While the ChangeInTerms.com site is devoted to fighting abuses against consumers and small businesses by the credit card industry relative to its primary mission, we can’t help but notice that Chase is involved in numerous class action cases and/or investigations across the gamut of its various businesses, all of which seem to be related to some form of legalized loan sharking.

I also asked for, and was granted, permission to promote the link that lists these class action lawsuits and investigations.  It is therefore my great pleasure to point out that not everyone is as quiet as most members of the media, and Chase can at least still be challenged through litigation.

© Dr Robert Lahm for ChangeinTerms.com, 2009. | Permalink | 8 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: Class Action, consumers, credit, small business

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

And, by now, most of us have heard that some of these same customers had more than one Chase account – one of which was subjected to the egregious change-in-terms and one or more of which were not.

Last month my second Chase account (fixed 4.99% rate for the life of the loan, with an outstanding balance of about $6,000) statement afforded me the opportunity to “SKIP A MONTHLY PAYMENT”. I had earned that right due to my being such a good customer. I didn’t take Chase up on that ridiculous offer….

Apparently Chase is extremely miffed – very hurt at my rejection of their overtures.

This month’s statement came today and GUESS WHAT???? A new change-in-terms will automatically go into effect on August 1, 2009. No longer will the monthly payment requirement 2% of the outstanding balance….oh, no, now Chase is going to require 5% of the outstanding balance in payment each month.

So the $118.00 I owe this month will morph into $295.00 a month. Just as I was knocking down my large Chase account to just over $800/month, my obligation will once again balloon to over $1,100/month.

The same company that wanted me to skip a payment on this account last month has discovered they can’t survive without an increase of 250% in the amount of payment due next month on that very same account. Chase must be in worse shape than anyone could have imagined. Poor babies….

Chase reminds me of spoiled brats who are never satisfied.…the 25 Billion in TARP funds didn’t do enough; the savaging of 400,000 of their best customers wasn’t sufficient; treating their already defaulting customers with kid gloves didn’t suffice.

The prowling Chase executive decision makers look around for new prey. Finding none, the “never wrote an agreement they wouldn’t mind defaulting on crowd” return to their first “kill” to see if there are any survivors capable of giving up yet more funds on the alter of Chase greed. Voila – let’s do a second round of change-in-terms! That should do it.

I think we need to coin a new term for this phenomena….“Battered Customer Syndrome”.

But, don’t lose heart, my fellow consumers, Chase has learned something from the last episode of their special version of “The Twilight Zone”. This time there is an “opt-out” option and no $10/month additional finance charge.

Anyone want to guess what I plan to do with this Chase credit card account?

Dialing the phone….

I am greeted by a supervisor (Jim) who began our conversation with this icebreaker, “Thank you for calling Loyalty Services“. I nearly guffawed in his ear. I asked him “Did you say Loyalty Services”? Indeed he did. “How can I assist you today?”

He noted that I had been a customer since 1998 and have had a long and admirable history with Chase. I informed him that while I had treated Chase fine all these years, I had not been treated well by Chase these last 6 months. I briefly described my complaints. It was evident that Jim had heard it all before. No, he could not reverse the increase in payment of 5% of the outstanding balance. “Is there anything else I can do for you today?” “Yes, close the account and let me opt-out of the newest change-in-terms.”

After subtly “threatening” me that Chase would be notifying the credit reporting companies (oh, horror of horrors….) that I was closing my account, Jim agreed that the account would be closed and confirmed I would be allowed to pay off the account under the original terms. Hooray! Relief!

“Loyalty Services”…..twisted Chase Twilight Zone logic. Welcome to the Brave New World of Chase Card Speak. “Up is down. Day is night. Treating customers like dirt generates Loyalty to our company.”

Chase Decision Makers: Let us know how that works out for ya over the long haul.

© pdurant for ChangeinTerms.com, 2009. | Permalink | 73 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: change in terms, consumers, credit

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

I have not had a chance to check in with Robert Green as of late, but it remains my understanding that some states might be more amenable to class action lawsuits than others (this is because these states may provide venues that are more likely to recognize mandatory arbitration as a rigged game, thereby allowing the means for a class action lawsuit to move forward).  Please visit a list of such states that may show more understanding of consumers’ dilemma (being trapped with no real recourse) on the Green Welling LLC site.

Some of you may recognize Peggy Durant’s name from appearances she has had in national media.  She and her husband, Tim (who own an entrepreneurial business — which makes their issues near and dear to my heart), were shown in a Wall Street Journal article (by Jane Kim, in which I was also quoted). 

