Here's the blog's argument for why Bank of America isn't honoring its promise to customers and to Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA). On October 6th the bank released a letter in which it pledged to stop re-pricing existing credit card accounts—but introducing an annual fee where none existed before sure sounds like re-pricing, doesn't it? BoA explained it like this: they only promised to not raise interest rates.

However, that's not true. WalletBlog points out that the bank made no such distinction in their October 6th letter. Here's the relevant excerpt:

"In light of the concerns expressed to us by our customers, Bank of America will not implement any change in terms (risk or economic based) re-pricing of consumer credit card accounts between now and the effective date of the CARD Act."

That language doesn't draw any distinctions between types of re-pricing, so it's kind of weird to retroactively define the term as only relating to interest rates.

But this is a moot point because the letter only promises that they won't practice re-pricing between now and the implementation of the CARD Act. After that goes into effect in February 2010, the promise no longer applies. I don't know why BoA's representative bothered to misrepresent the language of the letter when he could just as easily have pointed out that it was nothing more than a temporary pledge—and mostly an empty once, since they had already re-priced many accounts in the month leading up to the letter.

As far as implementing fees after the CARD Act goes into effect, well, that's where WalletBlog says that BoA may end up in violation of the law. BoA argues that the CARD Act prohibits raising interest rates but says nothing about implementing annual fees, but WalletBlog points out that the language of the CARD Act is ambiguous, and thanks to a 1996 Supreme Court case involving Citibank, the FDIC considers the term "interest" to include:

...among other things, the following fees connected with credit extension or availability: numerical periodic rates, late fees, not sufficient funds (NSF) fees, overlimit fees, annual fees, cash advance fees, and membership fees.

It sounds like BoA may be testing the boundaries of the CARD Act and seeing if it can get away with annual fees by arguing that they're not specifically prohibited.

Be sure to check out WalletBlog's full post on the matter.

"Bank of America Tries but Fails to Defend New Annual Fees" [WalletBlog]
"Bank of America Readies Itself to Break the Law" [WalletBlog]
(Photo: mrkathika)

Consumer electronics, appliances, toys and games are sold at www.lay-away.com, which charges no service fees to consumers because revenues come from sales commissions paid by retailers. A $35 fee applies on canceled orders.

Consumers who go to www.elayaway.com are charged a 1.9 percent transaction fee on merchandise purchased from retail partners that include Apple, Bass Pro Shops, Best Buy and Home Depot. Cancellation fees are $25, or 10 percent of the cost of the merchandise, whichever is less.

I can't recommend either site without knowing more about how well they work, but a quick comparison of a Nintendo DS Lite at eLayaway.com showed one available from Best Buy for $129, the same price being offered on the official Best Buy site. As always, read the fine print and make sure that any hidden costs aren't being bundled into the total price.

"Layaway makes a return as stores court strapped consumers" [San Jose Mercury News]
(Photo: No Trams To lime Street)

To recap, Capital One told Andon to wait 30 days before calling in to request activation. When he followed their instructions and called back 30 days later, he was told that he had to have called 5 days earlier to activate it for that month. Then he was charged a late fee.

Andon sent the company an Email Executive Carpet Bomb, or EECB, explaining what happened. This was the result:

I would just like to let you know that I sent an EECB, and was contacted today by Greg at Capital One who worked out the problem for me. He said I was absolutely right about the problem with the first month of the Emergency Payment Protection (the whole waiting for thirty days since unemployment, but having to have called five days before the payment's due date,) and that there is actually a special exception program in order to address this, but that it just wasn't followed properly in this case. They were very understanding, and apologized for the inconvenience - all is well, now.

Congratulations, Andon! Remember, if the front line of customer service at a company refuses to see logic or reason, try to escalate it to higher levels. Frequently it's either a case of the CSR being powerless to help you, or a breakdown in training or communication.

RELATED
"Capital One Tricks Customer Into Not Activating Emergency Payment Protection Plan"

Everett wrote in how Capital One called him up and said, "due to the changes made by [the Card Act], Capital One would have to deny any charges that goes over your credit limit starting in February of 2010. However if you want to maintain the ability to go over your credit limit you could opt to have your account stay the same as it is now. Your fee for going over your credit limit would be dropped to $29 (from $39) if you chose to do this."

What's up is that the new CARD act says that if you're going to charge overlimit fees, customers have to opt-in to it. Most credit card companies have chosen instead to drop overlimit fees entirely. Capital One is actually trying to get permission here, they're just misleading in saying that they have to "deny any charges that go over your credit limit starting February 2010. In reality, after Feb 10. Capital One has to stop charging this consumer fees for any overlimit transactions.

So you're not giving up all your rights, you're opting in to overlimit fees. I'm sure there's some subset of the population that enjoys paying fees, so I commend Capital One for developing a product line that addresses their needs.

PREVIOUSLY: Capital One: Waive Your Rights, Get $10 Off Your Next Overlimit Fee!

Here's his story:

I have a credit card with Capital One, and a few months ago I was contacted by them about setting up an Emergency Payment Protection Plan. Given the way the economy and job market have been, this sounded like a good idea. I should also note that I am also a full-time college student, and I suffered a medical emergency back in February, for which I am still paying. I worked about 24 hours a week (full time in the summer,) until I was downsized from my job on September 28th, 2009.

I called Capital One on September 30th to let them know this, and to try and activate my Emergency Payment Protection. When I talked with a representative in Payment Protection, they told me that I would have to wait 30 days from then, and—if I was still without a job at that point—then they would start taking care of my minimum payments for me. They also told me that I would have to take care of September's payment, but both stipulations seemed reasonable enough to me. Essentially, I had to be unemployed for a month before they would begin covering my payments—fair enough, right?

So, I received my last paycheck at the end of September, and I spent nearly every dollar on utility bills, leaving me with literally no money throughout October. The end of the month comes around, and I call Capital One back to let them know that I need to activate my Emergency Payment Protection. They transfer me to Payment Protection, where I am told that I would have had to have called five days before October's payment due date for them to cover my minimum payment.

I paused for a moment, and then explained the paradox: if I had to wait 30 days for them to cover my minimum payments, but I would have needed to have called five days in advance of the end of the month, then how could I feasibly, logically, realistically have sorted this out? The representative saw the problem, and told me that I would need to speak to someone at Capital One to get the retro-payment ordeal sorted out.

I go back and forth between both departments, until I finally speak to a supervisor at Capital One who tells me that they can waive the late fee for the October payment, but that now my account would have to be current before any Emergency Payment benefits would go into effect. I told them that I appreciated them doing that, but it still didn't solve my problem.

