Credit Card Limits

[MelBridgeman]

I have recently noticed by accident that BMO MasterCard I have allows me to use it even though i have reached the limit - i have never asked for a credit limit raise higher than what it is but they are allowing me to breach the limit anyways

With it comes a $29 dollar over limit fee - is this legal? Do i have any recourse other than obviously keeping my MasterCard balance below the limit. It usually is but this time around was a exceptional case.

It kinda pisses me off that they allowed a transaction to through over the limit and than ding me with an over limit fee

[sclitheroe]

Pretty sure it's legal to enforce their cardholder agreements, so no, no recourse other than reading that document in full and deciding if you choose to abide by it or not.

[Regulator75]

They don't care, as long as they continue to make money off you.

[albertGQ]

I bet you'd be even more pissed if your transaction was declined due to being over the limit

[GP_Matt]

Most cards have over limit protection. Which sounds like what you got into.

Perfectly legal and outlined in your cardholder agreement.

On a side note, if trying to raise the limit the best time to do it is probably not when you are already at your limit.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by albertGQ

I bet you'd be even more pissed if your transaction was declined due to being over the limit

I'd much rather have a transaction declined so I could use a different card or pay cash instead of being hit with a $29 fee.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by albertGQ

I bet you'd be even more pissed if your transaction was declined due to being over the limit

Possible....

[Ace]

This has happened to me a couple times and I ask the CC companies to just deny the card rather than charge the fee, they always say they can't but then go and reimburse the over it fee...you just have to ask.

[Deegee]

Originally Posted by gargamel

I'd much rather have a transaction declined so I could use a different card or pay cash instead of being hit with a $29 fee.

Just as a side note as a banker, I always laugh when people complain about a $5.00 charge for letting an item passed the authorized limit go through.

I always retort with next time we'll bounce and rip you $40.00.

People who don't operate their financial instruments as agreed piss me off.

[Jbo]

Originally Posted by Deegee

Just as a side note as a banker, I always laugh when people complain about a $5.00 charge for letting an item passed the authorized limit.

I always retort with next time we'll bounce and rip you $40.00.

People who don't operate their financial instruments as agreed piss me off.

I'm in the industry as well, and what really boggles my mind is how little attention people/companies pay to there finances in general. More clients then you can imagine, will write tons of cheques and then get super pissed when it gets bounced based on Non-sufficient funds. It's unreal. The first thing they usually do is get mad at the Bank, or talk about how embarrassing a bounced cheque is. No what is embarrassing is you being unable to keep track of your finances. /rant (this could probably go in the GMG thread)

To the OP, the credit card companies operate in partnership, but independent from the bank. Talk directly to MasterCard and see if there is anything they can do.

[tkflames]

Originally Posted by Deegee

Just as a side note as a banker, I always laugh when people complain about a $5.00 charge for letting an item passed the authorized limit.

I always retort with next time we'll bounce and rip you $40.00.

People who don't operate their financial instruments as agreed piss me off.

Not related to this specific case..but banks that change the rules really piss me off. Yes I know my account agreement states that rates are subject to change at the banks discretion. This includes reducing the number of free transactions or increasing their fees at their leisure with arbitrary warning. RBC lost $50k worth of assets last week because of $4 in bank fees. I know the other banks are the same garbage but it's the principal that counts.

Coles notes: A person in the banking industry lecturing others on contracts and morals...that's rich my friend...

[Jbo]

Originally Posted by tkflames

Not related to this specific case..but banks that change the rules really piss me off. Yes I know my account agreement states that rates are subject to change at the banks discretion. This includes reducing the number of free transactions or increasing their fees at their leisure with arbitrary warning. RBC lost $50k worth of assets last week because of $4 in bank fees. I know the other banks are the same garbage but it's the principal that counts.

Coles notes: A person in the banking industry lecturing others on contracts and morals...that's rich my friend...

Just so I am clear.... You have an account with a bank. They made it clear the fees are subject to change. Some fees changed, and that somehow makes a bank immoral?

I'm not saying banks are perfect, but I work tirelessly to find solutions for my clients that best suit them. Fees are the cost of doing business, and you are going to see "Free (or no fee) Accounts" eliminated. This is due to to the fact that small accounts with small balances actually end up costing the bank money.

