Jump to content

Please consider disabling your adblocker for CreditBoards if you have not already done so.  This site depends on advertising revenue to stay online.


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About hdporter

  • Birthday July 16

Profile Information

  • Location
    Marietta, GA

Recent Profile Visitors

3,666 profile views
  1. As hege suggests, pay it ASAP. I would get in touch with your HOA to clarify why you aren't receiving their fee notices. I know our HOA reaches out several times before referring a fee for attorney collection. As far as the penalty being "highly unfair", I've no doubt that when you committed to the HOA agreement at closing, the fees were spelled out. If you legitimately didn't receive your HOA dues notices this year, you might see if the HOA is open to a full or partial fee waiver. In any case, there's nothing "unfair" about the penalty assessment.
  2. A picture is worth a thousand (* fill in the blank as you please *) ... Screenshot please!
  3. Grasp the points discussed here and have no argument. I welcome the transition to Barclays. I'm ok with Barclays; no problems to report. My Chase AARP has been on life support since the advent of superior cards (incl CSR). I had previously nerfed the CL to $5k, and just redeemed a $600 direct deposit of cb 2 weeks ago, so I'm well positioned for the move. Keeping my fingers crossed that Barclays may give me cause to put the card back in my wallet for at least 6 mo
  4. Oh ... you thought that was the measurement of the truck bed?? (I figured it was a Freudian "insert" ...)
  5. A Charger is a great drive when you're 25 and you're all about the "muscle". Install the right muffler, and you'll turn heads (and raise a few forefingers). But a Charger doesn't know finesse from "fine ass". I prefer a bit of subtlety.
  6. An extension of credit isn't a "right"; it's a privilege (subject to many regulations). No one has to rely upon "fine print" to understand that a credit card account can be withdrawn at any time, for any reason.
  7. ltg ... speaking as a guy who's had one or two tussles over the years here, if you haven't already found encouragement to dip you toe back in the water here, let me offer yet another nudge. Text, email, and message boards all suffer from presenting a limited dimensional message; it's difficult to get complete context in which something is extended every time. As suggested by others, there no question that no foul here and you'll only find well wishers. Now, on the other hand, if you post that you've acquired a credit card that pays 4% cb on McDonald's purchases, and you're thrilled to be generating $50+ in monthly cashback from it, don't be surprised if an intervention is organized ...
  8. Just to clarify, you're saying that they didn't initiate any direct collection activity after the bill had gone 90 - 180 days delinquent in their system? Did you press on why they didn't take this timely action that would alert you that the balance hadn't been properly settled by your carrier? Did you ask them why, after the matter had lain dormant for 2 years they then initiated collection activity? (Did you receive notice of this in the mail? Or was the first hint you had when the CA entered a tradeline into your CR?) Did you ask them, having let this lay dormant for 2 years, such that your insurer will no longer accept a revised claim, why they think you have an obligation to them after their having showed no good faith in seeking recovery of their claim? (And, if the answer is "yes" to the above questions, did you submit them to a senior associate or owner?)s Finally, while I understand that insurers typically set a 18-mo time frame for initial submission of a claim, this claim was submitted (and rejected) well within the defined window ... it just wasn't resubmitted by your provider in a timely fashion. Can you use this as prybar with the insurer to gain some cooperation in obtaining leeway to be permitted to resubmit the the claim now? (In other words, given that you can detail how you exercised all reasonable care to submit the claim in a timely fashion, can they cut you a break so that you don't suffer from the lack of care on the part of your provider?)
  9. Maybe I'm just insecure, but with our purchase in December, I can't imagine initiating the wire transfer without confirming it verbally with a party to whom I had previously spoken. (Given my nature, I probably double confirmed every step of our purchase/finance transaction.) I'm inclined to wonder just how cleverly the sender's email was hacked. Mind you, on the more amateur "phishing" emails I receive, the email domain has clearly been altered and, as such, is always a glaring red flag. (Sometimes you have to hit hover over the email field, or hit reply, to see the true return email address.) This is something I'm inclined to check in even the most innocuous cases ... and it's saved me some measure of confusion on an occasion or two, where otherwise the email appears to be (at first glance) genuinely sourced. Finally, if this was truly a thoroughly professional hack job that was relatively undetectable by the recipient, how did the fraudster f* up the receipt/collection of the funds such that they were recoverable by the bank days later. Wouldn't they take great pains to obscure the paper trail on the funds after they were collected? Don't get me wrong ... I'm entirely sympathetic to the couple involved and am thrilled that the funds were recovered. I simply want to understand just how vulnerable a reasonably savvy person is to such fraud.
