Consumer complaint received 2017-04-05 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — 
Issue: Late fee — 
Company: KEYCORP
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
I spoke to a Key Bank credit card representative today regarding adjusting the minimum payment due this month to reflect the waiver of the late fee from last month for having paid, I believe, two days late. My minimum payment is {$80.00} - {$43.00} monthly payment and the {$37.00} late charge. Since the late charge was waived, I requested the minimum payment reflect the adjustment. The credit card representative identified himself as either " XXXX '' or " XXXX. '' He claimed that he could not adjust the minimum payment, but that, obviously, the {$37.00} of excess payment would be counted toward principal repayment. I asked that I be allowed to speak to his supervisor. He hemmed and hawed a bit, but then he transferred me to his supervisor, who identified himself as " XXXX. '' XXXX told me that Key Bank was legally required - whether it be by statute or regulation - not to reduce the minimum payment. When I asked whether it was statute or regulation, he said he was not sure, but he thought it might be statute, because there was major federal credit card legislation passed in XX/XX/XXXX or XX/XX/XXXX, but that all credit card companies were prohibited from reducing minimum payments after the waiver of a late charge. I told him that he answered my question, that I would research his answer, and if I found that what he represented to me was untrue, I would complain to the CFPB. 

I first called my other credit card vendor. The representative confirmed that there was major credit card legislation passed, but that he was unaware of what the Key Bank supervisor proffered as true. He said, though, that his company reduced the minimum payment after late fee adjustment. I researched the matter further. There was major federal credit card legislation passed, although not in XX/XX/XXXX or XX/XX/XXXX, but in XX/XX/XXXX : The Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure ( CARD ) Act of XX/XX/XXXX. I looked at the terms of the act and found nothing requiring credit card companies to maintain a minimum payment even after the late fee that the minimum payment included had been waived. I did find, however, a provision that requires a credit card company to prove ( I assume to CFPB or other regulator ) that costs associated with the late payment justify a late payment charge in excess of {$35.00}. The proposed late fee was {$37.00}, and because payments are made online ( without the cost of paper or postage ), I am puzzled as to why Key Bank has costs that would justify a late payment charge beyond the customary maximum late payment charge of {$35.00}. This statement is particularly pertinent because Key Bank charged a {$.00} interest charge for the two-day late payment of {$43.00}, which is far in excess of its cost of borrowing. 

In my research I also found that the Fair Debt Collections and Practices Act, specifically 15 USC 1692e ( 10 ), prohibits a credit card company from engaging in deceptive practices to collect or attempt to collect a debt. I believe XXXX 's misrepresentation to me violated this section of the U.S. Code, but what really concerns me is that SVP and Consumer Collections Department Head XXXX XXXX made a similar misrepresentation - representing a questionable Key Bank policy to me as being required of it by statute or regulation, when its policy is not so required, and I worry that these incidents are part of a Key Bank practice. Key Bank blames " those XXXX bank regulators '' instead of dealing with its customers forthrightly and justifying its dubious policies to customers.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation