Just out of curiosity, is it not common knowledge that a credit card's statement balance might not be the account payoff amount? I ask because I had a SC today who was VERY upset to learn this, and said he will probably close the account.
His opinion is that it's "criminal" for the bank to show a current balance on the statement but have a different amount for the payoff. He doesn't think that the bank should charge interest between the statement closing date and the payment date. This is not a policy with my bank; this is standard practice industry-wide, allowed by federal banking regulations. It's the same way if you have a car loan: you have one amount as your current balance as of the statement closing date, with a higher amount as your payoff to account for that residual interest.
I can understand his frustration but every statement for the past 6 months showed additional interest being charged...which was caused because they've made 3 payments late during that time. If the balance had been paid in full, ON TIME, then there wouldn't have been any interest charged on purchases. The statements also explain how the bank calculates interest charges, minimum due, account balance, etc. It is a bit wordy but it's very thorough and not "fine print." It's on the first page in the same font and text size as the rest of the statement.
I would be more sympathetic about the confusion if this customer was young, using their first credit card, etc...but this person was middle-aged and has had multiple credit cards for YEARS. Banking regulations have actually become much more favorable to customers since the CARD Act was passed in 2009, and continue to improve.
Am I being unrealistic in thinking that it's pretty common for interest to be charged on a loan/credit card balance? I know SCs don't make it a habit to actually read the terms and conditions before signing off on the agreement...so how much of the customer's dissatisfaction is the fault of the bank?
His opinion is that it's "criminal" for the bank to show a current balance on the statement but have a different amount for the payoff. He doesn't think that the bank should charge interest between the statement closing date and the payment date. This is not a policy with my bank; this is standard practice industry-wide, allowed by federal banking regulations. It's the same way if you have a car loan: you have one amount as your current balance as of the statement closing date, with a higher amount as your payoff to account for that residual interest.
I can understand his frustration but every statement for the past 6 months showed additional interest being charged...which was caused because they've made 3 payments late during that time. If the balance had been paid in full, ON TIME, then there wouldn't have been any interest charged on purchases. The statements also explain how the bank calculates interest charges, minimum due, account balance, etc. It is a bit wordy but it's very thorough and not "fine print." It's on the first page in the same font and text size as the rest of the statement.
I would be more sympathetic about the confusion if this customer was young, using their first credit card, etc...but this person was middle-aged and has had multiple credit cards for YEARS. Banking regulations have actually become much more favorable to customers since the CARD Act was passed in 2009, and continue to improve.
Am I being unrealistic in thinking that it's pretty common for interest to be charged on a loan/credit card balance? I know SCs don't make it a habit to actually read the terms and conditions before signing off on the agreement...so how much of the customer's dissatisfaction is the fault of the bank?
Comment