TL;DR: I have no money, and I am stuck between Capital One and their Payment Protection department's arbitrary rules. If I had to wait 30 days to activate my benefits, but I needed to do it five days before the due date, then that's a logistics problem on their end, and also a physical impossibility (for the first month, at least.) I did nothing wrong—I followed their instructions exactly as they were prescribed to me—and yet, I feel like I am being punished.

I know my account has to be current for them to cover my minimum payments, but what happens when it's no fault of my own that my account isn't current? This is a problem that they need to sort out on their end. I have been a customer of theirs for over three years, and I don't feel I should be punished for simply following the rules.

NOTE: Please know that everyone I spoke with during this ordeal was very kind and considerate. They recognized the problem and understood the situation, but they all told me that there was nothing they could do about it. This is not their fault, this is the fault of the company and their rules and regulations.

Update, November 6th, 2009: Andon wrote back with an update, and it looks like Capital One has agreed to activate the protection.

RELATED
"Capital One Calls To Dun For Payment Before It's Even Due"

I got a call from my mother-in-law yesterday, saying that someone had called her Saturday night (11PM, no less), and asked for my number. When she asked who they were, they said they were the NCO (something) credit claim company. When she asked who they were calling on behalf of, they refused to say, so she refused to give my number, but copied down theirs. I was surprised to hear this, as we are very good with our credit, and going through all my bills, not a single one was late — or even due!

So, I called the number yesterday, and was greeted with, "Hello, you've reached Capital One's Collection Dept. How may I help you?" At this point, knowing it's CapitalOne, I shuffled through my bills to find theirs. I found it, and saw that I had already paid this bill. I told her who I was, and asked what the call to my mother-in-law was in reference to. She mentioned that they were attempting to collect a bill from me. I said, "Are you referring to the bill I just paid? The bill that is not due until November 13th?"

She confirmed that was the bill she was trying to collect, and when I asked her why they were attempting to collect a bill 2 weeks in advance, she said it's just standard policy. I asked her if it was also standard policy to contact my mother-in-law, and how she even got the number in the first place. She didn't answer the question, but just kept sidelining it by trying to confirm my own number. I eventually just gave up trying to resolve this issue, and demanded that she remove all phone numbers from my account except for mine; explaining to her that it was VERY embarrassing to have my mother-in-law be contacted by a collection agency for a bill that isn't even due yet!

Once we cleared all that up, I asked her to make a note on my account to not contact me unless my bill is past due. She said that she would, and as she was doing her sign-off, she said, "And sir, I've made a note on you account to not contact you less than 2 days before you bill is due." I asked her what that meant, and she said, "Well, we may contact you a few days or weeks before a bill is due just to remind you." I told her that I didn't need that reminder, and she said, "Yes, sir, but we also want to contact you to offer protection services and other offers."

So, here's how CapitalOne does business:

Step 1: Harrass extended family members at late hours with collection agency calls on bills not yet due

Step 2: Refuse to answer questions about how numbers mysteriously get attached to accounts

Step 3: Inadvertently confirm that this whole mess was just a ruse to sell me protection services

I'll be paying off, and closing this account next month. I'll be sticking with my credit union for all my credit needs in the future!

Apparently if you sign up for a Capital One credit card, you also agree to monthly telemarketing calls. Remember that by law, any company you have a business relationship with is allowed to contact you for marketing purposes. Maybe it's best to just not do business with the company at all.

UPDATE: By the way, here's an example of the kind of products Capital One is trying to sell: an "emergency payment protection plan" that they'll try to keep you from activating when a real emergency happens.

RELATED
"Capital One Tricks Customer Into Not Activating Emergency Payment Protection Plan"
(Photo: TheTruthAbout...)

A rep from Edelman, Microsoft's PR company, wrote:

Wanted to follow up with you on your Consumerist story about a dog buying LIVE points (Man Wakes Up To Find Dog Went On XBOX Spending Spree)! It got back to Microsoft and they are taking action to correct the situation. People spend tens of billions of dollars on their pets every year, but it's pretty unusual for your pet to return the favor! Luckily for Greg [redacted], Microsoft is refunding his LIVE points and providing extra for good measure. We also created a gamertag for his dog Oscar so that Oscar doesn't feel left out anymore!

It's still probably a good idea to set those parental controls if you've got your credit card info saved on your Xbox Live account.

(Photo: Kotaku)

Everett writes:

The person on the other end of the phone informed me, "due to the changes made by [the Card Act], Capital One would have to deny any charges that goes over your credit limit starting in February of 2010. However if you want to maintain the ability to go over your credit limit you could opt to have your account stay the same as it is now. Your fee for going over your credit limit would be dropped to $29 (from $39) if you chose to do this." I find it interesting that I can waive federal law applying to my credit card account for a potential savings of ten dollars. Comparing that to everything I'd lose out on, I decided to "opt in" for the law to apply to me.

I was also told I could "change my mind at any point, and give Capital One a call to let them know."

Actually, this is brilliant. Some people don't need the government telling them they can't live outside their means and they should be able to claim a discount for being a more profitable credit card customer.

I am curious whether "have your account stay the same as it is now" means that you would opt out of ALL of the CARD act provisions, or whether it's just the overlimit fee part.

UPDATE: Turns out that this is just about getting people to opt-in to overlimit fees: Update: Capital One: Waive Your Rights, Get $10 Off Your Next Overlimit Fee!

(Photo: helgasms!)

Fees like:
$1.75 for each ATM withdrawal
$1 for each ATM balance inquiry
$.50 for each purchase
$4 monthly maintenance charge


Prepaid debit cards are a way for people who can't or won't get a banking account to do ATM withdrawals, make purchases online and to buy stuff without carrying cash around. But the hidden fees and sparse regulation can mean the unbanked get jacked once again.

The real cost of prepaid debit cards [FST] (Graphic by GDS Digital)

You don't e ven have to be logged in to Amazon, or any other site that uses it. Best of all, it's not PayPal. It's linked to your credit card so if something goes wrong with your transaction, you actually have a prayer of getting your money back. And it's also linked to your shipping address so you don't have to keep entering it in at all these different sites.

A possible solution for making it easier to buying stuff on your mobile.

Would you use PayPhrase? Do you think it's safe?

