This ain't good....

[krisandclay]

This can't be good.

 

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lazarus-20140218,0,5011779,full.column#axzz2te44MF1K

[LONESTAR2014]

Even more glad that I closed all of my Cap One accounts!

[cashnocredit]

This can't be good.

 

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lazarus-20140218,0,5011779,full.column#axzz2te44MF1K

 

Looks like someone didn't keep their lawyers on a tight leash.

 

The article does make incorrect statements though. For instance this:

"Even the Internal Revenue Service cannot visit you at home without an arrest warrant," Rofman observed.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lazarus-20140218,0,2211926.column#ixzz2te8YDGlo

 

 

I can tell you as a matter of fact Rofman is dead wrong. I, for one, had such a visit and no, they had no warrant. There are tons of reasons the IRS, FBI, and other 3 letter agencies might have reason to visit you at home, For one thing, how do you suppose they do security checks for top secret peeps? That doesn't mean you have to let them in for a look around.

[Sandscrit]

First thing to do if one of these goons starts harrasing you is to contact the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and file a complaint.

[seetheworld1]

Wow. This is utterly despicable. Suddenly apping that Cap1 Venture isn't so appealing after all -- not that I plan to run it up and default, but, just on the general principle and to stand up to such outright abuse, I'll turn to another issuer for my needs. For anyone who's had an unexpected catastrophe in their lives that derailed their finances, this is a promise from Cap 1 to multiply your misery exponentially. Crap One, indeed. So brazen and shameless!

[cv91915]

Did anyone commenting here read the entire article, or are you just getting yourself worked into a lather over the headline?

 

In the body of the article it states that the "personal visit" is to retrieve property in which Capital One has a security interest. This "right" that they are including in contracts is basically the right to retrieve their own property when the person who agreed to use the property as collateral has defaulted on the repayment arrangement.

 

I don't think the concept of a "repo man" is really that controversial.

 

I know what you're going to say: "That's not what they really mean..." The article cites not a single example of a personal visit paid by Capital One that has ever happened, much less happened for a reason that isn't for repo purposes, nor have you nor anyone you personally know received a visit from Capital One for another purpose.

 

BTW, I am no Capital One fan.

[Guest]

Did anyone commenting here read the entire article, or are you just getting yourself worked into a lather over the headline?

 

In the body of the article it states that the "personal visit" is to retrieve property in which Capital One has a security interest. This "right" that they are including in contracts is basically the right to retrieve their own property when the person who agreed to use the property as collateral has defaulted on the repayment arrangement.

 

I don't think the concept of a "repo man" is really that controversial.

 

I know what you're going to say: "That's not what they really mean..." The article cites not a single example of a personal visit paid by Capital One that has ever happened, much less happened for a reason that isn't for repo purposes, nor have you nor anyone you personally know received a visit from Capital One for another purpose.

 

BTW, I am no Capital One fan.

 

+1

 

The more I think about it, the more I wonder why Capital One would just go sending reps to people's houses, costing them money to do so, for no reason, which is the same as any reason.

 

Same way, as if, say, do you know anyone ever charged with a crime for actually using an aerosol can in a manner other than directed? Sure, it is illegal to do so (says on the can.) But who has been CHARGED? AND, before you go saying, "What does being charged have to do with Capital One visiting?" Well, the question is.. When have you HEARD of someone being charged with.. Same as "When have you heard of Capital One coming to a house."

[backtobusiness]

Did anyone commenting here read the entire article, or are you just getting yourself worked into a lather over the headline?

 

In the body of the article it states that the "personal visit" is to retrieve property in which Capital One has a security interest. This "right" that they are including in contracts is basically the right to retrieve their own property when the person who agreed to use the property as collateral has defaulted on the repayment arrangement.

 

I don't think the concept of a "repo man" is really that controversial.

 

I know what you're going to say: "That's not what they really mean..." The article cites not a single example of a personal visit paid by Capital One that has ever happened, much less happened for a reason that isn't for repo purposes, nor have you nor anyone you personally know received a visit from Capital One for another purpose.

 

BTW, I am no Capital One fan.

Let the devil have his due!

[cv91915]

 

Did anyone commenting here read the entire article, or are you just getting yourself worked into a lather over the headline?