Peggy was also the first person that I know of who has managed to score a “direct hit” in the national media against Chase by pointing out that its previous testimony about opt outs is inconsistent with the actions that it turned around and took against 400,000 customers (when it imposed an onerous and coercive change in terms notice with no opt out).  This was significant because the media have been irresponsible (or worse, perhaps purposely suppressing facts) in not investigating and reporting the discrepancy between the testimony and Chase’s about face in terms of its actions.  (Thanks to Alessandro, who transcribed Peggy’s remarks, here; the above link will lead to a video version.)

Having come to know Peggy through this whole debacle, I am honored to be acquainted with someone who has stepped forward to join the fight with such commitment.  I don’t think that I am revealing too much to suggest that she is a hero in my eyes.  Meaning, Peggy (like me and thousands of other affected account holders who have done nothing wrong), would rather not have this issue with Chase. 

Unfortunately, we were given no choice relative to what Chase did, but I know of many people who will not stand up and fight, publicly.  It is easier to watch someone else risk humiliation and defeat, instead of stepping into the arena.  Yet, Peggy has refused to “go quietly into the night,” and she has shown the courage to do battle with a monolithic corporation (which in my opinion I could likened to the “evil empire,” in Star Wars), including its media spin machine.  Peggy has thus far confronted Chase’s negative and hurtful campaign (which has been fully engaged in defaming all of us) head-on, and now she is a lead plaintiff. 

Chase ”chose the dark side” and it does not seem to matter to its executives what damage it may do to individual consumers, small business owners, or an economy that depends on entrepreneurs. 

While Peggy is too humble, I don’t mind whatsoever promoting her heroism, or her small business.  Accordingly, if you are ever in Pennsylvania, please support Peggy’s bed and breakfast (see VictorianLoft.com).  Tell her I sent you, from the ChangeInTerms.com site, and use the promotional code: CIT-NO-OPT-OUT-CHASE.  (OK, I made this last part about the promotional code up, but I would not put it past Peggy to offer you a special rate, or at the very least an exceptionally gracious B & B stay.)

Meanwhile, Peggy, you and your family (Peggy’s brother is also battling cancer), are in my prayers.     

© Dr Robert Lahm for ChangeinTerms.com, 2009. | Permalink | 8 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: change in terms, Class Action, consumers, credit, economy, small business, Testimony

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Thus, it was pure pleasure to read that Stephanie could not comment after a Federal Judge ruled against Chase today. The issue is not exactly on point with our issues but hey, any ruling against Chase is a step in the right direction. May the future hold many more headlines like the following….

JPMorgan loses court ruling over credit cards

Excerpt:

NEW YORK, May 19 (Reuters) – A federal appeals court reinstated a claim by a JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N) credit card holder accusing the bank of failing to properly disclose risk factors that allow it to suddenly raise rates.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said the bank failed to make “clear and conspicuous disclosure” of the annual percentage rates it could impose, as required under the federal Truth in Lending Act, by burying the reason for an increase in the fine print of a cardholder agreement….

…He said this was “buried too deeply in the fine print” for a reasonable cardholder to realize the bank could raise the APR not just for events of default, but for “any reason at all.”….

…Chase spokeswoman Stephanie Jacobson said the New York-based bank does not comment on pending litigation.”…

May the lawsuits continue to multiply. May court rulings against Chase gain momentum. May Ms. Jacobson be unable to comment on many occasions as lawsuits against Chase wend their way through the court system.

I hope having to hold her tongue is driving Stephanie nuts. Being powerless to counter her many derogatory comments about me and my fellow account holders kind of drove me crazy. Ah….the sound of (Stephanie’s) silence. So sweet.

© pdurant for ChangeinTerms.com, 2009. | Permalink | 19 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: change in terms, credit, credit cards

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

We were always ready to show with an immaculate and well cared for home, “staged” and with all of the right fragrances, a shine on the appliances, and cleanliness otherwise, inside, under, outside.  We also cut the price: again, and again, and again, and again, trying to be competitive with the market.  Nevertheless, I have been working in North Carolina during the past academic year, and my family has been back in Tennessee.  My wife and I are “separated,” except by virtue of real estate, rather than by marital woes or choice.

The separation and commuting back and forth have been a little taste of hell.  This may also explain — as I have been paying “double” on housing costs during this period of time — why it is that when Chase sent its change in terms notice, it did make me “sick to my stomach” (Brian quoting me, and now me quoting him).

My father was a fighter pilot, and his being called away for military service while I was a child is something I still remember well.  Our situation (that of my wife, children, and myself) has not been that bad, since I’m not being shot at.  But it has certainly been challenging, nonetheless.  I thank those who are serving and protecting us in the military, now.

The aforementioned surgery was timed to coincide with a spring break the following week, and thanks to colleagues at Western Carolina University who have been extremely kind to me, I made some arrangements to fill in for an advising day and one of my classes during the week of the surgery itself.

After spring break was over, I backed out of my driveway in Tennessee, with my wife left essentially in the care of our two children.  I had pulled down everything we could think of from cabinets and closets so that food, towels, blankets, cooking utensils, toilet paper, and other necessities for their survival, camp-out-style, could be reached.  It’s not as though I was the one who had the surgery, but I felt terrible, leaving.

Brian impressed me greatly, not just as a journalist, but as a human being.  We spoke and emailed several times, and he regularly inquired about my wife’s recovery.  The first time we talked, he was immediately warm and conversationally generous — coming across as the kind of person I’d enjoy having as a guest at a back-yard Bar-B-Que (I love cooking, but my wife says I brag too much when I’m in the kitchen; nevertheless, I invited her for dinner for our first date over two decades ago, so you decide!).  Brian is also intellectually vibrant, and I enjoyed our talks.

Brian had nominated me as a candidate for one of the photos to be included in his article, which I now know is entitled, “About That New, ‘Friendly’ Consumer Contract” (April 30, 2009, online; May 11, 2009, print). At the time, I did not understand that the decision would be made elsewhere by editors, so I was scrambling for a tie and accessories, which I did not have with me in Tennessee when Brian was conducting his initial interview.

I tell you all of this to give you context.  I’ve been praised on this site for fighting Chase, and the abuses of credit card companies in general.  However, I’m just a regular person who like many others before me, is working hard to take care of my family, and trying to do right by others (such as students and credit card holders who are either consumers or small business owners).  At the risk of employing an old cliché, I put my pants on one leg at a time, just like anybody else.

I was generally very pleased with the article.  If it’s not clear by this point in my post, Brian Grow was very “decent” towards me and I appreciated the way he treated me during the interview process.  He’s a good guy.

I had hoped for a little less “about me” and a little more about the small business issue.  That being said, if the article directs traffic to the ChangeInTerms.com site, at least visitors may realize that my advocacy is “not so much” about me or any of the personal trials and tribulations that my family and I have faced (we consider ourselves very fortunate, in fact — my wife is much better at this point), but about the issue of abusive treatment of customers by credit card companies.

As can be ascertained from Brian’s article (page 3 of the Internet version), after several sickening months Chase did back down relative to my particular account.  Yet, I have not backed down, and I do not intend to do so, unless and until Chase issues a press release, and admits that it made a mistake relative to all account holders.

Brian was nice, when he stated that “abrupt changes have turned into a public-relations challenge for Chase.”  However, let’s be more direct.  “Chase didn’t admit any wrongdoing” (ibid).  That’s typical, but  the New York Attorney General flatly said that “Truth-in-lending laws prohibit this very conduct.”  Chase apparently even tried to infer that because “there were ‘no negotiations’ with Cuomo’s office,” that it was not engaged in wrongdoing.  I’d like to see this smokescreen cleared by suggesting that the most likely reason that there were no negotiations is because Chase was in violation of Truth-in-Lending-Laws.

I wanted to be a pilot like my dad; indeed, as a boy I dreamed of traveling even farther, in the space program (eyeglasses intervened).  Things don’t always turn out like what you may have imagined, hoped for, or planned.  But here’s what I do know now, credit card companies: with little or no provocation, you have attacked my former colleague, my wife, my former neighbor (an entrepreneur), me (and therefore my whole family), and millions of other undeserving account holders — consumers and small businesses.  Your lack of restraint is unprecedented, especially after taking bail out money and during a volatile time when we are all struggling in a weakened economy.  And we’re now banding together.

My dad used to quip the old pilot’s joke that “any landing you walk away from is a good one” (humor aside, I can understand that point of view; earlier jets were notoriously dangerous).  Well, abusive credit card companies (especially you, Chase): we’re going to “shoot you and your fancy corporate jets down” with anti-marketing missiles, alternative financing sources, lawsuits, and regulation that you royally deserve to receive after what you have perpetrated with such ruthlessness.  These actions against customers, orchestrated by scheming executives, whose only moral code is apparently unbridled greed, will end.