PayPhrase [Amazon]
Amazon Speeds Checkout with New PayPhrase Technology [Read Write Web]

BillShrink's research found that no companies are complying with the Credit Card Act's rules that issuers allocate payments fairly and educate customers about the pitfalls of only making minimum payments. BillShrink runs down the major changes of the new laws and tracks the percentage of credit card companies that are currently complying with each:

· 0% of issuers allow for fair allocation of payments

· 0% of issuers educate customers on dangers of minimum payments

· 50% offer protection from arbitrary rate increases

· 80% have eliminated universal default

· 95% of issuers have eliminated fees from double-cycle

· 95% now give cardholders enough time to pay their bill

Looks like Dec. 1 can't come soon enough.

Credit Card Bill of Rights: Which cards are complying? [BillShrink]
(Photo: kainr)

Why are so many states going after debt relief companies? Because they insert themselves between consumers and creditors and suck up the money earmarked for creditors by promising that they're going to renegotiate payments—and then they don't keep that promise.

According to a lawsuit by the Illinois Attorney General, Credit Solutions of America does just that; it "continually fails to negotiate with consumers' creditors even though consumers cease to pay their creditors directly and, instead, make months of upfront payments to CSA."

So now the AGs are asking the FTC to tighten telemarketing rules, like prohibiting them from collecting fees before rendering services.

"In an ever-building wave of ploys and scams on consumers, debt settlement and debt negotiation companies promise to help consumers eliminate or reduce their debts, but often fail to deliver on these promises," said Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray. "Tougher regulations will help to rein in some of the most deceptive and unfair practices in this industry."

"States Want Coordinated Crackdown On Debt Relief Firms" [Consumer Affairs]

"Maybe Amazon and Visa should talk?" [The Atlantic]
(Photo: TheTruthAbout...)

I signed up for Wachovia's Way2Save program, which gives you 5% interest on your savings the first year. You can only deposit $100 a month into the account. The only other way to put money in is by account activity (paying bills, etc). So I scheduled a lot of $1 bill payments to my credit cards every day to try to get as much money in the savings account as possible.

Wachovia put a temporary hold on my checking account without telling me. There was no phone call, email, or online notification. So imagine my horror when I got emails from their billpay service saying they couldn't withdraw the money from my checking account and were reversing the bill payments. I had deposited several hundreds in cash (in person) into the checking account, so I knew it couldn't be because the funds hadn't cleared. And the bill payments totaled only around $200 anyway.

When I called, it turns out that Wachovia had put a temporary hold on my checking account, freezing the funds. No one was able to explain why, but they said the hold was gone. They weren't able to stop the payments from reversing.

The end result? My credit cards are charging me over $5000 in reversed payment fees (150 reversed payments * $39 average per returned payment, you do the math). In particular, Chase has canceled all my cards because of the multiple returned payments. I called my Chase small business card account, and the specialist at Chase said they could not do anything, or even waive *some* of the returned payment charges, unless I could get Wachovia to send a letter saying the returned payments were the result of bank error.

I called Wachovia, and they refused to do anything. Their stance is that it was not a bank error because I scheduled the bill payments, not them. There were no notes on my account (because I had talked to someone in bill pay, which apparently is a contracted out service, not part of their own system). They had no record of any hold on the account, and even if there was a hold, it wasn't their responsibility because I had scheduled the bill payments myself. They also mentioned deposit availability, though I pointed out that I had deposited cash. I'm going into a branch on Friday, but I don't think they will write anything for me either.

I haven't called the other credit cards yet. I'm dreading calling my other credit cards to see if they will waive anything. So in the end, I am stuck with this fiasco. At least Christopher's problem was caused by the same bank charging him the fees. They have the power to waive the fees. What happens when the problem is caused by a different bank, and that bank won't help at all, not even write a stupid letter?

I hate Wachovia. I don't have problems with it if the problems were caused by my scheduling bill payments, and there wasn't money in the checking account. I do have problems when the checking account says I have several hundred dollars available, I had deposited more than enough cash to cover the bills the previous week, and there is NO notification that a temporary hold had been put on the funds. How is that my fault and not the bank's???

Do you have any EEOB-type email addresses I could possibly use to write to the service departments at Chase, Bank of America, Discover, Amex, and Citibank?

Or any advice on how to handle the situation? Ways I can convince Wachovia to write the freakin' letter? Or am I stuck sucking it up?

The wildest thing about this is the idea that Wachovia would have no record of the minute-to-minute status of your accounts, including your deposits and when funds became available. You should go into a Wachovia and have a nice long sit-down with someone there, where you both go over the account item by item if necessary, until they have to admit that there is not a single reason those payments should have been reversed. After all, if they don't have a reason for—or even a record of—placing the hold, it should be easy to determine that you always had the funds necessary to cover your payments.

For now, keep this with Wachovia. It's on them to correct their mistake, and to provide you the necessary evidence you need to get your other creditors to reverse the charges and re-open those accounts. Unfortunately our Wachovia contact info is getting pretty dated (although now there's a Twitter contact), but maybe you can get somewhere if you EECB Wells Fargo. (Tell them you're a dirty telemarketer who wants to rip off old people and they should prick up their ears.)

For other Wachovia customers, you might want to find a less dangerous way to save your money. Tying it to bill payments is pretty risky, and you don't have to have an exceptional case like Susan's to wipe out your gains—a single error, whether by you or Wachovia, could easily do it.

(Photo: suburbandollar)

Most consumers do not know that it costs $4 to $7 to buy a general purpose gift card or that they may be subject to monthly fees of up to $4.95 as soon as six months after the card is purchased, consumer advocates said on Monday.

More sad factoids findings from the survey, which was commissioned by the Consumer Federation of America and National Association of Consumer Agency Administrators:

• Only 33% of consumers "knew the fees involved in purchasing general purchase gift cards."
• Only 54% "knew that that monthly fees sometimes kicked in six to 12 months after their purchase."
• 17% said "they sometimes had trouble spending the entire amount of the card because a store refused to split a payment between the card and another payment method."

The consumer groups told Reuters that "An estimated 10 percent of this value (the card's original value) is never used."

If you want to give someone the gift of money, there are so many better ways to do this—personal check, actual cash, or store-specific gift cards. Buy someone a general purpose credit gift card, however, and you'll just be inadvertently giving a nice big gift to the card company.