Coles notes: Bank provide a service. If you don't like the service, you have numerous options.

[Deegee]

Originally Posted by tkflames

Not related to this specific case..but banks that change the rules really piss me off. Yes I know my account agreement states that rates are subject to change at the banks discretion. This includes reducing the number of free transactions or increasing their fees at their leisure with arbitrary warning. RBC lost $50k worth of assets last week because of $4 in bank fees. I know the other banks are the same garbage but it's the principal that counts.

Coles notes: A person in the banking industry lecturing others on contracts and morals...that's rich my friend...

All companies adjust their rates and fees. All of them.

I know we typically give our members at least two months warning if our fees change, and I know we also plaster the notice on our statements, internet banking, branch, and general website.

Aside from calling everyone of our member owners, which is completely unrealistic from a business standpoint, I don't know what else we can do.

And you are very ignorant to imply everyone in the banking industry is devoid of morals. Rich indeed. You may find this hard to believe, but several of us truly care about the people we help. Not all of us just product dump to boost sales, some of us achieve good results simply by solving problems clients have identified with products.

[Kswiss]

What I find really annoying is people getting credit cards that dont know how to use them....Everything is written in the terms and conditions. If you know how to use credit cards you can actually make money off of them!

[Deegee]

Originally Posted by J-bo09

I'm in the industry as well, and what really boggles my mind is how little attention people/companies pay to there finances in general. More clients then you can imagine, will write tons of cheques and then get super pissed when it gets bounced based on Non-sufficient funds. It's unreal. The first thing they usually do is get mad at the Bank, or talk about how embarrassing a bounced cheque is. No what is embarrassing is you being unable to keep track of your finances. /rant (this could probably go in the GMG thread)

Well, I don't know where specifically you work, but I know in the large branch we operate in that we have several accounts that need to be actioned on.

I know it's risky to the Credit Union, but we typically don't bounce on a lot of people based on their tenure, if their Mortgage is with us, or if they get direct deposit pay on a regular basis.

We do typically warn our member owners that while we might be in a position to accommodate items that overdraw an account, it doesn't mean we always will, and we should not be depended on to do so.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Deegee

Well, I don't know where specifically you work, but I know in the large branch we operate in that we have several accounts that need to be actioned on.

I know it's risky to the Credit Union, but we typically don't bounce on a lot of people based on their tenure, if their Mortgage is with us, or if they get direct deposit pay on a regular basis.

We do typically warn our member owners that while we might be in a position to accommodate items that overdraw an account, it doesn't mean we always will, and we should not be depended on to do so.

Out of curiosity, when you say that you are more likely to cover a bounced check from someone who holds a mortgage with the CU, what is the reason? Is it because they are a steady customer and worthy of the banks trust or is there someway that a bounced check can be rolled into the mortgage debt?
Also, I am surprised that a person actually looks at a bounced check and considers the person who bounced it. I just assumed that it was a fully automated process, either the account can cover the check or it can't. Is that a CU move or do all banks do that?

[Jbo]

Originally Posted by Deegee

Well, I don't know where specifically you work, but I know in the large branch we operate in that we have several accounts that need to be actioned on.

I know it's risky to the Credit Union, but we typically don't bounce on a lot of people based on their tenure, if their Mortgage is with us, or if they get direct deposit pay on a regular basis.

We do typically warn our member owners that while we might be in a position to accommodate items that overdraw an account, it doesn't mean we always will, and we should not be depended on to do so.

You are correct. We do action on a daily basis. Further to that, you are right in saying that clients with long relationships or solid security will be allowed an overage on an exception basis.

To GP_Matt's question, it is based on a number of factors such as relationship, if security exists, etc. A mortgage in the banks name gives them a security position should you not cover.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by J-bo09

I'm in the industry as well, and what really boggles my mind is how little attention people/companies pay to there finances in general. More clients then you can imagine, will write tons of cheques and then get super pissed when it gets bounced based on Non-sufficient funds. It's unreal. The first thing they usually do is get mad at the Bank, or talk about how embarrassing a bounced cheque is. No what is embarrassing is you being unable to keep track of your finances. /rant (this could probably go in the GMG thread)

To the OP, the credit card companies operate in partnership, but independent from the bank. Talk directly to MasterCard and see if there is anything they can do.

