts is 400,000….and now I see in the quoted story and in numerous other news articles today that Chase is planning to refund the finance charge to some 184,000 accounts. So what is going to be done about the remaining 226,000 accounts?
As one of the 400,000 maligned, misrepresented, lied-about account holders, I have yet to hear anything from Chase about my account.
It was hard to believe that Chase would pursue such a bone-headed, customer antagonizing scheme in the first place. Evidently Chase thought they could hurt and humiliate their best, most savvy customers and not harm their business. This PR nightmare which Chase created should continue until every last one of the offended and injured customers receives an apology, refund of finance charges and (I agree with Dr. Lahm on this) forgiveness of the debt. That might begin to mitigate the harm caused by their unilateral attack on their customers.
on Mar 30th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
The rest of us paid them off.
I blame myself.
I am sure that I must not have clearly communicated my dissatisfaction to either Chase or the OCC.
Had I done so they would have compromised would they not?
They are after all the Bank which Anna’s president has held up as an example of how business should be conducted.
Jamie walkin on the water again. Turns water into wine and 3.99% into 17.49%. When he is done, there will be twelve baskets of $10 fees left over.
A miracle!
My cup runneth over.
on Mar 31st, 2009 at 3:18 am
Everything is so absurd. We are encouraged to look for low-interest loans
when needed (more often than not for entrepreneurial purposes). Here a low interest loan comes along, we take it and … are blamed for poor management.
Chase should be sent to asylum, criminal asylum.
on Mar 31st, 2009 at 4:51 am
For entrepreneurial purpose?
Do trips to Amsterdam red light district coffee houses fit in that catagory?
on Mar 31st, 2009 at 9:06 am
As I have stated, I have not received any “letter”. I believe chase just issued letters to a few customers, to “show” it was changing its ways.
on Mar 31st, 2009 at 2:22 pm
I have emailed Chase and asked them if the $10.00 fee was going to be dropped from my account as per Cuomo, and if they were going to revert my payments back to the 2%!!!
They replied that they forwarded my question to the appropriate department!
Will post their answer, but I would bet they will change neither.
on Mar 31st, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Gayle at post comment #10 is already off to a good start. I am writing a new post regarding NY Attorney General Cuomo’s press announcement of yesterday (March 30, 2009).
We want to set a real example. Frankly, I’d like the debt forgiven for all of us as a punishment (thanks Peggy, in comment #12, you seemed to agree with that idea I put forward in my post!), along with a lot of apologies, such as in the media, and in letters to credit bureaus.
We need to send these demands of our own to the media, and let the PR nightmare never end until we are made whole. Remember the famous line, “Don’t Tread on Me”? (See Navy Jack Flag history.)
When we are through no credit card company should dare tread on us, as Chase tried to do, ever again.
on Mar 31st, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Debt forgiven?
What debt?
Why?
Gimme my tax dollars back and send the crooks packin who took them from me and gave them to Chase.
No more credit cards for me. As a matter of fact, I think bartering is the clear solution.
on Mar 31st, 2009 at 7:02 pm
I was thinking … What exactly Chase is saying? We were offered loan – a loan on certain conditions. Now, Chase is saying: “No, no, no, it wasn’t a loan on certain conditions.” If not, what was it exactly? A ruse? A FRAUD?
on Apr 1st, 2009 at 7:57 am
Chase has not gotten back to me yet, although I checked my online statement this morning and they had credited back the $10.00 monthly fees that they had charged since January. That is great.
However, they still have to answer to their entraping customers with a 2% payback, and raising that to 5%.
I would hope the lawsuits would still be valid. Just like a thief who robbed a bank, and then gave back the money, he stll should be convicted as a thief.
on Apr 1st, 2009 at 9:09 am
Steve (re: #21),
Don’t worry, I am still receiving information regarding new lawsuits. I have more to post.