"US consumer advocates warn of gift card costs" [Reuters]
(Photo: SuZenDu)

At first, Jessica figured the problem stemmed from two recently disputed sales, both of which she resolved with the buyers on her own. But then, after getting stonewalled by PayPal's robot army of content-free email messages, she tried calling. Here's her story:

In mid-July, I sold a BlackBerry Pearl 8100 and a White MacBook with a fresh Leopard install on eBay. All was fine. Then in August, both buyers disputed in PayPal, for non-legitimate reasons. The phone guy disputed because he said it took too long to ship, but he had agreed to a longer ship time since he was from Indonesia and bought the phone even though I said US buyers only. The delay was because I had to go to the post office during the day to fill out the customs form, and I was busy studying for the NY bar and so it took me about a week to get to the post office. He dropped the claim when he received the phone and all was well. The girl who bought the MacBook disputed because of buyer's remorse, and lied and said that it had Tiger installed instead of Leopard, which it didn't. I mailed her a leopard disc and she dropped that dispute as well.

Lo and behold, PayPal decides to restrict my account because of "suspicious activity" so I can't use it. Fine, I understand selling to Indonesia and two disputes in a week seems sketchy. So I complete the steps in the Resolution Center to remove the limitation. But it's not lifted. I try calling, several times, and no one seems to be able to tell me why the system hasn't lifted the restriction. I send tons of emails to customer support, all of which are responded to by telling me that to resolve a limitation, I should complete the steps listed in the resolution center. Awesome, I love robots. I wait a week, and try calling again, nothing. Finally, at the end of September, I launch an EECB to all the addresses listed here on Consumerist for PayPal. I hear nothing, not one response. I try that again a week later, rewriting the email in case there are some kind of filters to delete repeat email. Again, nothing.

I called again, and spoke with a young man who told me that PayPal has "linked" my account to some other account (with a completely different email that he won't tell me what it is) that has a negative balance and until that balance is resolved, I can't have my account back. I ask him how much the balance is, but he won't tell me. He gave me absolutely no way of working out the problem so I can have my account back. He tells me he will send an email with details. I receive the email several hours later, but it of course has no actual details, and is a regurgitation of what the guy on the phone said.

So, here I am, with $24 in my account that I can't access (doesn't sound like much, but it is a week's worth of groceries for a future attorney who doesn't yet know whether she passed the bar and can begin her life's work of human rights law - no jokes please! ;)), and a PayPal Buyer Credit account that I can't use but of course can still make payments on, with no course of action or guidance whatsoever from PayPal. All I want is the restriction lifted, or at least something I can do to resolve this mess and close my account.

Does anyone have any other advice on what Jessica can do to get her money back?

Kotaku reader Greg says that while he slept his year-old Lab/Hound mix, Oscar, attacked his Xbox 360 controller managing to both turn on the console and purchase 5,000 Microsoft Points as he gnawed the hard plastic controller.

"I realized it when I checked my phone to see what time it was (I had to be at work soon) and saw the e-mail from Microsoft confirming the purchase for $62.50," he told Kotaku via email. "At that point it was a little after 5 a.m.... not something you want to wake up to."

Greg's not asking for a refund or anything, and used the points his dog purchased to download some more games.

Still, his plight is a good example of why it's smart to set up parental controls on computers that store your credit card info.

Does anyone out there have any horror stories about kids or pets making unauthorized purchases?

Dog Bites Man's Live Account? [Kotaku]
(Photo: Kotaku)

Daniel had a payment due on September 6th, so he paid it on August 22nd. Then, the day after that payment was due—that is, on September 7th—he made another payment for the next cycle.

The problem is, that new cycle hadn't started yet, so Chase applied it as a second payment to his past statement. Then when the new due date came and passed earlier this month, they reported him late and charged him a $39 late fee.

Daniel has repeatedly tried to reason with Chase, pointing out that he has a history of making all of his payments on time and early, but Chase would only repeat the same boilerplate rejection over and over. Below are some of the responses Daniel's gotten from Chase CSRs this month:

I am unable to take further action regarding the late fee reflected on your statement. Your payment was due on 10/7/2009 and as of today 10/13/2009 we have yet to receive a payment for your account.

Please keep in mind that Chase offers the following tools to better assist you in managing your account:

-Alerts - Alerts can be personalized to fit your personal needs.
-AutoPay - Autopay can be set up to pay the minimum payment or statement balance in full on your statement due date.

Although, I wasn't able to make the adjustment as requested, I am glad I was able to provide other payment options. If you have any further questions, please reply using the Secure Message Center.

Your account was previously reviewed and the response explained why we could not make the adjustment requested. I am unable to take further action regarding the late fee reflected on your November statement.

I apologize we could not credit your account as you wished but hope that you have a good week.

If you have any further questions, please reply using the Secure Message Center.

Thank you for taking the time to contact us again in regards to the payment made on your account ending XXXX.

A late fee was assessed because your payment of $64.38 was received before your 09/11/2009 statement cycled. Therefore, the payment was applied to the previous due date of 09/06/2009 so a payment for the 10/06/2009 due date has not been received.

Hence, a minimum payment is due and the account is in past due status.

Thank you for contacting Chase with regards to the issues currently affecting your account.

I am unable to remove the late payment fee and interest charges because a minimum payment was not received by the due date.

If you have any further questions, please reply using the Secure Message Center.

This is a common enough occurrence (at least judging by the tips we receive) that I suspect it's a deliberate fee trap set up by credit card companies: they get you in the habit of thinking in terms of a payment due date, but what matters just as much is the statement cycle date, which they conveniently gloss over. Then people attempt to pay early because they're trying to be more responsible, and the credit card company makes a little extra money.

The bank could easily avoid this by presenting an alert when a customer schedules a payment that says, "This payment will be applied to the statement cycle of [date range]." That Chase doesn't do this makes it pretty clear that it's yet another crack the bank hopes new customers like you fall into.

Don't give up the fight yet, Daniel. So far all you've done is dealt with the lowest, least empowered foot soldiers on the Chase side of things—faceless CSRs who spend their days assembling responses from snippets of pre-written blather. Here are two other strategies to try:

1. Call Chase and explain your story. Make it clear you understand now what the "statement cycle" date means as far as paying your bill, but that this wasn't made clear to you in any way as you scheduled that payment, and that's why you were led to believe it would apply to your next payment. If you have proof that an identical action resulted in no late fee back when the card was owned by WaMu, point that out. Escalate the issue as high as you can if you keep running into bad Do Nothing employees.

2. If that fails, try sending an Executive Email Carpet Bomb (EECB) to Chase. Make your letter short but full of detail, and make it very clear what happened.

If Chase ignores you, complain to the following agencies. Remember, charging a late fee for a missed deadline isn't illegal, and that's really all that happened here. But what you should keep hammering over and over is the fact that Chase makes it possible for customers to accidentally pay "too early" without triggering any sort of warning, and then uses that trap to generate late fees.

