% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

People's United Financial Inc. Message Board

  • jerry1946fl jerry1946fl Jul 25, 2000 5:38 PM Flag

    They screwed up!

    I, also, have been slammed by the pbct
    greedballs,but, they made a hugh mistake when they tried to screw
    Me. ON notice of thier acts are the Commodity Futures
    Trading Commission, FDIC, and The U.S.Attorney in Miami
    thought it important enough to send it over to the F.B.I.
    in Miami.Who assigned a special agent from thier
    economics crime unit to investigate it!!! Check My post
    #365 and see why? This is a quest for me I told them
    so, and they wanted to be greedy, I have thier own
    employee on My voice mail copping a plea! F##K THEM. No
    more posts till I get the results i WANT. P.S. All you
    tellers make sure you tell your vp tommorow.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • subsequent to our recent chat, and all of your
      TILA research, I've changed my mind about you: you're
      not such a bad guy after all

      the TILA issue
      probably will come down to the definition of "default".
      since TILA does not define it, the traditional "you
      haven't paid US in 90 days, so now you are in default"
      definition would probably prevail. besides, neither the
      original Vitelli poison letter, nor any subsequent
      correspondence, has referred to "default" as the basis for our
      rate hike.

      looks like maybe the s--t is about
      to hit the fan. a whole bunch more unhappy campers
      receiving Vitelli letters for the beginning of the month

      sorry, PBCT, at least the credit card division, has
      changed hugely in just the past few months. and all of
      the changes are for the absolute worst. I'd be
      scared, VERY SCARED, about this if I were a stock holder.

    • the TILA part of our complaint may come down to
      whether they can "JUSTLY" claim that we were in default.
      irrespective of their working definition, "default" has a
      pretty narrow legal definition. I doubt any jury would
      agree with them that we were in default, when we have
      always paid them on time, and in most cases,
      substantially more than the monthly minimum due.

    • thanks for all the legal research. you sure
      you're not an attorney?

      our claim will have
      multiple fronts:

      1. we already put them on notice,
      and they responded that they believe that the
      interest rate hike is legitimate. therefore, the 60 day
      clock has expired.

      2. we were not "delinquent",
      and did not exceed credit limits.

      3. the most
      recent cardholder agreement sent to us stipulates two,
      and only two, actions they can take in the event of a

      part (a) stipulates that they can CLOSE your acount if
      you exceed your credit limit, pay late, gave false
      application info, break any promise you made to them, are not
      paying other debts on time, or People's believes you
      won't keep you promise to pay them.

      part (b)
      stipulates they can RAISE YOUR FINANCE CHARGE RATE if, and
      only if, you exceed your credit limit, or fail to pay
      on time.

      4. People's is apparently claiming
      we are in default (because of a FCRA/FCBA dispute
      with another creditor): it is our opinion that TILA
      notification requirements DO apply. In any case, sending an
      UNDATED notification letter, in a bulk mail envelope with
      no postmark, is highly questionable. bet THEY can't
      document/prove that they mailed the notice before the

      5. my punitive claim: well, that would be based on a
      composite of violations of a number of regulations/statutes
      (including, but not solely, TILA), adding up in total to a
      seven figure amount.

      thanks again for the
      information. I'd say these guys have been EXTREMELY
      sloppy/unprofessional. consider whether the press release, combined with
      their actions, amounts to an conspiracy (Vitelli;
      Morriss; Klein) to intentionally participate in interstate
      violations of applicable banking laws. doesn't look pretty.

    • When you are considered as "delinquent" or "in
      default" the 15 day notice period does not apply for
      interest rate changes. But the notice must be given before
      the effective date of the change (i.e. mailed or
      delivered). This could very well result in your actual
      receipt the notice slightly after the change took effect.
      And this is still legit as far as TILA is concerned.
      Sorry I misquoted before, this is actually in
      226.9(c)(1) not 226.9(c)(2)

    • As far as it goes with any TILA violations, did
      you know the law allows the creditor a grace period
      of up to 60 days to correct for its mistakes in
      erroneous notifications? If you put them on written notice,
      you closed this loophole. But they may still have an
      excuse if they can show it was a bona fide unintentional
      error ...

      I'm not sure about your claim of a
      "seven-figure punitive" (since that seems beyond the damages
      allowed under TILA) but you may get a kick out of the
      criminal penalties! See the information (from JAG!) about
      the TILA which can be found at

      You may also find this one useful -- Regulation Z
      details are at

      Allegations of any TILA violation ought to be straightforward
      to evaluate based upon the printed materials. How
      and when the notice must be given are in Reg-Z at
      226.9(c), although I really don't like the vague phrasing
      "mailed or delivered" because that suggests wiggle room
      like "we mailed it to you 15 days in advance, don't
      blame us that the USPS is slow" (even though we try to
      use the same argument in reverse when our payments
      show up late on the bank's doorstep). Just be sure to
      save the envelope so you have the postmark! Note also
      that 15 days aren't required -- 226.9(c)(2) -- if they
      can justly consider you as "in default" which would
      be the case for those tagged with 27.99% APR.

    • It doesn't look pretty based on what you read
      here, but keep in mind that the extent of any damage
      would depend upon the number of affected card holders
      for whom any changes were handled incorrectly. Many
      who were "re-priced" may well have received notice
      with adequate lead time as required by the TILA, and
      the change in interest rates may have been
      permissible under their contracts. Risk profiling with the
      use of scoring systems is not new to the industry,
      and the actual interest rates offered to individuals
      have always been allowed to differ based upon each
      person's unique circumstances and the lender's own
      assessment of that person's

      According to last year's annual report, credit card
      services make up about 25% of the business for PBCT. I am
      sure other shareholders would agree with me when I say
      that sloppy handling of the bank's legal obligations
      here would give me cause to doubt the professionalism
      and competence of the management assigned to this
      role. But at the same time we did expect proactive
      steps to be taken to respond to the changing market
      rates as well as ongoing management of risk within the
      accounts to address delinquincies and charge-offs, as
      would be done by any prudent lender. For investors, the
      current situation warrants careful monitoring. One can
      only hope that the legal expertise and attention to
      detail within PBCT is not as amateurish as it would seem
      based upon the stories floating around here on Yahoo!

    • I posted some info, in response to your comments,
      on Mr. Chromosom's board - take a look when you get
      a chance.

      Hmmmm. A TILA violation, a breach
      of contract terms claim, a bait and switch
      allegation - at just what point might you consent that this
      bank has gone through some recent changes for the
      worse, at leastin the credit card arena?

      And, if
      the allegations are true, and enforcement and/or
      civil actions ensue, just what do you suppose the
      ramifications to shareholders will be?

    • Thanks for your feedback. I do find it easier to
      comment in the separate thread you created at
      since the problems you describe are not unique to
      any individual bank. Rather they are the
      characterstics of the industry as a whole. I tend to believe
      this landscape tends to bring all players "down into
      the mud" based upon the need to stay

      As far as certified mail goes, while it is a useful
      tool when you are already in a disupte, it certainly
      is overkill for routine monthly payments. Some
      alternative suggestions are offered at including the simple notion of using regular mail
      but sending the payment well in advance to hopefully
      ensure that it cannot possibly arrive late.

      may well have them pinned on a TILA violation. At
      best it is a sign of sloppy management. At worst it
      could be as you've suggested. I'll take the optimistic
      path for now, but keep a watchful eye. Regardless of
      the underlying reasons (whether by error or by
      design) there will be a price to pay for such

      To the extent I have taken a defensive stance (as a
      shareholder) it is based upon a skeptical attitude born out of
      the nature of message boards ... where anonymous
      posters can take pot-shots at any company, and push their
      own agenda (e.g. shorts) without having their
      arguments subjected to strict scrutiny. I used to have a
      credit card with PBCT, but moved on a while ago to find
      a better deal. I continue to use them extersively
      for many other banking services, and have known them
      well for over a decade. It is hard for me to reconcile
      the PBCT I know with what you and others are
      reporting here.

    • thank you for you posts to our message board
      (Yahoo Business&Finance). all of your points were good
      (better discussion going on there than here).

      couple of points:

      why should a consumer have to
      pay $3 to send payments via certified mail? and
      remember, the vast majority of people in this country still
      do not have access to electronic

      threaten to close account to leverage better deal? in the
      past, that has worked with some credit card companies.
      but in the case of the People's issue, I really think
      they are taking the actions implemented to * encourage
      * certain account holders to leave.

      removal of interest rate caps came as a result of
      revision to federal banking laws. many states had usery
      statutes, but these were inconsistent with the new federal
      law, so they were abolished. it is probably time to
      re-establish some limits, at the federal level.

      there has been an ongoing discussion concerning banking
      fees vs. costs. the issue centers on whether the
      amount of fees in excess of actual costs (plus
      reasonable markup) represent windfall profit, and should be
      limited. as banks pile on the fees (fees upon fees), the
      public, and their elected representatives, are leaning
      more and more towards regulation. the ATM fee issue
      may be the starting point [banks charge to see a live
      teller, to push customers to use "lower cost" ATM
      transactions: then they start putting fees on the ATM usage.
      can't win from no how]

      thanks again for adding
      your 2 cents worth to our board. in reality, you sound
      more like you are with us, than agin us.

      legislative action is slow. but it has to start somewhere,
      and I'm just the person to get the ball rolling. when
      new, "oppressive" banking rules come about, the
      industry (and bank shareholders) can thank the
      dishonorable folks at People's Bank CT for their new misery
      (and decline in profitability).

    • damn right I'd be interested in a class

      I'll be sending you my e-mail address, and a short
      description of what People's Bank did to me (including the
      specific illegal or contract-breaching elements) in the
      near future.

      [maybe Vitelli and his bosses will
      soil their shorts when they figure out what their
      dishonorable actions are going to cost (ha, ha, ha)]

    • View More Messages
15.595+0.195(+1.27%)11:42 AMEDT