I applied for the AA Advantage card and was denied, this time because of an old AT&T Universal account included in BK7 in 1993. Today, of course, the account is long deleted from credit reports. My BK is also off all my reports, thanks to this board! My question is, when did CITIBANK purchase AT&T Universal accounts? Or was this always the issuer? I remember reading of people having this type of problem with AMEX (can't recall CITIBANK) before, and wonder what, if anything, they did to get around this problem. Or I am out of luck until my next life? Thanks for your help. SpyGuyJim
Sorry about the decline. I wouldnt be surprised if these HUGE companies keep permanent black list of problem accounts and share the info with each other. Alex http://www.Creditinsiders.com
Citibank and Amex have blacklists. They remember forever. Don't know of any other companies that do this though. Dani
Citibank bought the Universal card accts in March/April 1998. Their systems merged together in May 2000. J
Thanks for the reponses. I still need to know if CITIBANK is the issuer of the card, back in 1989-91 or so. I can't recall when I opened the account precisely. If they subsequently bought the account after the BK was dischaged (mid-94), then they didn't incur any loss. I guess where I going with this is...If they are relying on old information, that is outside the parameters of the FCRA, that shouldn't be used in consideration for new accounts, (presuming they weren't the one who incurred the loss) how can this be legal? A behind the scenes credit reporting system amoung the large companies, as suggested, has to be illegal. Another question is, is there any sort of way I can make them produce proof that this account was dischaged from BK, for instance old statements or letters from the BK Court itself? Or I am fighting a loosing battle here?
I hit send and then your reply came through on e-mail...thank you. This is exactly what I thought! CITIBANK incurred no loss so how can they deny me credit based on something that is no longer on my credit reports?
Spyguyjim: I can tell you with certainty Citibank keeps records much older than yours. I had problems with them in mid 80's. They use it as reason to refuse cl increase on existing, very old account with perfect payment record. I would not bother to apply with them and waste an inquiry. Quite interesting though, they lowered my apr to 8.5 and let me convert it to any card I want but shoot me down every time I request cl increase.
Legal advice is needed I got the point that CITIBANK holds any of their customers who go Bankrupt or closes an account with a balance, is non-forgiveable. My point here is, CITIBANK wasn't the owner of my account previously when I filed BK in '93, and therefore they weren't the company I filed BK on. In other words, I didn't default on a CITIBANK account since they didn't own the account then; and obviously, they aren't out any money! Now they come along and purchase the accounts from the previous issuer in 1998. They now have the history information from the issuer at their fingertips, and are able to have access to information that, per the FCRA should no longer be on credit reports, or used in any way to determine creditworthiness. How can that be legal? I would appreciate someone who knows the legalities of this situation to respond. Thanks for all the help.
Re: Legal advice is needed Just because something isn't reporting on your credit report, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Now I agree that Citi probably wasn't out any money unless they paid something for your acct, which would be difficult to prove. But, they do have internal records showing a chargeoff/bk on an acct. That legally gives them room to deny future credit. If I have an acct. with citi that I let charge off, then file bk on it, should they give me credit 10 years later when the bk and charge off are no longer showing on my reports? I sure wouldn't. I've already charged off once, they shouldn't give me the chance to do it again, unless of course, somehere along they way i paid it off.
Re: Legal advice is needed LET ME TELL YOU FROM EXPERIENCE...I learned the HARD way that closing a CITIBANK account is a "SLAP IN THE FACE"... I had to do the BDD to get in... I was PAID/NEVER LATE on my 2 old CITI bank cards years ago...but they were INSULTED, I GUESS!?!?!?!!?!?!
Re: Legal advice is needed Uh uh. Companies cannot "share" internal records -- that would make the compilation CRAs, subject to ALL of the requirements of reporters in FCRA. So while Citibank can maintain its own independent records, (.....I presume this...it would actually require a very careful reading of the FCRA and the FTC opinion letters on what is and what isn't a CRA) the question is what are the AT&T Universal records? OPs original point is that it was a *different* company....if Citibank compiles information from a different company --regardless of whether it is accurate or not -- it becomes a credit reporting agency. Voila, massive multiple FCRA violations. This MAY depend on precisely how the two merged. IOW, if it were a straight asset sale of the credit card portfolio rather than a merger of companies I think it would be pretty hard to argue that the Citibank records are anything but a CRA.
Cap 1 did this to me. Got rejected for no hussle card. Even called up Mr. Cooke for help. He punched in my ss# and asked if I ever had an xyz card. I said "yeah, but it was many years ago". He says: " That's right. We aquired xyz bank and got you on file. No card for you buddy". Well, he didn't exactly say that but I still got rejected.
Solzy, I don't know much about that subject, so I'll assume what you said is true. However, it still doesn't change the point that just because a charge off or bk'd acct is no longer showing on a report, a creditor cannot take their internal records into consideration when deciding on whether or not to approve an application. If they have internal records showing a charge off, they have every right to not approve the app even if it isn't on the applicants credit report. Now, how they obtained the internal records may be an entirely different subject.
AT&T Universal Card is used to be issued by Household Bank back in 1991-95 and they sold it to Citibank in 2000. Ron.
True. But I think that ATT could be reasonably argued to be a CRA in this circumstance....they compiled and then sold credit information to a third party (citibank). Obviously, if this is true, the potential liability of ATT is staggering.
Very interesting. So what now? If there are possible violations as suggested, what action can I take? Do I send them a letter asking for proof they owned my account and detailed account information to prove their claim? Call their credit manager and tape record a conversation (one party consent is legal in my state) where I simply ask them what is on file? Should I get a lawyer that specializes in this area for legal action? Surely I am not alone in this situation. Or should I just throw in the towel? I really appreciate everyone's input! This board is awesome!
spyguyjim, You have brought up a very interesting post, but my question is where are you trying to go with this? Citibank denied you based on past information (this from an old ATT account). If Citibank denied you on high balances or a large number of inquiries would you also consider suing them? I'm not trying to be rude, but am curious what your intentions are. Is it fair that Citibank based on declining you on a past account that is no longer reporting? Maybe. Maybe not. CCCs based acceptance/denial on past behavior. Should we freeze frame that information - say only ten years or five years? You mention that Citibank did not lose money on your not paying back AT&T. That's true, but should we sue every company that denies us based on information that is not assoicated with them. Eg. A person files BK four years ago. The CCCs that are included is Captial One and Amex. The person applies with Chase. Chase denies them for the BK. Chase did not lose any money with this individual filing BK so why shouldn't Chase accept them? Dani