 

In the body of the article it states that the "personal visit" is to retrieve property in which Capital One has a security interest. This "right" that they are including in contracts is basically the right to retrieve their own property when the person who agreed to use the property as collateral has defaulted on the repayment arrangement.

 

I don't think the concept of a "repo man" is really that controversial.

 

I know what you're going to say: "That's not what they really mean..." The article cites not a single example of a personal visit paid by Capital One that has ever happened, much less happened for a reason that isn't for repo purposes, nor have you nor anyone you personally know received a visit from Capital One for another purpose.

 

BTW, I am no Capital One fan.

Let the devil have his due!

 

 

Was the devil the devil when the money was accepted by the borrower to purchase the car or the snowmobile? Or did the devil become the devil when the borrower defaulted and he sought the collateral that was pledged?

 

I'm trying to figure out the precise moment that the devilish transformation occurs.

 

Please don't misunderstand, I've done some time as a reprobate, but I am also the first to admit that I created my own disasters. I never tried to blame someone else, the devil or otherwise.

[Occam]

 

"We're here for your liver..."

 

You did read your account agreement, right?

 

Man, I am tired of consumers who don't read their cardholder agreement then act all surprised and stuff when they come for the liver.

 

 

[ladyran]

"For anyone who's had an unexpected catastrophe in their lives that derailed their finances, this is a promise from Cap 1 to multiply your misery exponentially. Crap One, indeed. So brazen and shameless!"... Exactly

 

I know people are going to be reading this and say you took the money so what's the problem. Or capital one is just putting it in their agreement but they're not actually going to do it. Sorry I've been on the receiving end of creditors doing something just because they could. Years ago my credit lines were cut first by Home Depot, then by Citibank and five months time I went from a 720 score to a 580 score never missing a payment just because the creditors could cut my lines because they could.

People don't set out getting credit and then just simply not paying. Something happens to people - they get sick, their children get sick, they get laid off, someone in the family dies, an unexpected emergency comes up, general economy going up that wasn't planned. Life happens.

It's easy to point the finger and say you got the money and you just didn't pay the bill but honestly it's not that simple. I don't think most people are trying to find some technical error by a creditor to get out of paying a debt.

From the people I work with on a daily basis they really want to pay their bills even when it's not in their best interest. Creditors push people into unnecessary extended delinquencies instead of working the situation out just because they can. If creditors took a step back, reduced the interests, reduce the nonsense extra fees, and actually worked with people to get them back to good paying customers again most of this could be avoided.

When you fall into a life issue you don't get extra brownie points for making it right. As an example you run into a life issue and your unable to make your credit card payments because the bank simply won't work with you. Of course you're automatically dinged on your credit report. It then goes to a debt buyer or a collection agency and finally you in a position to make the payments and you make a settlement. Sure they report on your credit report that the debts paid but you're still living with the aftereffects of not paying it in most instances 3 4 5 years. So you continue to suffer even after you did the right thing.

 

For me - I learned the hard way. I've read every agreement and figure out how can I use that agreement to my advantage. Same as capital one rewriting their terms and service to use it for their advantage.

This new agreement gives them pretty much carte blanche. I encourage everyone with a capital one card, or at least those that have the financial ability or the guts, to say very loudly "No Enough is enough". I hope that no one reading this ever has to walk in my shoes

[moni08]

This reminds me of the movie Confessions of a Shopaholic when the creditors kept going to the characters house and job lol.

 

I think this pretty much sums up with Cap One means...

 

""Capital One does not visit our cardholders, nor do we send debt collectors to their homes or work," Girardo said.

 

The exception to that, she said, is when it comes to big-ticket sporting goods. Cap One has partnerships with makers of gear like Jet Skis and Snowmobiles."

 

So don't fret people they are not coming to repo the bread you bought to get cash back lol

 

 

What was more interesting to me is the article stated...

"Cap One can "modify or suppress" people's caller ID capabilities and identify itself "in any manner we choose."

 

Does this mean they are going to use my moms name on the caller ID!

 

Moral of the story: don't default with Cap One.

Although they've never really been known to be too forgiving with defaults which is why this article or new update is no surprise. They haven't been called Crap One for nothing!