I sent Herb Weisbaum (ConsumerMan) an email on December 25, 2008. Although I did receive an auto-responder reply, I had all but given up hope that he would ever cover the “5% minimum payment, add a new ‘finance charge’” issue with Chase.
However, one of this site’s visitors (who also was quoted) sent me this link to an April 8, 2009, MSNBC.com article that Mr. Weisbaum has just published: Did Chase pull a credit card bait and switch?
I have emailed Mr. Weisbaum again, this time to convey my thanks. Although his piece mentioned one class action lawsuit (and the N.Y. Attorney General’s settlement), I also pointed out that we are now tracking 13 class action lawsuits on the ChangeInTerms.com site.
Apparently, Chase’s spokesperson, Stephanie Jacobson, remains committed to defaming the customers who were paying on time and fulfilling their obligations with the same negative portrayal — deadbeats making “little progress” deserve it — that we have seen quoted by various members of the media recently. Mr. Weisbaum reported that he received this in an email from Ms. Jacobson, when Chase was asked for a response; quoting from Mr. Weisbaum’s article:
Chase will not comment on a pending lawsuit, but the company e-mailed me a statement. “Tens of millions of Chase customers have taken advantage of our promotional low rate financing over the last five years,” writes Stephanie Jackson, first vice president for public affairs. “Most of these loans have been paid back in less than 24 months. However, there have been a small percentage of customers that have made little progress in paying down these loans. Our desire is to have these loans repaid in a reasonable period of time.”
Do you think that disclosure rules should mention Chase’s “desire” for customers who are capable of mind-reading, in its future promotional offerings? At least we now know that when Chase promises a “Fixed APR Until the balance is paid in full” loan, it means “less than 24 months.”
Too bad, Mr. Weisbaum apparently only inquired about the one lawsuit. I would have enjoyed seeing something along the lines of: “Chase will not comment on 13 pending class action lawsuits, but…”
Loading ...
on Apr 10th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Lahm for President!
on Apr 10th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Excellent point! If Chase had said upfront that the loan needed to be paid back within 24 months, I would have made an informed decision, NOT paid them the balance transfer fee, and would have secured the funds I needed from another source, in my case a student (parent) loan.
on Apr 10th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Chase recently sent me a we’re raising your rates mail–I declined the offer. They have now reported to the credit bureaus that I closed the account. That is technically incorrect–I rejected their change in terms. Shouldn’t they have to report that to the credit bureaus? I don’t believe they can actually write a contract that says that they can change the terms and when those changes get rejected by the other party claim that the other party terminated the contract.
So my question is why is chase now reporting that possibly 100s of thousands of people “closed” their accounts when it was chase that closed the account? Shouldn’t someone like the FTC clarify this issue?
on Apr 10th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
Exactly! If they had stated this was a 24 month repayment I NEVER would have transferred. But quite the opposite is true, my solicitation states to treat it as a long term LOAN and to enjoy the status my credit rating affords me.
I have been reading those get rid of your debt sites and yes believe they are shams, but there is one consistent argument that appears to be backed by law. It is in contract law and it has five stipulations that must be met to qualify as a contract, one being a mutually binding agreement. If there are any changes to the original contract then both parties have the ability to use the new changes to the original contract. That being said, we should be allowed to change our minimums back to 2% or it is not a mutually binding contract and therefore nullified.
Any thoughts from the legal experts lurking about would be appreciated.
on Apr 11th, 2009 at 1:17 am
I’d like just to add one comment:
– they kept sending new offers with even lower interests (2.99) to us, people with slow progress, as late as last August (I keep one offer).
I even had an interesting call from some manager who encouraged me to make yet another transfer about that time.
OK, can’t resist to add more:
Basic chronology is sadly amusing:
- they offer and offer and offer
- we accept some offers and plan our life to a degree around this offer
following all the rules SET by Chase
- disaster, caused to a degree by Chase, strikes
- “poor” little cute Chase is being helped by us (tax money)
- “poor” little cute Chase, helped by us, breaches the contract and orders us to pay now, fast – during the disaster which they caused and during which we helped them
- “poor” little cute Chase orchestrates a campaign (using our money) against us who have kept the agreement.
on Apr 11th, 2009 at 1:37 am
I found this post in ‘epinions” (#135):
Chase resolved my issue
My complaint to the OCC yielded results. Three weeks after my complaint, Chase called me and reversed/credited all charges and interest rates.
