[X]
Write ReviewJump to 
Citicards Compliment - Citicards Desperate to Collect - Master Card Interest
Master Card Interest - Compliment
My wife and I both had Citibank master cards where we got cash advances and the interest was only 1.99% with no transaction fee. We paid every month the minimum requested, which was part principle and the interest due on the remaining balance. We decided in October 2009 that it was an administrative hassle to keep remembering to access the accounts electronically and pay the minimum, even though 1.99% is a great deal. I went to the local Citibank branch and asked to pay off the balances in full. In January 2010 we started getting recorded calls asking us to call Citicard and "it is not a sales call" the recording stated. I called said I owed back interest. I relayed the story about the branch payment and not receiving any communication either by mail or Internet or phone. Again all payments and look at statements were electronic. Long story short, the call continue into February and we have now complained to the FTC (2X) since Citicards stated the dunning recordings would continue. BTW the amounts they say are owed are respectively $8.50 and $1.50. They also stated the branch of Citibank did not have access to a payoff amount. No wonder they are losing money; then again the CEO needs that big paycheck.
Comments:
Posted by Fufu487 on 2010-02-23:
why dont you just pay the $10 you owe, seems like a stupid amount to go to collections over, which is eventually what will happen. Even though you paid the balance, there was most likely interest due that hadnt been paid out yet.
Posted by PepperElf on 2010-02-23:
very true fufu
sometimes making a point, can come at a very bad cost
(collections, bad credit scores, higher bills)
sometimes making a point, can come at a very bad cost
(collections, bad credit scores, higher bills)
Posted by Stew on 2010-02-23:
I'm the guy who put the screws to the Crest manager over a $1.25 lost in a vending machine but even I wouldn't let something go to collections for 10 bucks. It's just not worth the seven years that collection action remain on your credit report. If it were me I'd pay it then let it go.
Posted by goduke on 2010-02-23:
I wonder why a branch wouldn't have access to the payoff amount? That seems odd. I'd probably pay it off then go to war with them.
Posted by KenPopcorn on 2010-02-23:
GD, the banking arm and the credit card arm are pretty distant. I suspect a branch only has access to the last statement balance. The tellers shoudl be trained to tell them, when paying the balance, that there will be one more statement with the remaining interest.
Posted by Stew on 2010-02-23:
So a mammoth bank like Citi lacks the technical proficiency to allow their banking branches to obtain the current pay off balance for citi credit cards? That might have made sense back in let's say 1993 but not today where the entire planet is networked. That's just silly. Typical.
Posted by goduke on 2010-02-23:
While I hear what you're saying, Ken (that it's the way it actually works), it's just amazing that they don't have reciprocity of information. From a brand standpoint, when I have a Citi card that has the exact same logo as the Citi branch, I, joe consumer, have some right to believe that they talk to each other. Just seems a bit goofy.
Posted by KenPopcorn on 2010-02-23:
In an organization like Citibank, they are separate companies, and are not even on the same computer systems. The branch probably has a number to call and get a balance, possibly a web page, but they really have very little access to the actual account information.
Posted by goduke on 2010-02-23:
There may be some legalities involved of some sort. Who knows why they do what they do, right?
Posted by Fufu487 on 2010-02-25:
The banks cant always see your up-to-date credit card information, and interest to be paid out. Its not that simple. It's not a matter of the size of the bank.
Posted by tnchuck100 on 2010-02-25:
Don't forget the philosophy behind it all: Citi is concerned only with itself not its customers.
If they can produce more revenue by deceiving and/or withholding information then so much the better for them.
Get this customer for $1.25 and that one for $4.50. They'll pay to avoid credit problems. Multiply that by 10,000 accounts per month and you have a nice chunk of change. Free and clear. All it takes is for customers to just take it up the butt and shut up about it.
If they can produce more revenue by deceiving and/or withholding information then so much the better for them.
Get this customer for $1.25 and that one for $4.50. They'll pay to avoid credit problems. Multiply that by 10,000 accounts per month and you have a nice chunk of change. Free and clear. All it takes is for customers to just take it up the butt and shut up about it.
Posted by KenPopcorn on 2010-02-25:
Chuck, don't forget that when you wrap the foil around your head, that if you don't put the shiny side out, those black helicopters from BoA will still be able to read your thoughts.
Posted by tnchuck100 on 2010-02-25:
Thank you, Ken, I forgot to include BofA. I did not intentionally slight them. Probability is the are worse than Citi.
Posted by Stew on 2010-02-25:
Marginalization. The lowest form of debate. Typical.
Posted by KenPopcorn on 2010-02-25:
True Chuck, God forbid those evil SOBs should collect the interest owed to them. They should be jailed!
Posted by tnchuck100 on 2010-02-25:
Ken, I don't know why I am wasting my time on you, you usually don't seem to understand. But here it is anyway:
I am not denying them legitimate interest. But my point is the additional interest and fees that they accumulate as a result of mis-information provided by the bank.