1. Report Chase to the Comptroller of the Currency at 202-874-4700.

2. Report Chase to your state's Office of the Attorney General.

3. Report Chase to your elected officials. You might want to make sure yours are on the side of consumers first—here's how senators voted on the Credit CARD Act of 2009.

4. Report Chase to the FTC:

(Photo: blmurch)

Here's what Victor wrote:

We finally got one of the letters we've been reading about on Consumerist, but this one has a twist.

Citibank is raising the interest on our paid-on-time, good status gold card to 29.99% on November 30, 2009. BUT, they'll give us a rebate on the last 10% of the rate 90 days later on a rolling basis if we continue to pay on time. So charging something, leaving it on the account will incur 29.99% interest on December 1st, but we'll get the 10% part of that back in March, and every month after that.

This seems very convoluted and is definitely annoying. For us, it means that we have a 19.99% rate, but with a 90 day perpetual delay. Fortunately we have a small balance on this card. We've decided to just pay off the card and stick it in a drawer before November 30th. This is too stupid to deal with.

But it turns out that what Citibank is offering isn't a 10% reduction in your interest rate, merely a 10% rebate on the interest you paid under the new rate. Our reader Zclyh3 sent us a copy of the letter, which you can expand to read yourself if you like (click the image to enlarge). We copied the part that explains how the new plan works:

Earn interest back every month.

Here's how — make your payment on time every month.

Each month you do, you will receive a credit on your billing statement equal to 10% of your total interest charge on purchase balances. This can help offset the increase in your purchase APR. Start earning interest back in December and January, and you will see the full credit on your statement no later than February 2010 and monthly after that.

If in any month you do not pay on time, you may not be eligible to continue to participate in this program.

(Photo: TheTruthAbout...)

Quan writes:

I just wanted to let you know about a recent problem (10/15) with the Shell branded Citi Mastercard. Apparently, on October 15th, Citi decided to close thousands of accounts without notice. When I personally called to see why my card was closed, they CSR's response was " Something on your Equifax report prompted us to close your account. A letter was supposed to have sent out to you, but there was a delay. You will receive your letter shortly, which will provide further details." She would/could not tell me what was wrong exactly. Curious, I decided to check my credit report and NOT to my surprise, absolutely nothing negative was recently added! I decided to do a google search to see if others have experienced similar issues and I found out I was not the only one.

So, they are closing accounts for no apparent reason and telling their (former) customers that there is something wrong with their credit report when there really isn't. The best part is that Citi is not going to be paying the rebate we have earned for purchases in the previous month because the account was closed. For some people this is quite significant because they use this card as their primary card. I have not confirmed, but apparently, the 15th was chosen as the date to close accounts because that is the day before the billing cycle ends, which allows them to forgo giving us our rebates.

Some background info on the card: This is a shell branded Citi Mastercard that gives 5% rebates on all Shell gas purchases. I use this card exclusively to purchase gas and have always received a monthly rebate equal to 5% of all my shell gas purchases and 1% for all other purchases. The majority of the time I pay my balance in full each month, which allows me to maximize my savings (obviously).

Did Citi cut off your gas-station branded credit this week? Does this affect your personal finance situation? Sound off in the comments.

Citi starts closing Mastercards without warning [MSNBC]
(Photo: Kenny Hindgren)

The Bank of America accounts that will be charged fees were selected based on "risk and profitability," Riess said. That means customers in good standing who never carried a balance - and never incurred interest charges or late fees - could be among those getting notices.

"BofA to charge annual fees on some credit cards" [Associated Press]
(Photo: TheTruthAbout...)

Wally writes, "I am a good customer and pay on time every time, and right away as well," and he adds that he pays an annual membership fee of $40, and Capital One charges him $10 to make any payments over the phone. "Like most credit card holders," he adds, "I am 99% set on cancelling the card, but don't want to affect my credit score."

We don't know your overall financial situation, Wally, but we think the message that Crap One is sending you is pretty clear: they think you suck, and they're going to bleed you for as much cash as possible until you wise up and leave them. Sign up at a site like Billshrink (it's free) or visit Bankrate, and start comparison shopping for another card with a better interest rate, then do a balance transfer. That way you keep the credit history and lose the punitive interest rate.

Also, remember that the only time you really need the highest credit score possible is if you're planning on financing a home or a car. If that's not in your near future, don't let fear of losing a few points influence your decisions too much. It's just a stupid number that a company invented to describe you to other companies—and unfriendly companies like Capital One like the fact that their customers are afraid to jump ship, because it means they can keep hiking rates and adding fees.

RELATED
"Capital One Does Not Appreciate You Being Responsible, More Than Doubles Your APR"
"24% APR Crushes Reader To Death"
(Photo: DanCentury)

I recently applied for a Best Buy Rewards Zone Mastercard from HSBC Bank USA. I applied on the website and at the end of the online approval process I was required to call a telephone number to confirm my identity. After I answered several question based on information from my credit report, I was approved. Over the next week, I received 2 more calls (with bad English ability, and without saying who they represented) asking me the exact same information using information from my credit report.

On the 3rd week I received the credit card in the mail. The information with the card explained the $59 annual fee. I was also approved for a $300 credit limit. I looked over the Cardholder Terms, and found that the $59 annual fee would not have to be paid if you closed the account within 90 days and did not use the account.

I called Customer Service the same day to close the account, but apparently during one of the 3 calls they made, they asked me for a Secret Identity Word. I did not know this word, so they tried the alternative verification method using my credit report information. It turns out they pulled my information through the credit agency so many times they were unable to do it a 4th time. I then spoke with a Supervisor who said that he would close the account, but that in order to reopen it in the future I will need to provide 3 forms of ID. After trying five times to convince me not to close the account, he finally closed it.

2 weeks later, on 10/15/2009, I get a bill in the mail from HSBC for $59.00 (with a min. payment of $15 due 11/3/2009). My account was supposed to be closed. I call and get stuck at the "identity word", the customer service rep. can not access my account without the word. I then speak with a Supervisor and he is able to see my account and says that it is active and has a balance of $59.00 from the Annual fee. He also says that the account was not closed 2 weeks prior and his log only shows that I called to discuss my account.

