-
The question Amex should ponder is if I’m the actual target demographic for this product?
Is that a question for amex or for customers? Its a product. Your life or career doesnt depend on it. If it doesnt work for us, just move on. No one is forcing you to keep it.
This is all very interesting reading, as a new points person here’s my view.
The Platinum card is surprisingly limited in areas I would expect it to be good for:
– foreign exchange fees, laughable that my free Monzo debit gets a better rate
– travel insurance, less flexible than what we get with Natwest Platinum account for £18 a month (and we get breakdown cover in that as well)Totally agree with you (just add cover for pre-existing for a small fee). For me, the fee would be worth it with the above two changes. I use the Hire car benefits a lot, the HN and UK Restaurants are nice and offset the fee somewhat, the hotel perks are nice but the top end stuff, whilst being nice, will appeal to those on higher income levels (£200K plus salary or equivalent) – I don’t mind flying economy (class O) with a family of four – flexible fares are outside my range but I can fit in more holidays per year.
@BBbetter: I think (looking at Amex statements) I registered for the TP challenge in Dec; pre-paying for 2024s holidays and flights is a fair chunk. I haven’t been buying holidays for third parties! I also bought £2500 Avios in the Jan promo.
@JDB
You mention cancelling a Platinum account with no retention in December: I didn’t ask for one, never had one, nor was offered (had that card 6 years).
BA cancellations/refunds: yes, several one-ways @£17.50 as per football explanation
Racing to spend £25k for the TP: yes, isn’t that the idea?
(and fitting into an MS pattern): not sure what this means, we’ve just been buying stuff on our cards
You have too many supplementary cards: no idea there was a limit
Paying from the joint account from the wrong name: surely a joint a/c isn’t beyond the wit of Amex IT or whatever AI they use
@vzzbuckz: I don’t really think it’s ‘gaming’ to have supp cards, one only gets offers that Amex want you to have (e.g. some n/a on supp cards)I know we are diverging from the focus, but I wonder what @JDB would think for an ideal Platinum card. Except from reducing the fee, I am not sure what Amex can realistically add? In the US, it turned into a discount coupon book for streaming, gym, Walmart (!?!?) etc. In EU it does not seem very generous either.
I think it is time to accept that Belle Epoque of Plat is way behind us.
A better earn rate for one. The Gold is a far superior card for actually accumulating points to spend on flight or hotel redemptions.
Someone paying £650 a year for the Platinum card should be getting a better deal for sticking £10,000 of spending on the card than someone in their first year of Gold who isn’t paying a fee.
Late to the party here.
I would recommend:
Complaint that Amex have not given the reasons for the termination or suspension, and that that means it is not justified.This is contrary to the requirements of Section 98A 4b) of the consumer credit act.
There is clear prior cases from the FOS providing £200 compensation for them failing to do this, such as here: https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-4039413.pdf
Note: they are very likely to be able to provide a justifiable reason: you are not profitable for them, they dont like your risk profile etc. etc. The fact they have not said this though is the issue.
@points_worrier thanks for that, what’s really annoying is that when my son has chatted to Amex they are much more open with him about my account and have said twice it’s not fraud and it’s a business decision from on high. They haven’t said that to me. I find it hard to believe that an algorithm would suddenly snag me on risk, I’ve had a cradle to grave 40 year job as an Air Traffic Controller with a stable income followed by 10 years of final salary pension and spending hasn’t changed in profile at all…. it’s always holidays, flights, football and no domestic dramas e.g. divorce.
I’ve enquired again after the 150 tier points I accrued prior to account suspension; there is acceptance that I earnt them, but no explanation why I haven’t received them.
Wife, son and daughter still have had no notification from Amex that their accounts are suspended (and assume will be cancelled?) over three weeks after the event. A complaint from one of them did generate a letter from Amex that had the same ref no as mine and with the same wording, which didn’t address the actual wording of the compliant at all, which was that no notification of suspension had been received, contrary to Amex’s T&Cs.
I’ve done the FOS thing and a DSAR; not holding my breath!
Late to the party here.
I would recommend:
Complaint that Amex have not given the reasons for the termination or suspension, and that that means it is not justified.This is contrary to the requirements of Section 98A 4b) of the consumer credit act.
There is clear prior cases from the FOS providing £200 compensation for them failing to do this, such as here: https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-4039413.pdf
Note: they are very likely to be able to provide a justifiable reason: you are not profitable for them, they dont like your risk profile etc. etc. The fact they have not said this though is the issue.
The OPs account was closed under s98A(3) giving two months notice, not s98A(4) so no reasons need to be given.
Today, my daughter had a letter from Amex responding to her complaint that her primary card was suspended with no notification (at the same time mine was suspended but at least they told me). Amex have investigated and say that whilst a corporate decision was made to cancel a supplementary cardholder’s account (mine), this should not have impacted her own main card and have credited her account with £50 as a goodwill gesture.
It’s nice that Amex have admitted an error and we await a response to son and wife’s complaints.
Irrespective of which para of section 98(A) applies to my closure, if they’d just told me at the outset it was a corporate decision rather than ‘I’m sure you’ll appreciate that we cannot discuss…’ I’d not have been so concerned.
Today, my daughter had a letter from Amex responding to her complaint that her primary card was suspended with no notification (at the same time mine was suspended but at least they told me). Amex have investigated and say that whilst a corporate decision was made to cancel a supplementary cardholder’s account (mine), this should not have impacted her own main card and have credited her account with £50 as a goodwill gesture.
It’s nice that Amex have admitted an error and we await a response to son and wife’s complaints.
Irrespective of which para of section 98(A) applies to my closure, if they’d just told me at the outset it was a corporate decision rather than ‘I’m sure you’ll appreciate that we cannot discuss…’ I’d not have been so concerned.
£50 ? is that all ?
Btw I have always thought they had no right to susprnd family members’ accounts on which you were a supp, at all particukarly if thry are not resident at the same address.
Because this is so shabby I’d have been heading to the FOS with each of those because I sm absolutely sure they broke a rule doing that without motice snd eith or without the FOS I’d certwinly not want to settle for a measly £50.
How about her respondibg to them “Well actualky I aad just off to the FOS and I dpn’t regard £50 as sufficient gor the upset you’ve caused me”. £50 doesn’t ecen buy linch these days. £200 might have ssidyou were actuslky apologising”
Today, my daughter had a letter from Amex responding to her complaint that her primary card was suspended with no notification (at the same time mine was suspended but at least they told me). Amex have investigated and say that whilst a corporate decision was made to cancel a supplementary cardholder’s account (mine), this should not have impacted her own main card and have credited her account with £50 as a goodwill gesture.
It’s nice that Amex have admitted an error and we await a response to son and wife’s complaints.
Irrespective of which para of section 98(A) applies to my closure, if they’d just told me at the outset it was a corporate decision rather than ‘I’m sure you’ll appreciate that we cannot discuss…’ I’d not have been so concerned.
£50 ? is that all ?
Btw I have always thought they had no right to suspend family members’ accounts on which you were a supp, at all particularly if they are not resident at the same address.
Because this is so shabby I’d have been heading to the FOS with each of those because I am absolutely sure they broke a rule doing that without notice and with or without the FOS I’d certainly not want to settle for a measly £50.
How about her responding to them “Well actually I was just off to the FOS and I don’t regard £50 as sufficient for the upset you’ve caused me”. £50 doesn’t even buy lunch these days. £200 might have said you were actually apologising”
Rinse and repeat each family member. FOS costs the provider £750+ per case submitted.
@LadyLondon – what rule are you sure Amex has broken? If Amex were shown to have broken any rule, how would you suggest the party should frame any claim for greater compensation? The FOS starting position for any ‘distress and inconvenience’ payment if you haven’t suffered any actual financial detriment, is that you need to have suffered more than the standard annoyance and frustration that we all regularly experience. In that context, £200 is really quite rare.
The bottom line is that Amex can suspend the account of anyone they want without reason pending the cancellation two months later. It is basically an unfair action that circumvents the notice rules but unless you can demonstrate some actual financial detriment, you aren’t going to get anything for that unfairness.
It was on FT last week that many banks, mostly the challenger banks, were shutting down sex workers’ bank accounts, pushing them out of the banking system.
Yes, they have the right.
Yet, debanking a certain demographics create various social and economical problems.It reminded me of 10 pages of this thread. Yes, Amex has the right, but something doesn’t click with me with that argument. As I tend not to think about it without its socio-economical context. A payment card is becoming more of a basic necessity like the Internet. And depriving someone of it without due explanation is a violation. I’d understand it if they downgraded the cards or limit the credit line etc, but this treatment has political meaning and interpretation which I don’t agree. It is more significant than merely a company using its contractual rights.
I think.PS: I’m not suggesting OP is a sex worker obviously.
PPS: I’m also not suggesting debanking and de-creditcarding are the same. Yet there are some parallels.
@can2 – a bank account with debit card may be a basic necessity as you suggest but a credit card, particularly a paid Amex card, simply is not and many people have no access to credit at all. The law provides for credit card companies to be able to close accounts without cause and without providing any reason, so contracts are merely reflecting the statutory position. The law dates from 1974 but since then customers now have the additional protections afforded by the FCA – principally the requirement to treat them fairly. Most firms across many industries are allowed to choose who they want to do business with.
It reminded me of 10 pages of this thread. Yes, Amex has the right, but something doesn’t click with me with that argument. As I tend not to think about it without its socio-economical context. A payment card is becoming more of a basic necessity like the Internet. And depriving someone of it without due explanation is a violation. I’d understand it if they downgraded the cards or limit the credit line etc, but this treatment has political meaning and interpretation which I don’t agree. It is more significant than merely a company using its contractual rights.
I think.The problem with this is it’s pure speculation. We can keep speculating for 10 or 100 pages, where does it stop? If Amex cancels a 20 year old’s account, should they start their own campaign?
In fact, it’d be very easy for Amex to justify closing this OP’s cards given the facts shared so far. A retired person on a supposedly ‘small’ income, spending 25k in 2 months ‘should’ raise red flags.
@JDB as I argued I know what Amex did is legal. Yet it doesn’t feel right and the blow could have been softened. In today’s world, arguably, I am getting more and more convinced that a minimal amount of credit is also becoming a basic right, rather than throwing people to payday loans.
It’s also like no-fault evictions. It is currently legal to ask your tenant to vacate after the contract ends. Sure. But it contributed to the housing crisis.
@BBbetter surely Amex is taking advantage of the epistemic opaqueness they create. And sure, there can be a flag. It doesn’t entail account closure. It doesn’t have to.We need to accept it we are facing a typical AI based decision making that is blindly approved by execs. There needs to be transparency, accountability and fairness — like in any machine based decisions.
And sure, I’m speculating, too. And this case may not be an example of it.
My prediction is that we are getting closer and closer to that.
One another thing:
It is very tiring for us consumers to maintain some random spending pattern that their algorithms figured out about us. The algo is opaque.
We are people, some times we may splurge or act cheap. We buy and sell things that may deviate from their mistaken pattern that they modelled after us.Use of pattern recognition algorithms used to be descriptive. Now there are normative. They are telling us how we should spend, or not spend.
I’m surely speculating obviously but the point is not if there is a flag.
The point is that the flag is wrong.
Yes, as @BBbetter says, once all the information started trickling out, it was much more understandable why Amex might have had concerns. While everyone here always supports the person and not the institution, people need to recognise that the financial world has totally changed so they also need to consider changing. After the financial crash money was virtually free so card companies went a bit crazy handing out big credit lines that cost them very little in terms of capital requirements. The legacy of that is that firms have too many open credit lines, too many unprofitable customers and mounting bad debts against a difficult economic background and a much higher cost of capital. It’s therefore not at all surprising therefore to see banks rejecting more applications, reducing credit lines, carrying out more reviews, income checks, closing/suspending accounts etc. This will accelerate as margins get squeezed. That’s going to make anyone messing around in the same old way vulnerable.
Having excessive credit limits all over the place is a risk not a sign of strength. Some activities are going to look like signs of financial distress. If you apply for other financial products including other cards on different information than that known to Amex, they will find out quite quickly etc. so there are plenty of measures that could be taken to protect one’s position.
In fact, it’d be very easy for Amex to justify closing this OP’s cards given the facts shared so far. A retired person on a supposedly ‘small’ income, spending 25k in 2 months ‘should’ raise red flags.
Should it? I really don’t understand the financial services area attitude to retirees. The rest of the universe says that retirees have never had it so good, reaping the benefits of being the first generation with significant private pensions, plus property equity, inheritances, etc, whilst also having tiny regular outgoings on mortgages, childcare, etc, compared to the next generation down. The vast majority of the ones that have Amex cards are likely to be financially literate and have significant liquid assets or access to funds, maybe from pensions, downsizing or selling rental properties or a business. Yet the financial services people sudden start treating people who have managed their finances perfectly well their whole lives – and about whom they have years and years of data confirming both wealth and financial responsibility – as if they were children, incapable of making decisions about whether they can afford something.
They also make ludicrous distinctions between income and wealth. If you have been fortunate enough to acquire sufficient assets to fund your lifestyle, what difference should it make whether you choose to finance your lifestyle through income or savings? Say you sell a property or a business so you have sufficient cash to live on for years, which in turn means you don’t need to access your pension funds, how are you suddenly a terrible credit risk? You are supposed to make poor financial decisions just to make Amex happy? If the idea behind Amex’s business is really to maximise their profits, they would realise that retirees are more than likely good business than bad and invest in some decent analysis.
And don’t get me started on the concept of “here, have some tier points if you spend a lot. Oh, you spent a lot (and then paid it off). You must be financially irresponsible (even though we have 30 years of evidence that you are not). We’ll sack you (even though losing your business will cost us money)”.
Should it? I really don’t understand the financial services area attitude to retirees. The rest of the universe says that retirees have never had it so good, reaping the benefits of being the first generation with significant private pensions, plus property equity, inheritances, etc, whilst also having tiny regular outgoings on mortgages, childcare, etc, compared to the next generation down. The vast majority of the ones that have Amex cards are likely to be financially literate and have significant liquid assets or access to funds, maybe from pensions, downsizing or selling rental properties or a business. Yet the financial services people sudden start treating people who have managed their finances perfectly well their whole lives – and about whom they have years and years of data confirming both wealth and financial responsibility – as if they were children, incapable of making decisions about whether they can afford something.
Assumptions. Generalisations. People love stereotypes.
Oh I am 60 and finally literate. So everyone over 60 must be financially literate.
Oh I am 60 and received an inheritance. So everyone above 60 must have received inheritance.
Oh I am 60 and earning from rental properties. So everyone above 60 must also be minting money from BTL.
And Amex must take responsibility to keep track of these inheritances or BTLs.Whereas you go to financial sections of newspapers. Boomers complaining of being scammed. Boomers campaigning for cash and refusing to learn or use cards or apps. Boomers who didn’t know they could switch broadband or mobile providers.
But no, all rules and guardrails must be off because they are above 60.If retirees are that desperate for a particular credit card and suffer from less predictable and more volatile assets / income, convert the volatile assets to annuities. Problem solved. Any financial services provider will be able to see your high regular predictable income.
But no, retirees don’t want that. How dare you tell us to buy annuities. Why can’t we have our cake and eat it too!
@BBbetter – you’ve been asked to include Generation X in these comments also. I think it is grossly unfair to single out boomers.
Anyway – onto me. I’d be most interested in @JDB’s thoughts and indeed anyone else. I have three Amex cards with a fairly high combined credit limit that I probably don’t need. Annoyingly the lowest limit of a meagre £8k is on my BAPP which was the most recent application. Sometimes that can be a squeeze but, on balance, it is manageable as any BA cash flights would most likely be booked as holidays.
So… would Amex pause for thought if I asked them to, say, reduce the limit on my AARC by £10k. I imagine a lower combined credit limit would make me being targeted by Amex for special treatment less likely.
But would asking to reduce a credit limit trigger any potential review?
I also increasingly wonder about ditching my MBNA card. It has my second highest limit and I rarely use it but 0.5% cash back seems a silly thing to give up as they won’t hand it out ever again. It isn’t the 0% FX one which obviously would be a keeper.
But in a future world I can see me ditching the HSBC World Elite (it is free for me but I would not pay the annual fee if it stopped being free), Virgin will probably go at some point if I exhaust my Virgin points, who knows what will happen to the Hilton card, and then suddenly the MBNA would be missed!
@BBbetter the thing is that you’re also making assumptions. The reality is that those over 60 who don’t even have credit cards are very very unlikely to have credit card accounts closed simply because they don’t even have one. But if they have the income (both taxed and otherwise) it should not summarily disqualify them from applying for one.
In the case of the OP they have had an Amex account for quite a while and have said they have a final salary pension that theyve taken for 10 years while being an Amex cardholder. So Amex has quite a history of their spending habits. I suspect that the rapid extra spend to get the extra Tier Points was what caused the problem. And the fact that they hadn’t informed Amex of the fact they had retired. It could simply be that the extra spend was judged to be in excess of their “known to Amex” annual salary. I think that would trigger some review flag.
As for other pensioners who have built up quite a history with Amex but may now have a reduced income but offsetting that could likely be reduced outgoings on housing etc as raised by @louie
In ny own case I retired in the last year but am not yet 60 but have invested quite heavily in stocks and shares ISAs and as a result it gives me a substantial annual tax free income (greater than I am taking as drawdown from my private pension). This is by choice as it means i am a standard rate taxpayer but comfortably off. I would be ineligible to apply for a BAPP today given their recently raised income threshold requirement but my net income is more than sufficient for my needs and is still higher than the sum of my credit card limits, not that I use anywhere near the credit limits I am currently granted. The fact that I have access to the potential credit should not be an issue unless I was to apply for another card. It’s a moot point since I am not interested in applying for any other cards other than the Barclays Avios which because I hold the legacy Hilton Hhonors card currently disqualies me from doing so.
