Credit Card deferred interest charges due to conflicting due dates

[Rumblestrips]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA

(Sorry for the length, I felt that the details might be important)

I had a deferred interest Promotional Balance on a credit card for a year. Each month the statement came on the 8th (the 8th was the closing date for each billing cycle). The due date for each statement was always on the 4th of the following month. For example, the 6/8/10 statement had a due date of 7/4/10; the 7/8 statement had a due date of 8/4; and the 8/8 statement had a due date of 9/4.

The statement dated 7/8/10 was the very last statement I received before my Promotional Offer expired on 7/19/10. It had the following language front and center on the first page:

"You must pay your Promotional Balance in full by 7/19/10 OR the payment due date for the billing cycle in which the Promotion expires, whichever is later, to avoid paying deferred interest charges."

Common sense dictates that the expiration date of 7/19/10 falls within the billing cycle of 7/9 to 8/8, making the due date 9/4 for that cycle. I ended up paying the entire promotional amount via online bank transfer on 8/9/10, thinking it was still nearly a month early. As I was paying online, I noticed the huge interest charge had posted to my account on 8/8. I called the company immediately, and they told me that the due date was 8/4 and gave no rational explanation for that (see above examples on billing cycles/due dates). I called again and again and was given 7/19/10 as the due date and 8/4/10 as the due date, each date twice over 4 calls, 4 different customer service reps including a supervisor on my last call. The supervisor was the rudest of all of them and flat out told me after 15 minutes of arguing "if you're calling to have the interest charges dropped, that's not going to happen." So I stopped with the phone and wrote a letter.

I sent a letter certified mail explaining the situation. I promptly received a reply in the mail which was just a boilerplate response letter two sentences long. No details, no explanation; just "we are correct and you are wrong."

So, to sum up, the company gave me two conflicting due dates: 7/19/10 ("original" due date) and 9/4/10 ("new" due date as referenced by the language on the 7/8/10 statement). This language was the most up-to-date instruction on due dates since it was the very last information I received prior to the expiration of the promotion. I considered the MOST CURRENT due date to be, well, the most valid (isn't that how things usually work?). It was so clearly interpretable to me, that I felt no need to call and verify the dates. It was in writing, after all, and right there on my statement. 9/4/10.

So after I paid on 8/9/10 and noticed the interest was charged, in their phone explanations I was given yet another due date of 8/4/10. All of these differing dates are not only misleading, they are clearly CONFLICTING. To me, it's not a case of misinterpretation, or confusion, or fuzzy language or anything else. It's simply a case of CONFLICTING due dates, and they are obviously going to claim the earliest one(s) are the correct one(s) so that they get the interest charged for my payment being late. I've never dealt with anything so shady in the entire two decades I've been using credit. I've never even HEARD of anything like this. Just the fact that I've been given different answers over the phone makes their story wreak of foul play. Then the response letter which provides ZERO explanation to their side of the story. Something is fishy.

Obviously I've already learned my lesson: pay off deferred interest promotions before the EARLIEST provided due date, or even earlier to be safe; or better yet, don't even sign up for these deals in the first place. However, before I just give in and pay these swindlers this lump of interest (about $500.00 worth), I want to know if I have any other recourse other than filing a half-dozen complaints with AGs, the FTC, OCC, BBB, and state representatives. It's great to be able to whine and complain but in the end it doesn't accomplish what I want to accomplish (not paying them what I strongly believe I do not owe). Digging back through all of the documents I saved, I've learned that the original card agreement calls for mandatory binding arbitration to solve disputes. But upon researching this subject quite extensively online, it's clear that arbitration is likely rigged to favor credit card companies (arbitration firms & cc companies have been under fire recently for this adultery). A private attorney is out of the question (if for nothing else but cost feasibility sake), and arbitration is untrustworthy.

Should I continue to send letters to the company threatening to report the matter to every regulatory office and agency I can think of? Also, what will most likely happen if I don't pay this -- interest will keep accruing, late charges...then eventually a collection agency and even higher costs and penalties?

Man if I could just go back and pay this offer prior to 7/19/10 and avoid all of this BS. Of course, if that happened I wouldn't have learned much...how corrupt this whole business is from every aspect. But I guess I should have already known that much.

Thanks in advance for your time and input. It would be much appreciated.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

arbitration is untrustworthy.

You agreed to arbitration when you signed up for the credit card. What makes you think it is untrustworthy?

Oh, wait. You read on the internet that someone wasn't happy with the outcome, so it must be bias.

 

[Rumblestrips]

You agreed to arbitration when you signed up for the credit card. What makes you think it is untrustworthy?

Oh, wait. You read on the internet that someone wasn't happy with the outcome, so it must be bias.