That being said, one of my biggest interests is very much in keeping with your line of reasoning. Simply making a bully/thief give back what has been stolen is not enough. With no punishment, that bully will try again.
on Apr 1st, 2009 at 12:58 pm
I would hope lawsuits continue. I may be one of the unemployed soon, and Chase would be last on my list to be repaid!!
on Apr 6th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Chase is funny. A letter from a person in charge of my “experience” tells me after stating that they will keep 5% that “there is an optional alternative’ ["optional alternative" - moron - a22] offer available. Those terms include moving your current balances subject to an APR with no defined expiration date to [yes, Lady, this was the agreement] to … ”
I think that since Chase is shortening the life of my loan, it should be considered a murderer.
on Apr 6th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
I have two credit card involved in this. I have received the $60.00 refund, $30.00 for each card. I continue to pay 5% on the balance on each card each month, plus $1.00 as an act of defiance.
Chase has managed in one action to show, anyone who is paying attention, just how stupid the people who are running Chase really are. No wonder these institutions got themselves in such a mess with mortgages. Chase actuality believed that the right thing to do is to cheat their very best clients, who in spite of the very bad economy continued to meet all of their obligations to Chase. By cheating their very best clients Chase thought they would be helping their bottom line? It is really a very sad realization; a company that I once looked up to is really a company that is really just messed up!
on Apr 9th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
I’m also one of the 184,000 or 400,00… in my case, I have three cards involved. I used the money to pay educational costs for my children. At the time, at an interest rate of 2.99% for the life of the loan and a 2% minimum payment, it seemed a good alternative to a parent PLUS loan. Oh well… it WAS.. until now. I also just got my three letters from them , advising me they would be refunding me my $10 monthly “service fees”, but that the minimum payment would remain at 5%. Same “optional alternative” everyone else is describing.
I can’t really add to what all of you are saying.. same story as the rest of you, and I am so tired of talking about this!!! And JDB, I totally agree with you. I used to respect Chase as a company. When I used to pay my Chase bills, I was happy that I was able to pay down my debt in such a reasonable way, and by extension, I thought positively toward Chase. Now, everyone I know has heard my rants about the evils of Chase Bank. I guess this is what is referred to as “good will”?? What idiots the management of this bank must be!!!
We all paid balance transfers for the privilege of borrowing money at certain terms. If, several months after the transfer, Chase had changed our minimum payment to say, 20%, 25%, or 50% of our balance, I think any reasonable person would agree we had been defauded. It’s just a matter of degree here. A deal is a deal.
Anyway, sorry this post is so long and disjointed. I just wanted to weigh in as one more victim. I am NOT giving up. I am continuing to fight. And I thank you, Dr. Lahm for all the work you have done here!
on Apr 18th, 2009 at 10:32 am
The interest rate on my chase card is 1/4 of the interest rate on my other card. Why would I pay any more than the minimum balance each month. I throw double payments on my other card. Also, I was using Chase’s automatic payment option to pay the card, didn’t they think they were getitng paid?
I feel pretty good though, in the four months of increased payments I paid a nice chunk off.
on Apr 20th, 2009 at 11:22 am
[...] at gunpoint” to give up their previously promised promotional rates; I also want an apology for defaming us (this isn’t all; read the linked post for more [...]
on May 1st, 2009 at 11:23 am
[...] I note that the word-choice “every” does not distinguish differences in account types. Obviously, one of the aforementioned “2 changes” is that Chase has determined that it is not interested in maintaining a “good relationship” with 400,000 account holders who were meeting their obligations. Rather, it has chosen to alienate those customers not only by virtue of changing “fixed APR Until the balance is paid in full” loan terms, it also decided to defame those customers through disseminating a negative portrayal of affected account holders in the…. [...]
on May 2nd, 2009 at 5:55 pm
[...] Treatment that does not include defaming us in the media; [...]
on Aug 31st, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Dear sir,
Please add me to your list of 400,000 top credit worthy victims of Chase’s bait and switch tactics to force early payment and or increase their interest rates of promised “life of loan” check advance agreements. I have just received my first new minimum payment due bill increasing my 3.99 % fixed rate loan payment from the previous 2.0% of the balance that left me with a $330 monthly payment to the new 5.0 % minimum payment of $937 per month! I have been so frustrated at the same talking points statements from the Chase card-member representatives and their supervisors that say there is nothing I can do, since Chase has the right to increase the minimum payment to any amount they want, even 50-75% or 100% for that matter! I demanded that they recognize my request to “OPT OUT” of this change in terms and close my account so I can just continue to pay my minimum payment as I have been doing until the balance is paid in full. (I have been paying $400 per month, even though the previous 2.0 % minimum payment was $330. They told me that of course I could accept a 7.99 % interest rate and then I would have a 2.0% minimum balance payment back again. I said this did not make much sense, if there was a rationale for increasing the payment to 5.0 % to get it paid off earlier and it was not to just get more money, then how would raising the interest rate and leaving the monthly minimum payment end up being paid off any sooner? I was told their goal was to get the loan paid off in less than 5 years to abide by the governments recommendations to the credit card companies to stop allowing consumers to accrue more debt by not paying off the balances earlier. I told the representative that the government had recommended the credit card companies change their minimum payments to ensure that 100.0 % of the interest payment plus 1.% of the principal payment was being paid to avoid the negative amortization result. The government did not say to nearly triple peoples minimum payment and force them into a default interest rate of 23.99.0 %!! I also told the representative to do the simple math of my 2.0 % minimum payment, because even when I took out the $25K loan to consolidate my daughter’s college tuition and other higher interest rate loans as they advertised, that the entire balance was worked out to be paid in full at exactly 60 months, which now that my balance had been paid down to $18.3K, I would have less than 3 years to pay it off, especially since I was making a steady $400 monthly payment instead of the required $330 payment.
I also wanted to send you a copy of another letter I sent to Chase demanding I be able to have an arbitration, since they refused to recognize my right to OPT OUT of this change in terms. I also wanted to express my disgust about their Chase web site “contact us” “Testimonial Release & Agreement terms just to provide a testimonial in order to voice an opinion. This is truly UNBELIEVABLE, but worth reading to inform other readers and especially other people that are directly involved in the tactics utilized by Chase. Chase has now stooped so low as to “legally take away your rights and even change your testimonial comments as they see fit and then publish and or use them for their own benefit!!! In other words I could write how disgusted I am with this bait and switch tactic and when I click “SUBMIT” I have just given Chase the right to change what I wrote and they can then legally modify and rewrite it to benefit them and then publish their modified rewritten version of my comments as if I was satisfied and totally happy with the great service Chase has provided! Here is a copy of that letter and the “Testimonial Release & Agreement” you would have to agree with if a person submits via their web site. I instead sent my letter directly via email to Chase management personnel.
This is a copy of correspondence I sent to Chase, they have not responded of course and I am now in receipt of my first billing statement that reflects their threatened increased minimum payment to 5% of the last ending balance. This now makes my payment rise from $330 per month to $937 per month. Per Chase supervisor at their 800 help line, they have the right to demand increased minimum payments as much as they choose to, even 100.0 % payment in full!!
Another deceptive practice that Chase is now performing is to record and use against the consumer questions regarding their financial ability or hardship to meet their outrageous increase in minimum payments. Once they have enough information recorded that you supply to show that your income and expenses are not going to be sufficient to pay a new minimum payment increase of 150.0 % more, they then claim your income can not sustain the hardship offer to keep your 2.0% minimum balance payment at the newly offered 7.99% interest rate, therefore there is nothing they can do, but go forward with the 5.0 % minimum payment at your current 3.99 % interest rate, since you did not agree to the higher interest rate. Why would I agree to a higher interest rate just because they entice me with a 2.0 % minimum payment, which I had already agreed to? Unbelievable, “you do not qualify for the 7.99% interest rate with a 2.0 % minimum balance payment, so we are going to go forward with the 5.0 % minimum payment as notified.” So what they really mean is we are going to almost triple your minimum payment to ensure you default into our 23.99 % interest rate!