The next time you “kick me when I’m down,” you’d better make sure I’m dead.  I’ve been very “friendly,” thus far, and so have the vast majority of other account holders.  We’ve been paying our bills and meeting our obligations no matter what we have individually and severally been confronting in our own respective lives.  Therefore, abusive credit card companies, you’d better straighten up and fly right.

I recently celebrated another birthday (alone; I’ll be home soon for my cake, dear), and I’m old enough to not want a fight, but still young enough to declare to abusive credit card companies:

NOW I’M (STILL) COMING AFTER YOU

© Dr Robert Lahm for ChangeinTerms.com, 2009. | Permalink | 15 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: "Bail Out", advocacy, banks, change in terms, consumers, credit, economy, regulation, small business

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

As I was composing my letter of December 3, 2008 to Chase Card Services CEO Gordon Smith (responding to the change in terms that I had just received), I found links to that testimony and noticed the missing opt out.  Of course, I “called Chase out” on that issue in my letter.  It is just flat-out wrong that these executives have been allowed to get away with telling Congress one thing (as per the transcripts from the testimony), and then turn around and do a 180 degree about-face by imposing a coercive, onerous, precedent-setting change in terms with no opt out.

Clearly, the document trail established by the testimony showed that the executives were using opt outs as their example to demonstrate the means by which Chase treated customers fairly.  Since there is no opt out, I have been harping on the issue of their misrepresentations for months.  I consider statements made by any corporation’s executives before customers, prospects, shareholders, or Congress, to be part of the “contract” that the corporation has promoted, agreed to, and should abide by.  Yet, all we ever hear about from pundits is “read your contract.”

Meanwhile, I’ve been frustrated by journalists’ lack of initiative, skill, or fortitude in bringing these facts about the testimony versus the actual behavior to light.  Even though I am not a journalist, I happen to own a few books on investigative reporting, and the lack of coverage or failure to notice the testimony relative to the missing opt outs is frankly, incompetent.

I expect that Peggy would be less than satisfied with the responses from the panelists, given that one recommendation was to switch to the 7.99% (double-my-interest “alternate option” rate, which is exactly what Chase wanted — who wouldn’t want to double their rates?).  By the way, this is otherwise known as “bait and switch” as alleged in the class action lawsuits.

Hence, even if the media has failed to make mention, at least Peggy got in a nicely aimed and delivered “direct hit” regarding the lies that Chase told in their testimony before Congress.  See the video (starting around 4:48 into the segment):

The segment above aired on CNBC’s “On the Money” program hosted by Carmen Wong Ulrich (April 23, 2009, starting at 10:00 p.m., EST).

Thank you Peggy!  You scored one against Chase, and for those of us who have been abused by their “broken contract.”

© Dr Robert Lahm for ChangeinTerms.com, 2009. | Permalink | 27 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: change in terms, Class Action, interest, Testimony

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

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…”   

© Dr Robert Lahm for ChangeinTerms.com, 2009. | Permalink | 27 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: Class Action, credit

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

There’s been some speculation on the part of site visitors in light of some recent headlines that the class action lawsuits would perhaps be impeded by Chase’s rescission of the $10 monthly finance charge for account holders (conflicting reports leave some uncertainty as to exactly how many). 

Nevertheless, even though I am not an attorney, I can say that conceptually, Chase can’t simply say “Nevermind!” or hit a “rewind button” to make this whole issue simply vanish.  There are other aspects of the change in terms still in play.  For instance, the 5% minimum payment remains problematic for Chase, in that it is clearly coercive on a common sense basis, and lawsuits, including this one, do tend to point that out through formal statements relative to allegations. 

There can and still should be plenty of fight left in us all, because at this point, a retraction of the fee does nothing to make up for the sheer hell that Chase has inflicted upon innocent account holders.  Other posts have outlined areas of damage and demands that I have made, along with specific suggestions relative to punishment.  The whole idea is to make sure Chase, as well as other credit card issuers recognize that we are not going to tolerate these abuses any longer.

Maybe you are one of the persons who got a retraction letter.  If you decide to quit now, Chase will be back.  Or another card company will send you a “sweet little notice” that changes your life.  I encourage you to resist the temptation to rest on your laurels.  This is no time to back down from the rest of the demands we must continue to make.  Contact the class action attorneys and see if more lead plaintiffs for other states are still being sought (I’ll bet that they are), and step forward.  Small businesses need us; the economy will not recover if they do not recover.

I have to clarify, since it is April 1st, I think that the number “13″ is a bad omen for Chase.  This isn’t a prank.  Here’s a link to the very real lawsuit, #13 (thanks Green Welling LLP!).

