Consumer complaint received 2015-04-24 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — 
Issue: Payoff process — 
Company: FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF OMAHA
State: GA

Complaint narrative:
The Banks holding Credit-Card Debt are UN-FAIRLY manipulating their " Payment Allocation '' ( methodology ) to FAVOR " Pay-Down '' of LOWER Interest-rate " Remaining Balance-Due '' while INCREASING those " Remaining Balance Due '' amounts remaining at HIGHER Interest rates as-follows : See Your " Charge Summary '' as those " Line-Items '' depicting ( Your ) various " Purchases '' or " Cash Advance '' or " Balance Transfer '' or " Special/Loan/Program '' followed by It 's " Terms '' itemized as " APR '' with " Fixed Interest '' ( terms ) depicted as ( f ) and " Variable Interest '' ( terms ) depicted ( v ), then followed by " Balance Subject to Interest Rate '', then " Days Rate Used '', and finally that " Interest Charged '' ( You ) over those ( Days ) It was accrued as-such. 

Whereas I have XXXX ITEMS on My " Charge Summary '' for them to " Allocate Payment '' - and DESPITE that I PAID OVER {$36.00} MORE THAN My " Minimum payment Due '' of {$240.00} ( for actually paying {$280.00} ) - The Banks " Payment Allocation '' rather went-down exampled as-follows : ( A ) " BT SPECIAL '' ( Balance Transfer Special ) amount of {$10000.00} held@7.99 % ( v ) RATHER INCREASED {$1.00} to {$10000.00} for NO PAYMENT ALLOCATION WHATSOEVER ~ AND DESPITE ME PAYING MORE THAN {$36.00} ABOVE the " minimum-payment due '' AND well-before It 's " Due Date ''. 

( B ) " BT SPECIAL '' outstanding-balance of {$600.00} held@7.99 % ( v ) DECREASED to {$570.00} for the " Payment Allocation '' to It of {$29.00} ( C ) " BT SPECIAL '' outstanding-balance of {$1800.00} held@5.99 % ( f ) DECREASED to {$1600.00} for a " Payment Allocation '' of {$170.00} ~ Indeed HERE is where THEY apply THE LION-SHARE of that {$280.00} " Payment '' ... toward paying-down what " Balance '' I 've secured at Low/Fixed-Interest :? 

IT 'S A PROBELM TO CONSUMERS WHEN " PAYMENT ALLOCATIONS '' ARE RATHER MIS-ALLOCATED TO RATHER CAUSE AN INCREASE IN OUTSTANDING DEBT! 

IT 'S A PROBLEM TO CONSUMERS WHEN PAYING THE MINIMUM PAYMENT DOES N'T AT-LEAST ABATE " NEGATIVE AMORTIZATION '' ( Growth vs. Reduction ) OF ONES " DEBT ''!! 

IT 'S A PROBLEM TO CONSUMERS WHEN PAYMENT ALLOCATIONS RATHER PERPETUALLY INCREASE THOSE BALANCES " REMAINING '' AT HIGHER INTEREST DESPITE ONE MAKING MORE-THAN THE " MINIMUM PAYMENT DUE '' BECAUSE IT 'S UN-FAIR AND ETHICALLY WRONG!!! 

The Example again : Whereas My " Minimum Payment Due '' was {$240.00} - and I rather-paid {$280.00} - My " XXXX XXXX BT Special '' @ 6 % FIXED APR " Balance Subject to Interest Rate '' ( Balance Outstanding ) DROPPED for a payment-allocation made toward IT of {$170.00} ... 

BUT My " XXXX XXXX BT Special ''@7.99 % VARIABLE INCREASED for an additional {$1.00} BEING ADDED TO IT ... 

THIS DESPITE PAYING MORE THAN THE " MINIMUM-PAYMENT DUE '' PAYING THE " MINIMUM PAYMENT DUE '' SHOULD ALWAYS AT-LEAST SATISFY MAINTENANCE OF THE ACCOUNT STATUS-QUO vs. INDUCE ANY NEGATIVE AMORTIZATION ~ AS IT IS RATHER DOING EXACTLY AND DESPITE ( ME ) MAKING MORE-THAN THAT " MINIMUM PAYMENT DUE ''. 

This has gone-on for years now despite MINE AND OTHERS protests to " Creditors '' and SHOULD therefore now go to FEDERAL Court as a Class-Action Lawsuit to STOP IT!!! 

This CURRENTLY ALLOWED PRACTICE OF THE BANKS is an UN-FAIR manipulation of that methodology employed to calculate " Payment Allocation '' and IT MUST STOP NOW with Mine, Yours, and Our protest TODAY, Thank You.

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation