Monday, June 30, 2008

Working Hard To Prevent Credit Fraud

I got this in the mail the other day, but since I almost never pay attention to anything that arrives by standard mail, I just got around to actually reading it yesterday. It makes me wonder just how low of an IQ is required before they allow someone to start writing governing policies for Bank of America.
Dear Xxxxxxx X. Xxxxxxxx,

Your recent request to remove Xxx X. Xxxxxxxx from the above-referenced account was processed on April 11, 2008.

Authorized users are not responsible for repayment of the account balance. For your protection, please destroy all credit cards and cash advance checks issued to this person, because you are responsible for all charges to the account.

Any further use by Xxx X. Xxxxxxxx will be considered authorized by you. If you believe that this person might continue to use this account, please contact us at the number below so we can close the account and open a new one for you.


Gmmel Ola
[No, seriously.]

Customer Satisfaction department
If I ask you to remove someone as an authorized user of an account, wouldn't that make any further transactions expressly not authorized by me? Wouldn't that make any further use of the account by that person fraudulent? Is it seriously company policy for a lending agency to enable credit fraud?

If I want someone removed as an authorized user of an account, it means I no longer authorize them to use the account. That's the only possible thing it could mean. This creditor would rather continue lending money to a person no longer authorized to use an account than actually take any measures to prevent it, and people wonder why there is a staggering credit debt problem in the country right now. I mean, I know it boils down to fiscal irresponsibility, but perhaps the borrowers aren't the only group being entirely irresponsible here.

If this wasn't an account that was already closed and my ex wasn't entirely trustworthy, I would be calling this bank up with a very inrsistent what-the-fuck. Is it just Bank of America that has this lunacy as a policy, or do other creditors also not understand the only possible thing that removing an authorized user could possibly mean?


Post a Comment

<< Home