© Dr Robert Lahm for ChangeinTerms.com, 2009. | Permalink | 4 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: change in terms, Class Action, credit, economy, small business

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

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

© Dr Robert Lahm for ChangeinTerms.com, 2009. | Permalink | 31 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: "Bail Out", advocacy, change in terms, Class Action, consumers, credit, credit cards, debt, fees, interest, interest rate, penalties, small business, Testimony

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Thus, although I have been speaking on a few occasions with Jane Kim of the Wall Street Journal over the last month, I have only now been able to announce this on the ChangeInTerms.com site.  Jane’s article entitled, “Chase Retracts Unpopular Monthly Fee on Some Accounts,” has now been published (as of March 27, 2009) on the WSJ’s “Fat Wallet” personal finance and investing news site.  Jane was even courteous enough to email me and let me know exactly when the article was published. 

There is some very good news for those of us who have been affected by Chase, as indicated by the title itself.  However, even though we have won a battle, this war is still not over, and I am going to repeat something that I have already expressed to Chase:

“If Chase wants peace, it can issue a press release.”

In other words, while I have seen justifiable comments that are celebratory, and I am grateful to receive this breath of fresh air, this site shall leave no man or woman behind.  The war is not over until I see a headline along these lines: “Chase Retracts Entire Change in Terms on All Accounts.”  (As you know, if you are a regular reader here, I am especially concerned about account holders who may also be small business owners.)   

Further, I can still see elements of the same old Chase spin relative to some of the quotes from its spokesperson, Stephanie Jacobson.  For instance, the one about “changes were aimed at customers who had made little progress in paying down their balances, and affected less one-half of one percent of its customers.” 

Still making light of this and trying to minimize the number of customers, how severely they were treated (noting that “minimum payments due will remain at 5% of their new balance” — so much for bail out money), the fact that Chase’s aim was extremely poor — hitting numerous people who were paying more than the minimum — and defamatory toward responsible account holders by suggesting that they were “slow-paying laggards who deserved it” to members of the media, are we Ms. Jacobson?

I therefore shall now require more than a press release stating a rescission of the entire change in terms notice for all impacted account holders:

I demand an apology for the negative portrayal of myself as well as 399,999 other account holders. 

I’ll leave it to law firms to seek restitution and damages, along with punishment, if they can prevail in class action litigation efforts (which may take years).  In the meantime, this war will be won sooner, and with a longer lasting, more significant victory, if it is fought on a de-marketing basis.  I remember back in December 2008, after I installed the software and converted this site to a blog, I had only a few posts, and a few visitors, something like a half-dozen per day.  At this point in time, I am proud to say that I (and the people who have joined me) have now warned thousands of consumers and small business owners about Chase and its unethical shenanigans. 

Since Chase seems to be good at coming up with “alternatives” and “options” (instead of providing the opt out that its executives described in Congressional testimony, whereby customers would reject the change in terms and continue to pay under the old rates and terms), I’d like to present Chase with the “alternative option” of my own.  It might help in mitigating damages and possible punitive actions in “jury trial demanded” class action proceedings:

Chase could elect this “alternative option” by crediting the entire balances that its impacted customers presently owe, reducing their accounts to zero.  I’d like Chase to make “tremendous progress” in crediting these accounts, by doing so within 15 days. 

Why 15 days? 

Because as I observed here, although Chase wanted 18 months to comply with new FED Regulation Z Rules (surprise: banks got their way from their advocate and chief defender, uncle FED), Chase’s corresponding attorney argued that customers should only need 15 days to comply with its new rules. 

Why so much (crediting customers’ respective accounts the entire balance that they presently owe)? 

Well, it’s not really not that much.  You see, this would only entail zeroing out the balances of “less than one-half of one percent” of account holders.  Heck, it’s just such a small percentage, and Chase did receive $25 billion in bail out money (which we would like back before it gives that all out to executives in AIG-like bonuses).  Me, personally, I’d even forgive them for ruining Christmas.  Indeed, you could consider that amount to be extremely modest compensation for defaming people who were meeting their obligations faithfully, and fully. 

We good-paying customers who have done nothing wrong take our reputation and honor seriously, Ms. Jacobson.  Therefore, I’m afraid that this is only the end of round one.  Chase, this means that I’m not giving you an “opt out,” either:

NOW WE’RE (STILL) COMING AFTER YOU

© Dr Robert Lahm for ChangeinTerms.com, 2009. | Permalink | 7 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: "Bail Out", banks, change in terms, Class Action, consumers, credit, regulation, small business, Testimony

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh