hdporter

My "838" on the PenFed site isn't worth citing a "Key Factor" apparently ... (so, how did you rate?)

How old are you??

I'm going to guess the author very proudly resides in his parents' basement ...

So, assuming from your cards profile that you'll be eligible for a reasonably prime credit card from Chase, your optimal choice is Chase Slate: 15 mo 0%, with no bt fee. https://creditcards.chase.com/balance-transfer-credit-cards/slate Do yourself a favor, though: Target a payment of $200-$300/mo, with an aim to repay at least 1/2 the balance during the promotional term.

Your "autocorrect" thinks your life is dull ... Congrats on the BA Cash Rewards card approval; it's a solid card. We love the 3% cb choice category of "online shopping". It's also our Costco purchase card (2%). That's sufficient to give it a good workout each month. And, of course, BA is generous when you request CLI.

If you want the Amex version of the Macy's card, you should be able to simply call and request it, whether your card level is silver or platinum.

Thrilled to be included

No, not really. After you first miss a payment on a statement (or a payment fails to be credited for any reason), your next month's statement will reflect that missed payment and a delinquency. But, at that point, you're not 30 days late, and generally have 10 days in which to correct the delinquency before the account goes 30 days late. Your post suggests that you failed to correct the delinquency until your account went 30 days late (twice). Now, I get it, spit happens. Been there and done that. My point isn't too hammer "responsibility" home. But if you're blind to your own actions which may have aggravated a situation, you're likely doomed to repeat them in some manner.

Receiving a statement showing a missed payment when you were about 10 days past the due date didn't give you a clue? (Just asking ...)

It's reasonable to assume Citi "remembers" the BK entry from when you were approved for the account. So, simply as a matter of inference, I suspect that card activity hasn't been sufficient for them to go forward with a CLI at this point, and that BK history is being cited as a convenient "reason". If you regularly charged the line up to 30% and PIF, then I'd expect that they'd be agreeable to the CLI. But if lighter use has been the norm, I wouldn't be surprised if they erred on the side of caution. But, obviously, that's all supposition. The truth could be just about anything.

I really want to say that your mother's friend is being wronged here. But as prior replies suggest, that takes a physical amendment to the original loan agreement. So the question is what does "from what I can see, both parties agreed to the arrangement" mean specifically. If it's the observation that regular payments are being accepted against the debt, that would also be consistent with the handling of any account in collections. On the other hand, if there were a stated agreement in place the specifically modifies the terms under which payments are required, then that's another situation all together. It sucks that the friend didn't understand the impact on her credit in entering this payment arrangement. It would obviously have been far preferable (in hindsight) that she seek out a loan to pay off the outstanding auto loan balance in full.

Absolutely, Still, while entering a goodwill request positioned as a prospectively profitable customer is a "feather in the cap", I'll suggest that success still largely demands that the recorded delinquency pass a reasonable test. A grantor of goodwill will likely look for some evidence that the delinquency reasonably occurred due a hardship experience AND that there's a reasonable expectation that the circumstances won't give rise to delinquency again down the road (in other words, the delinquency is a one time, unlikely to be repeated, event). In a credit environment that is increasingly resistant to goodwill adjustments, I don't think a request submitted without a compelling rationalization of the event will be successful. (Preferably a short and succinct one.) centex is no doubt correct in suggesting that a record of seven 30-day late payments isn't going to pass the "reasonableness" test, short of circumstances of extended hardship. ("My home was heavily damaged by a hurricane; I had to relocate into temporary living quarters for 6 months, during which time I kept up with responsibilities as best I could, but unfortunately this hardship got the "better" of me for awhile. (If helpful, I can document the events I describe, on request.)"

With the greatest of respect, I suggest that you're unlikely to find any traction in attempting to advance a complaint. I suggest chalking it up to a lesson learned. At age 20, there was reason for you to anticipate that there might be an issue with her checking in alone into a room booked with your credit card. The wisest course of action would be to have inquired specifically about her age when you booked. I acknowledge, that any such policy should be clearly stated in some very apparent fashion any time a reservation is booked. It's definitely not in the hotel's interest to inconvenience a guest. Nonetheless, the primary onus falls on you, if for no other reason than you're the one who suffers the consequence if things go awry. If you held high elite status with the hotel affinity program, that might nudge you up sufficiently that someone might decide to act on your complaint. Failing that, however, I expect the hotel will simply treat you as a dissatisfied customer for reasons for which they're not primarily at fault. (And, yeah, I only wish I managed my own life with careful forethought and impeccable planning )

You just planted an image of me in a pimped out '86 Town Car, with the apropos vanity plate: CREDPIMP

Directly to the point of my concern with BDF's suggestion that aid eligibility should be determined merely by one's declared major.