I don't care about the 29 bucks live and learn, I was just surprised I got something I didn't ask for and have never needed until that moment.

Also in the fine print it does talk about fees associated with overdraft protection - but again THAT isn't something I asked for.

The only reason for the fee is I didn't pay it during the grace period - ultimately I had made the choice to pay it the fee.

no biggie - just surprised I got something i never asked.

[Jbo]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

I don't care about the 29 bucks live and learn, I was just surprised I got something I didn't ask for and have never needed until that moment.

Also in the fine print it does talk about fees associated with overdraft protection - but again THAT isn't something I asked for.

The only reason for the fee is I didn't pay it during the grace period - ultimately I had made the choice to pay it the fee.

no biggie - just surprised I got something i never asked.

Fair enough. I was not really trying to say you were in the wrong, just kind of addressing it in general.

[tkflames]

Originally Posted by J-bo09

Just so I am clear.... You have an account with a bank. They made it clear the fees are subject to change. Some fees changed, and that somehow makes a bank immoral? (1)

I'm not saying banks are perfect, but I work tirelessly to find solutions for my clients that best suit them. Fees are the cost of doing business, and you are going to see "Free (or no fee) Accounts" eliminated. This is due to to the fact that small accounts with small balances actually end up costing the bank money. (2)

Coles notes: Bank provide a service. If you don't like the service, you have numerous options. (3)

1. Yes, I think its an abuse of peoples time to arbitrarily adjust a signed contract at one parties discretion, because said party knows that it is a huge inconvenience for the other party to void the contract. This is particularly annoying when you are a long term customer of an institution. I understand that in the magic formula of net loss from customers leaving < extra revenue from an increase in "transaction fees". This does not however make it the right thing to do. In my opinion--and call me old fashioned in this sense-- there is value and morality involved in a contract that is signed on a mutually beneficial basis that does not see one party take advantage of the others time simply for the sake of a small revenue.

2. I would love to see the stats on this. You will have a hard time convincing me that the $4-5 worth of monthly fees are anything compared to the interest the bank skims off the top on assets that they are "holding" (read investing) on my behalf. Say a company like RBC has 5 million accounts (probably conservative) x $5 per account is $25 million ($75 million/quarter). This accounts for a mere 4% of RBC's income for the quarter ($1.6B). To me your arguement is more like a vail for broad stroke goudging your banks' clients. You will have a hard time convincing me that the bank loses money on any accounts with more than $5000 in them. You will have an even harder time convincing me that under the current model the bank loses any significant amount of money on any customers chequing account when considering the lifetime of the customer at a given bank.

3. Absolutely I have lots of options (that is why I changed banks). This does not change the fact that the bank is gambling a small percentage of its profits for the likelihood of inconveniencing my time.

Originally Posted by Deegee

All companies adjust their rates and fees. All of them.

I know we typically give our members at least two months warning if our fees change, and I know we also plaster the notice on our statements, internet banking, branch, and general website. (4)

Aside from calling everyone of our member owners, which is completely unrealistic from a business standpoint, I don't know what else we can do. (5)

And you are very ignorant to imply everyone in the banking industry is devoid of morals. Rich indeed. You may find this hard to believe, but several of us truly care about the people we help. Not all of us just product dump to boost sales, some of us achieve good results simply by solving problems clients have identified with products.(6)

4. See item 1 above, but I think changing the terms of the contract on a one sided basis is the immoral part. Honestly, if it was the middle of a recession and the bank was losing money ( and therefore needed to increase the fees to stay alive--i.e. what I would consider the spirit of the "increase clause" in the contract), I would pay the fees, knowing that when times are better, they would reward me with loyalty advantage interest rates or something. However, during a time of record profits, this is an opportunity to gouge clients that are limited in their choices and require a huge inconvenience to change banks.

5. Not necessary if you don't change the rates.

6. My apologies to both of your for this and in re-reading my post this was an inappropriate and offensive generalization. Unfortunately, to date I have not met a banker that resembles the person that you describe, but this does not excuse an attack on your entire profession.

I thanked both of your posts, because I appreciate both of you taking the time to respond and providing me with your perspective.

TK