Keep up the pressure, they’re folding!
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (oversight of banks such as Chase) can be reached as follows:
You can reach one of the OCC Customer Assistance Specialists by calling our toll free number, 1-800-613-6743, Monday – Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Central Time or by sending an email to Customer.Assistance@occ.treas.gov
on Apr 11th, 2009 at 6:05 am
If I had known that they expected paid back in 24 months I still would have transfered the money. I would have paid them larger payments.
The point is however that if this is what they wanted they should have required a minimum payment which would accomplish it at the time.
How many time must we address this?
Terms were changed because you paid on time and did not use the higher rate for follow up purchases.
They gave you a gateway drug (low transfer APR for life)
When that didn’t result you you getting addicted to the hard stuff, they cut you off and demanded to be paid immediately.
It is our good fortune that we were not addicted.
on Apr 11th, 2009 at 7:30 am
Marv, I love your analogy! And that is exactly the point! They were expecting us to be stupid and put additional purchases on this card. And if we had, the 2% minimum would have been absolutely fine with them!
on Apr 11th, 2009 at 8:07 am
Barbara, I am competing with Marv and I have my analogy too, much less pleasant.
I’ll repeat it (apologies to those who already encounter it)
I guy proposes and marries woman. Two months later he complains bitterly about her refusal to be raped and boiled (I read that in some places opposition is boiled)
on Apr 11th, 2009 at 10:28 am
I filed complaints with OCC, FDIC, all my representatives and Gordon Smith…I have now received 3 notices that my 5% minimum stays and they literally laughed at me about the OCC. An attorney for Chase called me to say too bad, laughed and said the OCC can’t make them do anything.
on Apr 11th, 2009 at 10:45 am
I was told by the OCC that Chase hasn’t done anything illegal. They said I could file a complaint but that it wouldn’t do any good. I wonder about the person cited above who got results by filing a complaint with the OCC. Why them and not the rest of us?
One of the very puzzling things about this whole mess is the inconsistency of results. Some agree to have their interest rate increased and revert to the 2% payment and….find that the interest rate does not increase. Some complain to the OCC and get a good result – some get laughed at. I filed a formal complaint with the PA Attorney General only to be told they don’t have jurisdiction….call the OCC. NY Attorney General puts the pressure on Chase and manages to get them to rescind the $10/month finance charge. In January, I am refused any relief from Chase on my 3.99% fixed for life of the loan card….and two months later receive another 3.99% loan offer on another Chase card.
What a bunch of morons running this company! The left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing. Chase has no understanding of customer relations, no understanding of basic right and wrong.
on Apr 11th, 2009 at 10:54 am
Yes, I am thinking now that maybe this guy isn’t part of the $10/5% group. Maybe his case is different. I asked him for clarification, but I am not sure he’ll come back.
on Apr 11th, 2009 at 11:00 am
“The left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing. Chase has no understanding of customer relations, no understanding of basic right and wrong.”
I am not sure, pdurant, that they want to have any understanding. What if their purpose is squeezing, squeezing, squeezing, grabbing fast, fast, fast and running even faster?
They look criminal to me.
on Apr 11th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
I think it was 4.99, but cant remember. When I called Chase, I asked what the payment percentage was and if there were any fees. They said same percentage as her cardholders agreement, 2%. When I asked if Chase would gaurantee that, there was silence and stumbling on the other end of the phone. They know what is going on…..
on Apr 12th, 2009 at 8:06 am
What I don’t understand is: from what everyone is saying ever since this started is that credit card companies have the right to do whatever they damn please at any time for any reason (which I DO NOT see in writing anywhere on my bill NOR on Chase’s website.). What I DO see is the fine print specifying the universal default clause stating they can raise your interest rate, etc. if you are late on any bill. Why do they bother throwing THAT into the fine print if they can do anything they want on a whim?
