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.
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
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
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.
stipulates they can RAISE YOUR FINANCE CHARGE RATE if, and
only if, you exceed your credit limit, or fail to pay
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
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
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?
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
ebanks&sid=17927070&mid=1 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
http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/cc/20000103.asp 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
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
[maybe Vitelli and his bosses will
soil their shorts when they figure out what their
dishonorable actions are going to cost (ha, ha, ha)]