This supervisor, Chris, says that he can credit the account for $59 and close the account. He credits the account for $59 after I am put on hold for 23 minutes (in what seems an attempt to kick me off). He then tells me that if he closes my account it will be reported on my credit report as a Fraudulent account. I tell him that I have been recording everything so that my friend and attorney general can know about it. He says that unless I stop immediately he will add back the $59 and will not be able to help me. I tell him that I have, and he goes ahead in closing the account but that it will still show up on my Credit Report as a Security Hold. The only way to stop that is sending in 3 forms of ID of which is HARD to get because I am a college student and my mailing, voting, etc. is all my school address. He tells me there is no one higher up to talk to and says goodbye. I end the call after an 1hr and 20 minutes.

After all of this I was treated rudely by customer service, threatened and lied to, and left very upset with HSBC. I know this type of customer service and attitude is not inherent in all Credit Card customer service as I have always had excellent conversations with Bank of America & Chase. Is there anything I should do to let HSBC Corporate know, or stop them from damaging my Credit Report?

It sounds as if regular customer service, even the supervisors, won't be much help in this situation. It's time to talk to the more powerful folks at HSBC's executive customer service. Here's the latest phone number we have for them. It may also be worth dropping a regular letter or e-mail to Best Buy to let them know how their credit card partner is treating loyal Best Buy customers.

(Photo: adotjdotsmith)

He writes:

I was denied several months ago for a Capital One business card. I needed this extra credit desperately for my small business. One of the reasons given was that credit could not be approved because of "worsening economic conditions in my area". This is outrageous. It may even constitute redlining, which is illegal in many cases.

I have enclosed a copy of the denial letter for you to review and or post. It clearly shows this language.

The letter states that the other reason for Ryan's bad news is insufficient pay down of mortgage accounts.

Has anyone else gotten a similar reason for a credit card denial? Do you think this is fair? Or insidious? Ryan's letter is posted below:

(Photo:WhoWatches)

The Premier card from South Dakota's First Premier Bank is responsible for the usurous, loan shark-style rate. The station's Bob Hansen writes:

On its Web site, First Premier says it is the country's 10th largest issuer of Visa and MasterCard credit cards. The site also says it "focuses on individuals who have less than perfect credit but are actually still creditworthy."

"I think they're trying to take advantage of me," said Hageman.

Ya think?

The story says the California Attorney General can't do anything about the card because it comes from an out-of-state bank. Anyone with a Premier card would be wise to check out the fine print on their billing statements.

No, You're Reading That Right [NBC San Diego]
(Photo: Bob Hansen, NBC San Diego)
(Thanks, Galahad!)

Retailers have always been protected from having to pay those kinds of damages to customers who have had their data stolen, but now there's a case going up before Maine's state Supreme Court that asks whether that should change.

The retailer in question is Hannaford Supermarkets, an east coast grocery chain. A year and a half ago they reported that 4.2 million customer credit card records had been intercepted by crooks and sent overseas. Some of those customers sued Hannaford for damages.

The lawsuit came to a halt last May, when U.S. District Court Judge D. Brock Hornby ruled that Maine's law "allows consumers to recover damages if the merchant's negligence caused a direct loss to the consumer's account," and since customers were protected from direct loss due to zero-liability coverage by banks, Hannaford was off the hook.

The plaintiffs asked Judge Hornby to consider letting the state Supreme Court weigh in on the law, to determine whether it can be interpreted to also cover things like time lost dealing with the breach, or future dings on credit scores. He agreed, and wrote that the question that needs to be answered is, "Do time and effort alone, spent in a reasonable effort to avert reasonably foreseeable harm, constitute a cognizable injury under Maine common law?"

If the state Supreme Court decides they do constitute a "cognizable injury," it would be a first for a retailer, and possibly open the way for other consumers to sue in civil court for damages that aren't directly covered by zero-liability protection. That would in turn make it a lot harder for retailers to get off with a simple, "oops, sorry!" the next time they don't adequately protect customer financial data.

"Retail Data Breach Liability Shield May Get Gutted" [StorefrontBacktalk via Wired Threat Level]
(Photo: Zach Klein)

A Consumer Financial Protection Agency would unify the various organizations that regulate parts of the financial services market into a single, streamlined agency. Hopefully. Most of the legislation is necessarily vague (the legislation "Requires the Agency to seek to promote transparency, simplicity, fairness, accountability, and access in the market for consumer financial products or services"), in the hopes that it can be applied to nasty new bank practices that we can't even think of yet. Below are some specifics.

• The CFPA would have the authority to restrict or ban mandatory binding arbitration. You know how we feel about mandatory binding arbitration.
• The CFPA would also have the authority to designate fees, charges, or behaviors as unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices, and ban them as the agency sees fit. So if Bank of America, for example, dreams up a new way to screw you that wasn't banned by the recent credit card law, the CFPA could review it, ban it, and start ringing up the fines. Fines for violating these bans range from $5,000 to $25,000 per day.
• CFPA legislation would require the Fed to review the consumer credit card market-including credit card agreements, practices, costs, and availability-every two years to judge market innovation, competition, and fairness. This is a good proactive approach that would keep the agency on top of developing issues and potentially dangerous trends and actions.
• Importantly, the CFPA legislation treats federal action as a floor, not a ceiling, so individual states would be allowed to enact stronger laws as necessary and appropriate. This is especially important considering that...
• One thing CFPA legislation definitely will not address is usury-a cap on interest rates. Earlier this year, a senator attempted to attach a usury cap to the credit card reform legislation that was signed into law; the amendment failed by a large margin and would probably fail again or doom the underlying legislation it was attached to. Fortunately, some states already have existing usury bans that curb excessive interest rates.

The legislation can be read in its entirety here. A (large) handy comparison chart is viewable here. For more information, check out Consumer Reports's financial policy blog, Defending Your Dollars.

(Photo: frankieleon)

Consumers can purchase large quantities (a minimum of $250) of gold dollar coins from the U.S. Mint online. The key to this scheme is that these boxes ship for free. The coins are purchased using a credit card with some kind of reward (preferably instant cash rewards) and then immediately deposited in the bank when they show up. As MainStreet explains:

Net result? If you bought $1,000 in coins on your card and then immediately paid it all off, assuming you have 2% cash back, this means you just made $20 or more for only a few minutes of effort. In addition to that, you might also have accrued 1,000 points or air miles. The Mint gets its new coins in circulation, and you get a sweet reward — everyone wins, except the credit card company (that's a change, isn't it).

We'd argue that the U.S. Mint doesn't really win in this situation, since getting the $1 coins into a bank's vault is not the same as getting them into circulation. This particular scheme depends on a few factors—the safe travels of the coins, and the timing of one's credit card deadlines.

