Egg to ditch dodgy customers

[AtW]

If people who work didn't have to be beholden to the fellows at Moneylender Towers for a house then this problem wouldn't exist.

I say send them to Afganistan - remote outpost, just enough ammo to last a week at the end of which they get resupplied. If they do well they get cheap Carling beer and recorded Premiership matches.

[miffy]

This is all potentially very dodgy.

I've never been the CC's companies best friend. I have four different ones with four different banks. None have any kind of insurance, I only settle the previous statements transactions and thus never incur interest or pay for extras (I never have).

Anyone who's had their card withdrawn should wait a month or so, then get a copy of their credit report from experian. It only costs a few pounds. I request one every year or so to check for unwanted activity. At least you can see if they've marked your history in any way (hopefully they won't). I'd still be tempted to settle up with them though, then the account will show "closed" on you're file and zero monies owing.

Must be a real insult if you're a careful person who certainly isn't a bad risk though.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

I cancelled my Egg card in 2001 after they wouldn't confirm a £4000 payment on an otherwise clear and regularly settled card I'd had for some time when I was trying to pay for stuff at the end of a long holiday. Fortunately I had a Barclaycard at the time - they had no problems authorising.

Egg had given me a 15k credit limit on the card but their admin let it down.

[Gonzo]

I'm expecting a letter off them too. Always pay off any outstanding balance before any interest is due, so (as reported on here and on the BBC website comments), they're not making any money out of me so will no doubt end my agreement.

I think that all card companies charge retailers a small percentage of the amount spent on their cards so that people who settle their bill in full each month do in fact make them a risk free income stream.

I have not had a letter from them. They did do well out of me back in my permie days when I used to owe huge sums on a series of cards, but my records show that I paid them off over a year ago and haven't used the card since.

It would save me the bother of cancelling the card if they did it for me.

[AtW]

I think that all card companies charge retailers a small percentage of the amount spent on their cards so that people who settle their bill in full each month do in fact make them a risk free income stream.

2-3% per transaction won't bring up ridiculous bonuses to execs - they want 20% APR from each customer, or more by selling worthless insurance.

[Gonzo]

2-3% per transaction won't bring up ridiculous bonuses to execs - they want 20% APR from each customer, or more by selling worthless insurance.

Agreed, but the 2-3% on transactions from customers that settle in full does not have anything like the amount of risk attached to lending to people unsecured.

Even with the worthless insurance there must be some possibility that they might have to pay out something at some time?


Of course, these are potential future problems and are not as important as the next set of quarterly profit statements. I really must get out of the habit of thinking of the long term, it is not the done thing anymore

[BrowneIssue]

... or more by selling worthless insurance.

I found out how valuable the insurance was when I was benched in 2000.

I had been paying the credit card payment protection insurance on my NatWest Access card from when I got it circa 1987. I went contract in 1995. From 1995 to 2000 it turned out I was not covered.

NatWest: "Director of a Ltd Co.? Not covered. F off."
Poor me: "But you've been taking the premiums. I want to claim."
NatWest: "Then that would be insurance fraud. F off."
Poor me: "Then can I have a refund?"
NatWest: "Are you still here? No. Next!"

That was when I learned: read the small print.

[AtW]

NatWest: "Director of a Ltd Co.? Not covered. F off."
Poor me: "But you've been taking the premiums. I want to claim."
NatWest: "Then that would be insurance fraud. F off."
Poor me: "Then can I have a refund?"
NatWest: "Are you still here? No. Next!"

That was when I learned: read the small print.

It seems to me that if at some point insurance company says that they won't cover insurance case due to breach of conditions, then if such breach was due to mistake from the very beginning then they should refund paid premium in full, because otherwise it appears like fraud from their side. This would make things balanced - insurance companies won't be having a business model designed to knowingly sell "insurance" that they would refuse to provide.

Frankly, there is no such thing as insurance - people pay money for the right to claim, it becomes insurance only after they succeed in their claim.

IMO legally all insurance companies should be obliged to print representative statistics showing %-tage of successful claimants (with description of their cases) and %-tage of unsuccessful, again with description of their cases.

[Bumfluff]

Ive been with Egg since they started will be interested to see if I get one of these letters. I have a low limit on card that I requested and pay off balance monthly. Looking at the comments on BBC site it looks like they are targeting people like this as well. I know my credit score is A1, has to be as I'm credit checked for every job I do.

A couple of years Egg did something simular and at the time I had a larger limit on my card, when they contacted me then they wanted to reduce my limit. I also had an issue with Cahoot, I wanted to increase a loan account and they wouldnt they said due to my credit rating. Which was bull sh*t I knew my credit profile was good enough it was due to the fact imo they werent making money off me.

Egg seem quite aggressive on there exposure management, I've need had the same experience with other credit card companies. I think may be they are trying to reduce their risk but are also using this as a smoke screen to get red of non profitable customers as well.

[pisces]

Surely its illegal to claim publicly you are bad risk but kick you off only because you are actually low risk (and thus low profit)?

The FSA should surely be interested. They have guidelines against encouraging bad debt so if Egg are actually terminating good accounts, they could be in for a massive fine