  10. I think it's key to note that a google search of the adverse reason only pops up other experience by Synchrony (or it's former identity, GE Credit/GECC). What I take away from this is that the credit decision has nothing to do with anything flagged by TU. Instead, it reflects other adverse credit performance by others formerly at that address, or in the near vicinity. Given that this is the first I've heard of such an adverse reason being cited in a credit decision, I come away with two possible alternate conclusions: -- Other creditors also deny on a similar basis, but misrepresent the key reason by citing other less that perfect credit attributes in the adverse notice letter, or ... -- Other creditors may initially flag an application for a similar reason for additional review, but NEVER decline solely for that reason alone. Synchrony (aka suckrony) stands alone in shutting down an application for circumstances that have little to do with the applicant themselves. (Want to guess which of these two alternate explanations I favor?)
  11. The China commentary in this thread gave me cause to do a quick refresher. My China "experience" is limited to a tourist day tour out of Hong Kong in 1984, which involved a brief run through of Shenzhen and Guangzhou. (I did a 4-night stopover in Hong Kong when returning from a 2 week vacation in Australia.) It was a memorable day. We enjoyed a fabulous lunch somewhere between the two stops. As we pulled away from the restaurant, I spied an adjoining retaining pond teaming with raw sewage. (I feared an episode of "General Tso's Revenge"; needlessly as it turned out.) Later that day, a market vendor proudly held out a roast dog (were it a suckling pig, I might have suggested that it looked enticing ...). I suspect he was merely offering a photo op, rather than inviting me to purchase my dinner. But the unexpected entreaty unnerved me and I merely waved my disinterest. (I also connected up with a lovely young Taiwanese woman during the tour, who was in transit to Toronto where she was starting a work assignment. She was delightful company over the next two days before I departed for home.) So, I'm quite familiar with the fact that since my stopover tour there's been a considerable transition of population from rural areas into the cities. But when I looked for pop stats on these two cities, I was unable to fathom the numbers: Shenzhen (immediately outside Hong Kong) had a reported population of 143,000 in 1984. Guangzhou, about 80 mi to the north, had a pop of 2.2 million. The respective populations are now reported as 12 million and 13 million, respectively.
  12. This added information sheds all the light needed to grasp the correct reporting applicable here. If you go to the Swiss Colony website and link to their credit terms, the agreement is very much in the form of an installment credit account: A monthly payment is stipulated and is fixed based upon your last "Highest New Balance" and continues for a stated number of months (that number is also based upon the "Highest New Balance"). (See: https://www.swisscolony.com/cm/buy-now-pay-later/?cm_re=credit-links-_-header-_-credit ) This contrasts with a revolving credit account, where the monthly payment is calculated based upon the current statement balance outstanding, and varies each month accordingly. I understand the source of your confusion in making a call on the account type involved. However, in substance, this account meets all the necessary criteria to be considered an installment account (i.e. "Loan").
  13. Sorry for the extraneous Marv quote (I was interrupted and apparently hit "submit") Let me reply from "scratch". With a tad more time available, I've referred back to my own EXP report (downloaded online). On my report, unsecured loans report just as "Account Type" Unsecured, with the "Loan Terms" field showing the number of payments. So, apologies for citing from my faulty memory ;). This reporting slightly differs from your citation of text reading "Unsecured Loan". I'll chalk that up to a possibly different EXP source. (It would be helpful to know what is reported under the "Terms" field). Accepting at face value that your account is reporting as an installment loan, what documentation do you have to suggest that a different account type should apply? (not challenging your assertion; just asking how you would argue the creditor's assertion that it was a installment account?) Again, please understand that it's not required that cash have been transferred from the lender to you. It's sufficient that goods were exchanged in consideration of your acceptance of the installment debt responsibility. So long as that debt stipulated a fixed payment each month, for a given number of months, then Type: "Installment" is accurate. On the other hand, if you were merely subject to a minimum payment and there wasn't a fixed amortization schedule in place, then Type: "Charge Card" or "Credit Card" would appear to be the proper classification. From a practical standpoint, I presume that you're not busting your back over this because of this possible discrepancy, but instead have hope that the dispute might be a pry bar by which to get the account deleted (along with any derogatory content). I can respect that (and correct me if this is a misapprehension.) But, understand that such deletions only typically occur when the creditor doesn't respond to a CRA's dispute inquiry. Disagreement with what the creditor responds with are typically handled be resolving that disagreement and reporting the result. If you're well grounded in a claim that this account isn't an installment loan account (in other words, most likely should be classified as a revolving account), and you provide solid evidence to the CRA and they fail to resolve the discrepancy between that and the response from the creditor, then you likely have cause to seek a legal remedy. I won't speculate on what remedies might apply (citing "I ANAL" ... I am not a lawyer).

About Us

Since 2003, creditboards.com has helped thousands of people repair their credit, force abusive collection agents to follow the law, ensure proper reporting by credit reporting agencies, and provided financial education to help avoid the pitfalls that can lead to negative tradelines.
  • Create New...

Important Information