You seem to be a fairly intelligent individual. Most of your comments are well articulated. But your constant denial of banking atrocities is puzzling.
I am not denying them legitimate interest. But my point is the additional interest and fees that they accumulate as a result of mis-information provided by the bank.
You seem to be a fairly intelligent individual. Most of your comments are well articulated. But your constant denial of banking atrocities is puzzling.
Posted by KenPopcorn on 2010-02-25:
Chuck, equally puzzling is your irrational and uninformed hatred of anything finance related. The irony is that it clouds the legitimate problems because no matter how irresponsible the depositor is, it is always the bank's fault. I'm sure that whatever your life's career was you were outstanding, but clearly finance is just not your forte. I am trying not to be insulting, you you constantly rant about topics that you are not fully knowlegeable on. You go on and on about BoA, but admit you have never worked or banked there. When someone points out that they are happy with their relationship with BoA, and that over half the households in the U.S have relationships of some sort with BoA, you insult them.
I clearly respect your right to not bank with them, and to disagree with the way they operate their business, but since they are a private for-profit business, and everything they offer is available elsewhere, I can't agree with your rants about the people who use and abuse their accounts. I have no special allegiance to BoA (or any bank) beyond having my household accounts there, it just chafes that you encourage the personal irresponsibility by telling these people that they are not wrong for not managing their accounts, it's all the bank's fault.
Lastly, you keep telling them to go to a credit union. If you tryuly are a CU supporter, don't do this. Credit Unions don't want them and their problems, and I can tell you that with absolute certainty.
Let me just add concering your above example, these people didn't pay any fees, and the total amount they paid was exactly the same as they would have if the $8 had been disclosed when they asked the balance. It was a non-issue, yet you can't seem to let go of it because it gives you a platform to rant against the big banks. Just *my* 3 cents.
I clearly respect your right to not bank with them, and to disagree with the way they operate their business, but since they are a private for-profit business, and everything they offer is available elsewhere, I can't agree with your rants about the people who use and abuse their accounts. I have no special allegiance to BoA (or any bank) beyond having my household accounts there, it just chafes that you encourage the personal irresponsibility by telling these people that they are not wrong for not managing their accounts, it's all the bank's fault.
Lastly, you keep telling them to go to a credit union. If you tryuly are a CU supporter, don't do this. Credit Unions don't want them and their problems, and I can tell you that with absolute certainty.
Let me just add concering your above example, these people didn't pay any fees, and the total amount they paid was exactly the same as they would have if the $8 had been disclosed when they asked the balance. It was a non-issue, yet you can't seem to let go of it because it gives you a platform to rant against the big banks. Just *my* 3 cents.
Posted by Stew on 2010-02-25:
So if you are against banks being able to make short term loans that end up with an APR of over 30,000% then you're uninformed. If you advocate consumer rights on a consumer gripe site billing itself as the 'Consumer Revolution' then it's hatred. Oh puh-lease.
Outside of my3cent's land the public has already spoken on these issues hence the new regulations either enacted or coming down the pike. These national banks control most of the market because they were allowed to go on a buying frenzy. Then when their own mismanagement of growth threatened to render them insolvent then the American people are told they are too big to fail and here is some money and let's put the American people on the hook for your toxic assets. Yes, many of the banks repaid the money but like all good slight of hand our attention was focused on the wrong thing. The American people are still on the hook for their trillions of dollars of toxic assets. The funny thing is after the American people were told the Banks are too big to fail well then the regulators/government let them get even bigger. Heck I just saw on CNBC this morning that Chase was able to maintain their credit rating based upon the fact the Government declared them too big to fail. Just sickening.
So please spare the lectures about Citi or BoA being private business. Such a statement truly shows a naive lack of understanding of the financial sector.
Outside of my3cent's land the public has already spoken on these issues hence the new regulations either enacted or coming down the pike. These national banks control most of the market because they were allowed to go on a buying frenzy. Then when their own mismanagement of growth threatened to render them insolvent then the American people are told they are too big to fail and here is some money and let's put the American people on the hook for your toxic assets. Yes, many of the banks repaid the money but like all good slight of hand our attention was focused on the wrong thing. The American people are still on the hook for their trillions of dollars of toxic assets. The funny thing is after the American people were told the Banks are too big to fail well then the regulators/government let them get even bigger. Heck I just saw on CNBC this morning that Chase was able to maintain their credit rating based upon the fact the Government declared them too big to fail. Just sickening.
So please spare the lectures about Citi or BoA being private business. Such a statement truly shows a naive lack of understanding of the financial sector.
Note: All comments are reviewed by a moderator before being published. Please be sure to read our guidelines before commenting.
Company Reps: Post your company response!
