On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 13:22:59 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> but they *also* wouldn't extend the old card's credit or set my "member
>> since" date to the earlier of the two dates.
> 
> It took me three phone calls to get the card to have the member-since
> date of before MBNA got aquired, yes. :-)

I decided it was easier not to bother.  It's not like I've got zero 
credit available, so the difference in having the limits split between 
two cards and on one card just means that I don't use that card as much, 
since the point of the one with the earlier date is to just sit in the 
safe. :-)

>> The thing that bugs me about those cheques the most, of course, is they
>> sit in my mailbox.  Nothing like having blank cheques sitting someplace
>> where someone can come by and steal them - great way to "prevent"
>> fraud, innit?
> 
> That's why I call up and complain about it, and threaten to cancel if
> they send me more.

Yeah, once I get my balances down a bit, I can make that kind of threat.  
We did actually manage to get 0 balances on nearly everything (except the 
home equity line of credit, but that's a different story anyways), but 
then had some major car work that needed done.  That's always the way I 
*intend* to use the credit cards - just for emergency backup.  It rarely 
works out that way.

> I also don't use debit cards, for similar reasons.

Well, with the debit card, you've got a PIN associated with it, so I 
don't quite understand the issue there.  Of late, I've preferred to use 
the debit card over a credit card just because I know I'm not going to 
have to reconcile accounts later.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message 
news:489a02ec$1@news.povray.org...

> The thing that bugs me about those cheques the most, of course, is they
> sit in my mailbox.  Nothing like having blank cheques sitting someplace
> where someone can come by and steal them - great way to "prevent" fraud,
> innit?

  After following this thread Jim, I've had quite a hard time comprehending 
that they, (the bank(s)), "send you a cheque". I mean, I've always 
understood that you can even *draw* a cheque on the side of some live beef 
stock if you want, and as long as it's accepted by the recipient, the bank 
will accept it as a genuine cheque. But they're sending blank cheques 
through email??

   To me, that sounds desperate.

    ~Steve~




> Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 22:38:26 +0100, St. wrote:

> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:489a02ec$1@news.povray.org...
> 
>> The thing that bugs me about those cheques the most, of course, is they
>> sit in my mailbox.  Nothing like having blank cheques sitting someplace
>> where someone can come by and steal them - great way to "prevent"
>> fraud, innit?
> 
>   After following this thread Jim, I've had quite a hard time
>   comprehending
> that they, (the bank(s)), "send you a cheque". I mean, I've always
> understood that you can even *draw* a cheque on the side of some live
> beef stock if you want, and as long as it's accepted by the recipient,
> the bank will accept it as a genuine cheque. But they're sending blank
> cheques through email??

Not via e-mail.... ;-)

But of course, you're using a different meaning for "cheque" than I am - 
from the OED, though:

"Cheque is a differentiated spelling of check, which is also in use, 
especially in U.S."

:-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 18:00:35 -0400, Jim Henderson wrote:

> On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 22:38:26 +0100, St. wrote:
> 
>> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
>> news:489a02ec$1@news.povray.org...
>> 
>>> The thing that bugs me about those cheques the most, of course, is
>>> they sit in my mailbox.  Nothing like having blank cheques sitting
>>> someplace where someone can come by and steal them - great way to
>>> "prevent" fraud, innit?
>> 
>>   After following this thread Jim, I've had quite a hard time
>>   comprehending
>> that they, (the bank(s)), "send you a cheque". I mean, I've always
>> understood that you can even *draw* a cheque on the side of some live
>> beef stock if you want, and as long as it's accepted by the recipient,
>> the bank will accept it as a genuine cheque. But they're sending blank
>> cheques through email??
> 
> Not via e-mail.... ;-)
> 
> But of course, you're using a different meaning for "cheque" than I am -

...or maybe not, now that I reread it.

But yeah, the credit card companies have started sending this out as a 
way to allow you to draw on your credit line; usually they have some sort 
of special promotional interest rate associated with them.

The one that *really* bothers me, though, is when they pre-fill the 
dollar amounts in.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message 
news:489a1f75$1@news.povray.org...
> On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 18:00:35 -0400, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 22:38:26 +0100, St. wrote:
>>
>>> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
>>> news:489a02ec$1@news.povray.org...
>>>
>>>> The thing that bugs me about those cheques the most, of course, is
>>>> they sit in my mailbox.  Nothing like having blank cheques sitting
>>>> someplace where someone can come by and steal them - great way to
>>>> "prevent" fraud, innit?
>>>
>>>   After following this thread Jim, I've had quite a hard time
>>>   comprehending
>>> that they, (the bank(s)), "send you a cheque". I mean, I've always
>>> understood that you can even *draw* a cheque on the side of some live
>>> beef stock if you want, and as long as it's accepted by the recipient,
>>> the bank will accept it as a genuine cheque. But they're sending blank
>>> cheques through email??
>>
>> Not via e-mail.... ;-)
>>
>> But of course, you're using a different meaning for "cheque" than I am -
>
> ...or maybe not, now that I reread it.

     Ah, no probs mate, it was the 'mailbox' word that made me think that.


>
> But yeah, the credit card companies have started sending this out as a
> way to allow you to draw on your credit line; usually they have some sort
> of special promotional interest rate associated with them.

     Oh, I get those almost five days a week from differing banks than my 

days living on the street and such, I've learnt the value of money I think, 
(but I've got some heavy sh*t going on at the moment - damned inland 
revenue!)

   I use a debit card only and will never have a credit card.


>
> The one that *really* bothers me, though, is when they pre-fill the
> dollar amounts in.

 Yes, it is tempting, but with the way the world is working now, you'd be 
foolish to use any credit unless you can pay it in time. I pity young home 
buyers. It just isn't going to happen the way it did a few years ago for 
them.