Here is my correspondence to Chase, please ensure I am included in any updates to help me resolve this bait and switch activity Chase is promising to do to me and over a million other top credit worthy customers that did not fall for their default rate increase traps.
I am demanding that Chase Credit Card set up an arbitration hearing for defaulting on the original credit card 3.99% for the life of the loan repayment @ 2% of the ending balance agreement I have fulfilled and never been late or missed a single payment on. Chase violated the change in terms and now refuses to even allow an OPT OUT of the card agreement even though Chase is the only one breaking the agreement here with me and over a million other specially selected high credit worthy customers that failed to fail so chase could invoke default rates for late payments or missed payments. Now in order to make us fail, your representatives state that you can raise the minimum payment to anything you want, even 50%, 75% or 100% payment in full! That is beyond fraud and certainly exceeds any moral and ethical standard to maintain an agreement when the other party is complying fully. Please advise when and where the arbitration hearing will be for me. My card is a chase credit card issued to Dennis M. Garrison & KXXXXX. Garrison @ XXX Street, Santa XXXXX, CA XXXXX. Oh by the way I do not agree to abide by your outrageous Testimonial Release Agreement that states you can modify anything I say and like magic you become legally indemnified because I wrote you? What a slick lawyer staff you guys have!!
Testimonial Release & Agreement
For valuable consideration from JPMorgan Chase & Co., and its various subsidiaries (”JPMC”), receipt of which I hereby acknowledge, I agree as follows:
1. I hereby grant to JPMC and its licensed parties the right to use and publish my and my family’s name, picture, portrait, likeness, as well as the testimonial statements I provided through this website, and any other statements that I may later approve in writing, in all advertising and marketing materials used in the promotion of JPMC’s services.
2. I agree that my testimonial is an expression of my personal experience and belief as a customer of JPMC and that JPMC has the right to attribute the accompanying testimonial statement(s) to me.
3. I agree that JPMC has my agreement to modify my testimonial statement and that no other material need be submitted to me for any further approval.
4. I agree that I have no claim to additional compensation and no claim (including, without limitation, claims based upon invasion of privacy, defamation or right of publicity) arising out of any use, re-use, reproduction, alteration or distortion in any composite form or media, and I hereby release JPMC and its licensed parties from any liability arising out of or resulting from the publication of my or my family’s name, picture, portrait, likeness, as well as the testimonial statements that I have provided through this website.
5. I represent, warrant and agree that no materials of any kind submitted through the website or otherwise posted, transmitted, or shared on or through the website will violate or infringe upon the rights of any third party, or contain libelous, defamatory or otherwise unlawful material. I hereby agree to indemnify JPMC and its affiliates from any liabilities arising out of or relating to any breach of such representations and warranties.
6. I acknowledge and agree that the potential opportunity to have my testimonial statements published is valuable consideration.
7. Nothing in this Testimonial Release and Agreement constitutes any obligation on the licensed parties to make use of the testimonial statements provided through this website or any other rights.
8. This Testimonial Release and Agreement contains the entire understanding and agreement between the parties with respect to the Release granted herein, and if any term or provision is found to be invalid, the validity of the remaining terms shall not be affected. This Testimonial Release and Agreement shall be construed under the laws of the State of New York.
Who in their right mind would sign this, let alone, who in their right mind would expect someone to sign such an agreement just to be heard by Chase? It’s like we have an open line for communication, however you must sign this release and let Chase modify it as they see fit and then add to it any other material without any further approval! Are people this stupid? I guess the ones that wrote this insane release and agreement are, of course they are “lawyers” protecting and weaseling every angle for Chase not the consumer.
Michael Garrison
XXXX Santa Maria, CA
(805) 348-2348 Office
(805) 310-3168 cell