I would be exceedingly upset if Amex summarily decided to close my BAPP account which I’ve held consistently for 17 years without churning. I could reduce the credit limit on the card. Whether I should or not is debatable.
Of course I recognise I am not representative of anyone else and Amex should not use my situation or circumstances as a basis of granting credit to other pensioners. But they should take into account my 17 years of history directly with them.
@Froggee I posted subsequently to you but I also wonder whether I should reduce the BAPP credit limit. Its higher than your BAPP card but it is my only Amex card. It was automatically increased 18 months ago by Amex by more than £2k. I was given the opportunity to reject the increase but didn’t do anything. I could easily reverse it now and it wouldn’t make any difference to me so perhaps I should?
Thus far I can’t see why I need to since I don’t intend to apply for any other credit cards and as I said above my combined limits are still below my annual income.
I don’t think it would trigger any review but I think the question would be is your combined credit limits on all your cards higher than your annual income? If so that would potentially be an issue if applying for another credit card. If that is the case then I’d look at reducing the number of cards held and potentially also reducing credit limits.
Then again Amex has just increased the spending threshold on the BA cards to get the vouchers so it seems logical to have a fairly significant credit limit in order to achieve the spend. That said it “only” takes a credit limit of £1,250 maxed out every month to get to the required annual spend in 12 months.
@BBbetter – you’ve been asked to include Generation X in these comments also. I think it is grossly unfair to single out boomers.
Fair enough! 🙂
But would asking to reduce a credit limit trigger any potential review?
No, it’s actually the other way round. Bringing credit limit lower helps in most cases as it reduces risk for any credit provider. We have discussed it before, a periodical (annual?) review of unused credit is good and reduce limits if possible.
@LadyLondon – what rule are you sure Amex has broken? If Amex were shown to have broken any rule, how would you suggest the party should frame any claim for greater compensation? The FOS starting position for any ‘distress and inconvenience’ payment if you haven’t suffered any actual financial detriment, is that you need to have suffered more than the standard annoyance and frustration that we all regularly experience. In that context, £200 is really quite rare.
The bottom line is that Amex can suspend the account of anyone they want without reason pending the cancellation two months later. It is basically an unfair action that circumvents the notice rules but unless you can demonstrate some actual financial detriment, you aren’t going to get anything for that unfairness.
JDB other people’a accounts (other separate cardholder accounts for which a different person is responsible – were suspended by Amex *without notice*. Those people had done nothing wrong. As Amex is now admitting. So Amex was required to give 2 months notice to those other, different people.
Remember @Metty was only a supp on those. This means it’s not Metty’s account, Metty is not responsible for that other person’s account in any way, and the other person, who is the accountholder, is responsible for the account as it’s theirs and they are respnsible for paying the bills. No supplementary cardholder can be pursued for matters on the account they are a supp on ss it’s not the supp’s account..
So Amex stopped the account of someone completely different just because that different person had Metty as a supplementary cardholder and that’s how Amex broke the finance provider rules.
If it was a joint account or possibly, at same address (ie “linked person” but that’s normally a joint household such as partners or husband and wife” then yes Amex can link them and take actions with the other linked person when only the main cardholder did something they don’t like or if Amex’s view of that main cardholder changed.
But for sure not for a different person holding their own account at a different address. Not even if they’re family. Not even if Metty is a supplementary cardholder. Remember Amex did not give those cardholders 60 days notice.
Given the draconian ness of Amex’s actions I d tjink opportunities need to be taken to make the way they’re acting visible to the FOS. The 750 reasons to do this for each family member Amex broke the rules stopping the accounts of when Amex decided it had an issue with this different person called Metty are not the main atractant.
The true need for the FOS to start seeing these cases is the gap in the law they reveal – any financial provider can just trump something up or even just claim they suspect something fraudulent eithout having to explain their actions or jusrify them to their customer nor to any independent authority. It’s a gap in the law that needs to be fixed snd tbis is a perfect case.
£50 is a derisory offer as Amex had broken the rule and should not have taken the wuthout-nitice acfion they did on a differnt person’s account ad the have also now admitted. They deserve a referral to FOS for each oerson they did this to, not just for those peple but the overall context of how they treated Metty. £20 perfectly respectable to respond with especially as here the cardholder is in the right: @ JDB have you never negotiated?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Popular articles this week:
