I had a BK7 discharged in March this year. I kept my Citibank unsecured card through it because, frankly, I forgot about it and had a zero balance on for at least 8 months prior to that (CL $1000). Immediately after the BK was discharged, Citibank sent me a letter stating they were decreasing my CL to $100! I thought it a bit unfair, but decided I'd just use and pay on it faithfully for 6 months and then request a CL increase. That's just what I've done and today got a letter from them stating they were closing the account! Reason: Serious delinquency, and public record or collection filed. I checked all credit reports in October and they are accurate and clean - no outstanding debts. All accounts but my mortgage and auto loan were included in the BK. I've paid everything on time since then. Even got a new auto loan in October. And an unsecured Cap One card in November. Can Citibank just close an account that's "never been late" like this? Do I have any recourse? I was working hard on restoring credit and feel this is a huge step back. Any advice would be appreciated.
I believe that they can do this. It is harsh, but most CC companies have this buried in their cardholder agreement. They reserve the right to close an account at anytime.
Yes as gregory said they can close for ANY reason they want to , it is in your membership agreement Nice no, but it happens all the time. The did give you a reason though, they stated public record, you filed BK and that is in your public record
Wait a minute.Hold on! They did not close his account because he filed BK. The closed it because the Bk was discharged. There is a world of difference between the two!
Yes, Credit Card Companys will close your account every time if they find out that you have had a discharged BKO.. Credit Card Debt whether it is 100.00 or 10000.00, it is unsecured debt and you are a risk no matter how long you have paid on time.. There is risk involved extending you credit.. It will be that way for 7-10 years...
I stated there was a BK in the public record, discharged or not it is still there, it makes no difference. It was on the public record, they chose to close the account based on that, pretty simple. That is what I said.
With very few exceptions (Title IX, discrimination based upon gender or race, etc.), nobody can force somebody else to loan you money, nor can anyone force someone to extend you the opportunity to borrow money (as with a line of credit). In other words, if your best friend, or your mother, or the little grocery store, or the big bank doesn't feel like extending you the opportunity to borrow money from them, nobody can force them to loan you their money. Likewise, nobody can force you to loan money to your sister-in-law or anybody else either. All of us (me, you, Citibank, etc.) enjoy free will to decide whether to loan money or to extend the opportunity to borrow our money -- again, barring demographic discrimination of one prohibited type or another. That said, lenders constantly assess whether or not to extend credit based upon their idea of whether or not they're going to get their money back later. It's the same reason I'm willing to loan money to my little brother but not to my older cousin -- I'm convinced, for valid reasons and invalid ones too, I guess -- that my brother is going to be more reliable than my cousin. Unfortunately for me, in 1999, MBNA decided I was more like my cousin than my brother, LOL, because I was very late paying some student loans (150 days late) even though I was on-time with MBNA. When they decided I was just too big a risk to lend money to anymore, they pulled their pretty credit card account away from me. Yes, it completely pissed me off (there's no better word to describe the feeling, as you know, lol), but it was their prerogative to do so. It was their money I was playing with. Unfortunately, some people forget that a credit card is borrowed money (or a license to borrow money); instead, they regard a line of credit as personal income to which they have a divine right -- surely ordained either by God or by some law somewhere. That's why you sometimes see people who will remain nameless (oh, what the hell, it was lbrown59 in this thread) cry out in righteous indignation whenever a creditor makes a decision that doesn't favor the borrower. It's very easy to forget that we live in a free country where nobody can dictate to whom you or Citibank loans money. It still feels rotten to have a credit card revoked, though -- as I said, I've been there. Doc
Show us where I did any such thing in this thread!: Also is there any difference between not favoring the consumer and screwing the costomer,or is this question righteous indignation too?