Does this sound like a sound financial plan to you, or a scheme bordering on legal money laundering? To us, it sounds like a lot of work for at most $20, but lifting $1000 worth of dollar coins does have residual fitness benefits.

Free Money: The Uncle Sam Scam [Mainstreet]
(Photo: Hammer51012)

Revolving credit debt, mostly through credit cards with balances that are not paid off immediately, dropped by an annual rate of 13.1 percent in August to $899.4 billion, the Federal Reserve reported.

[...]

Indeed, the personal savings rate climbed to 4.2 percent in July, according to government data, up from the near-zero levels of just a few years ago.

"Consumers Keep Paying Off Credit Cards, Building Up Savings" [Washington Post]
(Photo: leafy)

The magical 0% promo rate may be yet another casualty of credit card reform. But we're not exactly mourning it, since the fine print and limitations of balance transfers often leave consumers even more mired in debt.

Ben Woolsey, director of marketing and consumer research at Austin, Texas-based CreditCards.com, a Web site that compares credit cards, urges consumers to closely read the terms and conditions. "Issuers don't intentionally bait and switch, but they are allowed to advertise their best rate and use terms like 'as low as' and other caveats, so when you apply, always be careful — the devil is in the details."

For example, some offers carry zero percent on balance transfers but higher rates for new purchases. In some cases, failing to use the card enough — meeting minimum use requirements — could trigger a cancellation or a higher rate.

The End of 0%? Reigning in 'Credit Card Roulette' [ABC News]

(Photo: sam wilkinson)

The story says:

Since most Bank of America customers have variable rate cards, however, they could still see their interest rates go up. The interest on variable-rate cards is tied to the rise and fall of the prime rate.

The move is a reaction to lawmakers' efforts to bump up the date credit card reform laws — which limit banks' abilities to raise fees and interest rates and force them to disclose hidden fees — from going into effect on Feb. 1 to Dec. 1. The story says the House of Representatives Financial Services Committee will hold a hearing on the date-changing legislation Thursday.

Bank of America pledges halt on credit card rate hikes [AP via USA Today]
(Photo: e. wilder)
(Thanks, Jeff!)

Smartchip technology is sort of a banking equivalent of the metric system—it's superior to magnetic stripe cards, every other country is using it, and the American banking system simply isn't interested.

Twenty-two countries, including much of Europe, Mexico, Brazil and Japan, have adopted the technology, according to the Smart Card Alliance, a nonprofit association that promotes chip cards. About 50 other countries are in various stages of migrating to the technology in the next two years, including China, India and most of Latin America, according to the association.

In the last year, Canada began rolling out chip-and-PIN cards and plans to stop accepting magnetic stripe debit cards at A.T.M.'s after 2012 and at point-of-sale terminals after 2015.

These governments like the cards because they reduce fraud. With an embedded microcontroller, large amounts of data can be stored on the card itself rather than in a central database, and counterfeiting such a card is difficult.

Canada, nooooo!

We understand that American banks have enough problems right now, and tourists' ability to buy train tickets or rent bicycles at a kiosk is not high on their list. So consider this a travelers' advisory instead of a consumer complaint.

For Americans, Plastic Buys Less Abroad [NY Times]

(Photo: Ciaran McGuiggan)

Nait says Capital One no longer returns his calls on the matter, although it did give him an interesting counter-offer.

Nothing and no-how. They just flat out don't answer my calls, respond to voicemails, or return my e-mails anymore. None of them do. Capital One is of no help whatsoever. They did offer to let me put a custom picture on my
credit card, though.

Sounds like it's Executive Email Carpet Bomb time. And if that doesn't work he may need to file a lawsuit.

My experience with Palm Beach Pre-Owned [Lolutah]
(Photo: smcgee)

Erik's college roommate sent us the following letter:

I am writing this tip on behalf of my roommate, Erik.

Around a month and half ago (8/07/2009) his account was stolen on Xbox Live. He called Microsoft Support and asked for Accounts & Billing and they transferred him to someone that knew how to help. They verified that he was definitely, without doubt, the original owner. They asked for his contact email address and he gave them his primary email. They also said that the investigation team will get on this issue right away and it would be available again within the month (at the latest). Well, it has been a month and seventeen days since the time this email was written and nothing has happened that allowed him to get the account back. They said they would be calling him once a week to let him know the status of the investigation. He only got a call the week after and the week following that one. The last time they called they said that the investigation team is still working and that the account should be available at the end of August/early September.

Erik is a very patient guy and doesn't get angry over these types of things at all. He waited patiently until September 14th and called. Microsoft told Erik, after he asked if the message had been sent, that an email had been dispatched to the contact information on his Live passport. So Erik asked where the email was sent to and they said it was sent to an email that had the name "Chris" in it. It sounds like the person took control of his Live account and changed the contact information before MS locked the account down. They also did not change any of the information back to what it should be. So basically, MS sent the directions of how to recover his Live passport and gamertag to the hacker that stole his account in the first place.

So after MS figured out they made a mistake, they said the contact information had definitely been set back to Erik and that within 5 days an email would be sent to him and the investigative team would call him to inform that his gamer tag could be recovered again. He waited out the 5 days without a call or email and called back (9/19). When he called them they apologized for not calling within 5 days and that he would definitely receive a call within 2 days. Three days later (9/22), no call or email. So, he called back. An hour on the phone, he used the prompt to speak to accounts and billing once again, they verified it was him, again, and he explained the situation, yet again. They gave him a case number but no extension to call. So, he would have to call and wait the 10 minutes it takes to talk to intelligent life at MS and let them look up the case. Every time he calls MS it takes 5 minutes for the operator to read the case's notes. So, he talked to this guy and was told that they have no way of knowing what the investigation team is doing or what the status of the investigation is. He was very sorry that he was not able to help any further. So, he told the guy thanks and that it isn't anything personal but he would like to speak to his supervisor. So, he after a 15-min wait to speak to one, he was connected. The original operator signaled that he was no longer going to participate and that William was on the line. William, the "supervisor", had a very heavy (Indian? Middle eastern?) accent and it was insanely difficult to understand what he was saying. Erik asked to speak with the investigation team, but the supervisor said that could not happen as they do not speak with the public. So Erik asked to speak with the supervisor's boss and he said that could not happen either. He does not take phone calls... So, Erik asked how this was going to be fixed and the supervisor said he doesn't know and he has no idea when the investigation will finish. Just to wait.