Here are a couple pages that sum up what I found out about arbitration after reading dozens of similar articles on the matter:
Credit card binding arbitration system crumbling
Credit Card Arbitration - Forbes.com

That's why I said it's untrustworthy. Aside from the fact that I initially questioned the authenticity of an "uninvolved" third party once I read that in the cc agreement. What's worse, my cc company specifically lists two arbitration firms in the card agreement, and if I want to open a claim, I must use one of those two. So much for "unbiased" third parties. It's clearly rigged to their advantage. Anyone would be a fool to not understand that's the way it works. The way ALL of this banking/financial mess probably works.

 

[Country Living]

I had a deferred interest Promotional Balance on a credit card for a year. Each month the statement came on the 8th (the 8th was the closing date for each billing cycle). The due date for each statement was always on the 4th of the following month. For example, the 6/8/10 statement had a due date of 7/4/10; the 7/8 statement had a due date of 8/4; and the 8/8 statement had a due date of 9/4.

The statement dated 7/8/10 was the very last statement I received before my Promotional Offer expired on 7/19/10. It had the following language front and center on the first page:

"You must pay your Promotional Balance in full by 7/19/10 OR the payment due date for the billing cycle in which the Promotion expires, whichever is later, to avoid paying deferred interest charges."

I read this to be July 19th (end of promotion) was later than July 8th (end of billing cycle). Of course it would have helped if you would have called the bank to make sure your assumptions were correct. You have to work off billing cycles, not due dates.

Wait for Tigi to come along - she likes wandering through all these details.

 

[Rumblestrips]

I read this to be July 19th (end of promotion) was later than July 8th (end of billing cycle). Of course it would have helped if you would have called the bank to make sure your assumptions were correct. You have to work off billing cycles, not due dates.

I did work off billing cycles. The billing cycle that ended on 7/8 included the 31 days from 6/8 to 7/8 (inclusive). The due date for that 7/8 statement (7/8 statement closing date) was 8/4. The very next billing cycle started up on 7/9 and ran until 8/8, for another 31 days inclusive, and that 8/8 statement (8/8 statement closing date) had a due date of 9/4. The promotional expiration of 7/19 fell within the 7/9 to 8/8 billing cycle (and the words were "...for the billing cycle IN WHICH the promotion expires..."). Hence, why I saw 9/4 as a new "allowable" due date. It seemed as if they were updating the due date, who knows why, I figured due to some new laws or something. At any rate, it was in writing and was clear to me so I didn't call to confirm. I would have called had I felt the slightest bit confused, which I didn't, and still don't.

Really, when I received two separate explanations stating 7/19 as the due date and two more separate explanations stating 8/4, that raised flags for me personally, and told me even the company doesn't know what it's doing and doesn't know how to interpret their own language conclusively. That right there tells me I'm onto something. Then when the letter came stating ZERO details, that confirmed it for me. They didn't want to put anything in writing because they literally couldn't make it make sense.

Lastly, in order for an 8/4 due date to make sense, the language previously quoted on that 7/8 statement would have had to read something like ".... by 7/19/10 OR the payment due date for this current statement”; or even, “…by 7/19/10 OR the very next payment due date after the promotion expires”. However, that's not how it was worded.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Aside from the fact that I initially questioned the authenticity of an "uninvolved" third party once I read that in the cc agreement. What's worse, my cc company specifically lists two arbitration firms in the card agreement, and if I want to open a claim, I must use one of those two.

Unfortunately, that is what you agreed to do.

 

[Rumblestrips]

Unfortunately, that is what you agreed to do.

Yep, I agree. It's unfortunate. I guess I'm just stuck with paying, taking it up the rear since the risk vs reward of going into rigged arbitration won't pay off. Not to mention pissing off a multi-billion dollar company who could just as easily have their way with my credit score, etc. Thanks for your posts

 

[JessiesGirl30]

Question

I have a question. You mentioned in your first post that you had one year on the Promotional thing. When did that year start and end?

 

[Rumblestrips]

I have a question. You mentioned in your first post that you had one year on the Promotional thing. When did that year start and end?

I made the purchase 7/19/09 and received a 1-year interest-free promotion. I had planned all along to pay it off by 7/19/10 (the expiration date) until I saw the language on my 7/9/10 statement just before the expiration date, which reads to me that I had until 9/4/10 to pay it off. I think cc companies purposefully stick in bits of language wherever they can to "confuse" people and try to make extra $$ in interest and/or other penalties. Though, in this case, I was never confused. Their language is not interpretable any other way to me. Had that language on the 7/9/10 statement not been there, I would have paid by 7/19/10 and the whole thing would have been avoided. At first I was kicking myself, but now, I'm glad I didn't pay. I've done extensive research into this whole business and have learned a lot. In the long run, I'll be better off. If I've learned nothing else, I've learned to stay away from cc companies, banks, the gov't if and when possible.