And what about that Senate testimony from the Chase executive that Dr. Lahm included on this site stating that if a customer’s credit rating deteriorates and it affects the terms of his account, that customer is given the option to close their card and pay off the balance at its existing terms? (I included a copy of that with my OCC complaint.) Or are WE being punished because our credit rating has NOT deteriorated?
on Apr 12th, 2009 at 8:39 am
Have you seen this website http://www.daily-protest.blogspot.com/?
WOW!!
on Apr 12th, 2009 at 9:50 am
“What I don’t understand is: from what everyone is saying ever since this started is that credit card companies have the right to do whatever”#15
There is this “wonderful” new bankruptcy law, sponsored among others by our Vice-President (oh, Delaware) which, if I understand it correctly, views credit card companies as medieval lords with absolute power over us. I am not an expert.
What I do know that some medieval lords ended up ugly.
I actually think that the fact the these bastards took our money (bailout) is important. Besides, in present climate and conditions with so many open venues, it’s moronic for Chase to continue this nonsense. Dr Lahm is absolutely right – we can’t tolerate this criminality and we MUST expose and fight it.
on Apr 12th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
This is symbiotic nepotism between politicians with thier appointed regulators and the lenders they are supposed to control.
Just look at Stephen Cutler who was head of the SEC and went straight to work as chief counsel for Chase.
Obama makes a big deal about his mandate that no member of his administration is allowed lobby it after they leave.
What value is that? Like he will ever win reelection.
Quenches like a glass of air, that one.
Why not a real effective solution. Campaign finance reform AKA McCain’s longstanding crusade.
on Apr 12th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
There is a book “Trust Us; We’re Experts” written before this new so called “law” (for some reasons reminding me of 3/5 humans and similar “laws”) which I haven’t read but I listened to the author and a chapter.
Example.
A distinguished Senator (Bentsen) expresses his concerns: “We must act now, immediately and save our poor, little, cute credit card industry. Look at these studies (by Georgetown U.) which prove that our poor, little, cute credit card industry is in danger.” Everyone in the Congress looks; some other distinguished “representatives of the people” add their fear and concerns and a “law” is passed “saving” our poor little cute credit card industry and … destroying the world.
Now let’s go back:
- the “studies” were sponsored by …. “poor little cute credit card industry” and conducted at an Institute attached somehow to
this university and financed by poor …
-the distinguished Senator had a lifelong affiliation with our poor …
on Apr 12th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
The “distinguished Senator” Anna fails to mention was Bubba’s choice for the Treasury seat in his Cabinet, (no doubt due to his loyalty to lobbiests that got Bubba elected)
Has one shining moment in a life of malfeasance
Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.”
Even I had to admire him briefly
on Apr 12th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Hi Marge11, thanks for the mention of Daily-Protest.com
Chase is being disingenuous on many fronts in regards to their justification for changing terms on their low interest life of the loan offers.
First lets discuss the advertisement lure that most of the credit card companies were using. “PAY OFF YOUR HIGHER INTEREST CREDIT CARD WITH OUT LOWER INTEREST LIFE OF THE LOAN BALANCE TRANSFER OFFER”.
What does that mean? It means the credit card companies decided to compete with each other over the SAME customers. Additionally, there already were time limit offers out there, Chase’s offer was NOT a time limit offer, so for them to imply that it was is a lie.
If Chase made a lot of money on these promotional offers, they cannot then justify eliminating or changing the terms now. I can further explore how Chase made money on these offers, thereby making any “reason” to void alter their own agreement basically pointless.
On average, lets figure that 1-3% of all people who get these low interest, life of the loan offers MISS their due date on any particular month. Every year, we can estimate that 12-18% of all the people given this offer will lose it simply because they are late on a payment. These customers immediately get their percentage kicked up to anywhere from 18% to approximately 29%.
Then, there are the customers who don’t realize that once they do a balance transfer they should no longer use that particular account for new purchases. By using the card their higher interest charges get buried behine the lower interest charges and those higher interest charges compound month after month at a much higher rate. This group of customers that continued to use their credit cards is much higher, I would guess at least 25 to 50% make this mistake at some point after they receive the low interest loan.