The person that stole the account charged $125 in MS Points to his CC, which he canceled immediately. Definitely 800 pts of those went to changing the gamer tag. Get this, the person even started a new prestige on his COD5 account. He was on his 4th and was content with keeping it like that until Modern Warfare 2 came out but I guess that isn't going to happen. Microsoft reimbursed him $75 of the $125 after the first call but he has yet to be reimbursed for the rest. Erik wasn't told whether or not he would even be able to get his original gamer tag back.

Erik no longer has any idea what to do. He has done everything they asked and they have done pretty much nothing they said they would. Hopefully, Consumerist can see how this situation is frustrating. Especially when one can't talk to the team that is "investigating" the account that one "own's".

Erik has been a faithful Xbox player and account holder for almost 8 years now and is doubting Microsoft's loyalty to their customers.

What do you think should have happened in this situation? What would you guys have done in this situation? What do you think Microsoft can do to make this better?

We suggest, in fine college freshman style, that Erik copy your letter and personalize it so that it comes from him, and then EECB these Microsoft email addresses and any others he can find. On of our commenters on that post had success with those addresses. Another commenter also suggests Erik contact MajorNelson on Twitter, who may be able to help or point Erik to someone who can.

(Photo: włodi)

Peter writes:

So I'm contemplating dropping my American Express Blue card, not because of the recent APR increases, but because of their website's password policy.

According to their website:

Your Password should:

• Contain 6 to 8 characters - at least one letter and one number (not case sensitive)
• Contain no spaces or special characters (e.g., &, >, *, $, @)
• Be different from your User ID and your last Password

That last one makes obvious sense, but to restrict a password to between 6-8 characters, and not allow special characters? That is HIGHLY insecure. I know I did my best to make as secure a password as possible with these limitations, but what about people who common, easily remembered, and highly guessable words as passwords? The limitation of 6-8 characters alone makes brute force a much more simple prospect. This complete disregard for security is quite bothersome

I've contacted a customer service rep about this in the past, but they of course had no acceptable answer. Any suggestions on how to bump this one up the chain?

Peter, you can try calling or writing using this American Express executive customer service contact info (it worked for another reader as recently as May 2009), but you might just want to look for another card provider altogether. You know, one that will let you create a decent password to protect your account.

(Photo: subcircle)

...mortgages will stay cheap, provided you have the stellar credit needed to get one, and savings accounts will continue to generate low, but safe, returns. They also said rates will stay low for an "extended period." Growth may be picking up, but unemployment remains high. August home sales fell, too, for the first time in four months. It seems the slog to economic recovery will be anything but short.

Fed Signals Growth Return Not Enough to End Stimulus [Bloomberg] (Photo: frankieleon)

The goal seems to be to counter the last-gasp bad behavior of credit card companies, but it may be too late, notes the Wall Street Journal:

The changes come after major card issuers have been pushing through a slew of recent interest-rate increases and fees. In recent months, for example, American Express Co., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.'s Chase Card Services and Bank of America Corp. have raised interest rates by several percentage points, converting customers' fixed rates to variable ones, and pushing through higher rates and fees for cash advances and late payments. Discover Financial Services, for example, recently started notifying cardholders that it will increase its balance-transfer fees to 5% from 3%.

If Congress does move up the implementation date, they say it should help shoppers feel better about holiday spending because they'll know exactly what the terms of their credit cards will be come January 1st. On the other hand, if this happens you can probably expect a new flurry of last-minute rate hikes and term modifications between now and Thanksgiving.

"Congress Seeks Faster Implementation of New Credit-Card Rules" [Wall Street Journal]
(Photo: zoutedrop)

A BoA executive contacted Minch to talk about her situation, her video, and her debts, and negotiated a 12.99% interest rate. The executive explained to her that her interest rate was hiked up to over 30% because of one missed payment. In 2008.

Interestingly, the bank has not asked her to stop her Internet activities or to take the video down. She plans further "debtors' revolt" activities in the future, and hopes to help other Americans in similar situations. As banks tighten their lending standards and are generally more cautious, this is a good thing for all credit card customers to keep in mind.

Minch's success came once she was able to make her case, rationally and calmly, to a person in a position of actual power. Minus the quarter million YouTube views, this is exactly what we encourage consumers who have been wronged to do. Don't sit and refuse to pay back your debts - fight back.

PREVIOUSLY: Customer Tells Bank of America To Stick Her Debt "In Your Bailout Pipe And Smoke It"

DEBTORS UPDATE: BANK OF AMERICA RESPONDS!!! [YouTube]
Red Bluff woman prevails in bank protest [Record Searchlight] (Thanks, Joe!)

How so, you may ask? It's those greedy banks that are making a host of credit card rules changes to try and earn more money for themselves (gasp!) Smart Money highlights six steps many credit card issuers are taking that can become traps for peaceful, charge-loving shoppers. Their list:

1. Higher rates for everyone
2. Moving from fixed to variable rates
3. Annual fees
4. Usage fees
5. More junk mail
6. Reward hoops

More costs, more hassles, and less rewards. Ugh. If they don't watch it, they may wean us off credit altogether.

Oh, we long for the glory days of free t-shirts on sign up, 0% balance transfers, and 10,000 miles credited for blowing your nose. Yes, those were the days.

6 Credit-Card Traps to Avoid Now [Smart Money]

— FREE MONEY FINANCE (Photo: yksin)

Well, no. Actually he just called customer service and asked if there was anything they could do for him. To his surprise, he got a "yes." He writes:

A heartwarming story to share with you... I was laid off from my job in march and have pretty much purchased nothing but groceries and the occasional smidgen of gin, in addition to transportation costs, utilities and my mortgage.

I recently received an annual fee of $50 for my Citibank American Express (the card was issued by Citibank South Dakota "pursuant to a license agreement with American Express). I called customer service and asked if it was possible to either waive the fee or change the account to a no-fee option.

Mind you, I also made it clear that my only other option was to close the account and to rely on other credit cards that I have with no fees...

Sylvia, a pleasant customer service rep, transferred me within minutes to Grant, "a customer service specialist," who explained to me that because of their agreement with AAdvantage/American Airlines, they could not waive the fee — however, I was offered a $50 voucher from Citibank, which will be mailed to me and I return... thus covering the membership cost for the following year.

I was quite surprised and pleased by the level of customer service shown... I was also wished luck in my job search... all very cordial and beyond the level of consideration that I anticipated.

How about that? A service story with a happy ending, for a change.

So now you know how to get out of AmEx's dreaded annual fee — just lose your job and get lucky enough to find a compassionate CSR on the other end of the line.

(Photo: DCvision2006)