   ~Steve~


>
> Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Well, with the debit card, you've got a PIN associated with it, so I 
> don't quite understand the issue there.

Not the ones that work just like a credit card, AFAIK. In any case, the 
legal system distinguishes.  If someone's going to steal money, I want 
it to be the bank's money, with them proving I owe it to them, rather 
than my money, with me proving to the bank they need to give it back.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Ever notice how people in a zombie movie never already know how to
  kill zombies? Ask 100 random people in America how to kill someone
  who has reanimated from the dead in a secret viral weapons lab,
  and how many do you think already know you need a head-shot?

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> One of the nastier things they have started doing is sending out these
> "convenience cheques" with low interest rates.  You have to read the fine
> print to see what the % is they're charging for the use of the cheque,
> but even more insidious is that on some (Discover has done this) they
> require you use the card 2 times a month to keep the lower rate, but the
> payments you make go against the lowest interest rate first.

There's an ad around here for a *zero interest* loan. Fine print says
there's a 15% "administrative fee".

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> There's an ad around here for a *zero interest* loan. Fine print says
> there's a 15% "administrative fee".

Depending on how long you have to pay back the loan, that could be a 
pretty good dea.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Ever notice how people in a zombie movie never already know how to
  kill zombies? Ask 100 random people in America how to kill someone
  who has reanimated from the dead in a secret viral weapons lab,
  and how many do you think already know you need a head-shot?

Post a reply to this message

Jim Charter wrote:
> Is it just me being paranoid?  In order to avoid service charges on my 
> credit card, it has been my practice to maintain a constant positive 
> balance on the card.  Enough that I wouldn't, though my own 
> forgetfulness, incur a service charge because some amount I charged hit 
> just at the due date and I forget to put money in.  So now I see a debit 
> on my account marked REFUND AS R.
> 
> I phone the bank.  I'm informed that it means REFUND AS REQUESTED.  Who 
> requested?  Not me for sure.  The bank's system requested it, and, I am 
> told, sent me the check.  And now I owe $9.50 on the account.  I am told 
> that the back is required to refund a long-standing credit on the account.
> 
> 'You mean I can't keep a positive balance on my credit card so as to 
> avoid a service charge?'
> 
> 'Let me ask my supervisor'
> 
> :elevator music:
> 
> 'Mr Charter my supervisor says the system is set up to refund any long 
> standing credit.  She advises that if you want to keep a credit on the 
> account that it be no more than about $50.'
> 
> Unbelievable.  So I am forced so play a sort of Russian roulette trying 
> to keep the balance equal to my charges and I am allowed a $50 buffer to 
> work with.  I dunno.  I feel conspired against.

Check to see if your card agreement allows them to refund positive 
balances without your prior consent.  If not, write a politely-worded 
letter informing them that the account balance was low because they made 
a transaction that you had not authorized, and that you will not accept 
penalties that are consequent of their unauthorized account activity. 
Finish by stating that failure to accommodate your request will result 
in immediate account closure and that you will seek a court judgment 
relieving you of the contested charge.

Since you have been maintaining a positive balance, they have probably 
not been making any money off of you, so they will not be sorry to see 
you go.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:

> 
> Why is it so difficult to pay off your balance each month, especially in
> this day and age of electronic banking? It takes less effort than trying to
> maintain a positive balance.

Similar effort, I agree.  It's completely irrational I'll admit, but I 
find it easier, psychologically, to refresh a sort of pool or buffer 
against future charges than to react to charges after the fact.  I know 
I'm being a baby but I also know how to lookout for my flaws after being 
tripped up by them over the years.  Maybe it allows, if you will, a 
little more asynchronicity, or decoupling, and somehow that helps?  It's 
not a big deal, but then also why is it such a big deal for the bank if 
I want to keep a +ve balance?



> 
> That's why there's a delay and a grace period. Even if you forget a payment,
> calling within a reasonable time and saying you got the bill late in mail or
> some other lame excuse, they will rollback the charge - remember, they want
> your business.
> 
I'll admit to being ill-informed and unsophisticated in these matters.



> 
>>Unbelievable.  So I am forced so play a sort of Russian roulette trying to
>>keep the balance equal to my charges and I am allowed a $50 buffer to
>>work with.  I dunno.  I feel conspired against.
> 
> 
> I am not sure you have a grasp of how credit cards work. There's no russian
> roulette, you get a bill, you pay it. It's no different than phone, gas,
> electricity, water, taxes, insurance... etc. Do you also maintain a positive
> balance on all of those?
> 


Yes on phone and taxes.  Wife pays the others. Well, I'd forget the 
quarter tax payments if not for my wife reminding me. I do fall behind 
on the cable payments but seem to muddle my way through that somehow. 
They just keep adding to the charge.  (I should check if there's a 
penalty.) I am inconsistent, I agree.  It worries me that the bank 
charges a penalty but not so much the Cable guy.

In part, I think I got surprised by this just after listening to a radio 
show where a guy just wrote a book about the abuses of the credit card 
industry.  So I was primed to react.

I realize I was a little over-dramatic with the Russian roulette line. 
In my defense I developed the positive balance idea back when I 
experimented with using the card for buying gas while driving taxi.  I 
would buy gas when 'bargain' opportunities arose as I drove to different 
parts of the city.  But the charges would come in from the different gas 
companies very erratic and out of sequence and I always got nervous 
around the due date.  I didn't want to spend time every day transferring 
money onto the card so I hit on the +ve balance idea.  I think my 
tripping their automatic refund thing must be related to amount as well 
as time.  I don't remember this happening then but it involved lower 
amounts of money.  But you have to understand, my mind is my clearer now 
than it was even as little as two years ago.

Post a reply to this message