So, anyone who still has a low interest offer intact from Chase with no other charges on their card represent perhaps as small as 10%-25% of all the people who actually originally received the life of the loan low interest offer. So anytime Chase mentions the remaining customers who have their low interest offers intact with no higher interest rate purchases on the card, they are talking about a small fraction of a much bigger group. When Chase does not mention all the other card holders who had the offer and lost it or made higher interest purchases afterwards means Chase is actually not revealing the entire picture, and this can be construed as purposely misleading and even lying to all investigators involved in going over their books.
The game is this, Chase counts on late payments and purchases to the card made after the balance transfer to recoup less profits from the lower interest customers who no longer use the card for purchases and make their payments on time.
Chase appears to have stolen Washington Mutual for pennies on the dollar and as a result have probably profited handsomely. Chase themselves have admitted the customers they are hurting are a relatively small amount. So why bother?
———————————-
That is where my new research comes in.
Perhaps it is because any customer who has any credit card with an under 10 percent interest rate is considered a toxic asset. Up is down and down is up right now, and unless you take figure out a way to take your protest to the streets, the banks might win.
One more thing, did you know that the credit card companies are stealing customer’s frequent flyer miles and reselling them to Citibank. Wow. Read about that aspect here at http://dailypuma.blogspot.com/2009/04/breaking-news-amex-and-citibank-have.html
And here is the toxic asset story. http://dailypuma.blogspot.com/2009/04/are-you-toxic-asset-you-may-be-toxic.html
I broke both of these stories first. They still are not nationwide stories and hopefully I will be credited when they become nationwide stories.
This post is the intellectual property of Alessandro Machi. Use of its contents for legal research is acceptable as long as Alessandro Machi is compensated when damages are announced against Chase. I have a lot of experience dealing with the credit card companies over the past 20 years and I am sacrificing a lot with my daily protests. I would like to be included in one of the lawsuits as an expert witness and author of the two breaking stories provided in the links.
I sincerely hope that even if Chase is convinced to reverse what they have done, that the lawsuits continue so that consumers gain an opt out clause as a right. Currently, as I understand it, the comptroller of the currency claims that opting out is not a consumer right when it comes to change in terms, that it is a privilege.
Opt out MUST BECOME A CONSUMER RIGHT ! Any resolving of this issue without opt out becoming a consumer right means they retain the power, and that is unacceptable in my opinion.
on Apr 12th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
One more thing. Citibank will be doing exactly what Chase did in the next month or two.
http://www.Daily-Protest.com
on Apr 13th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
Marge, I checked out that protest website you mentioned and it got me thinking… I noticed Dr. Lahm has artwork to create a T-shirt on this site. For anyone who has one, this is the perfect place to wear it.. the Chase Corporate Challenge! http://www.jpmorganchasecc.com/ People really do look at your shirts at this event because they have a T-shirt contest for the company with the most creative T-shirt. First event in the U.S. is in Chicago on May 21, followed by events in Rochester, Buffalo, New York, Syracuse, Boston and San Francisco.
on Apr 13th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
Now you’re talking, Barbara! The T-Shirt sends more than one message. One is against the actions of Chase in and of themselves. The other one that is even more important, is symbolic. We are sending a signal to the entire credit card industry that if it pushes consumers too far (as Chase made the mistake of doing), there will be a visible, protracted, and ongoing revolt. The revolt will be carried out in “Boston Tea Party” like fashion, with angry people organizing to create viral anti-marketing materials. These materials and consumer responses will be noticed on the Internet, on the streets, in the media, and among individual consumers who are intent on “taking down” any card company’s brand, for having engaged in such outrageous behavior.
on Apr 14th, 2009 at 2:24 am
#6 post
This guy isn’t part of the $10/5% group. It was just a case of individual abuse. They doubled his rate … just because.
on May 2nd, 2009 at 5:50 pm
[...] a surprise later on like the one Chase imposed (with no “opt out”) because it “desired” repayment in two years, or “on demand,” or at double the originally promoted [...]
on Nov 1st, 2009 at 10:43 pm
[...] is due to our insights about the true intentions of credit card companies and their ‘desires.’ For example, one promoted ‘life of the balance loans,’ only to later coerce [...]