Consumer complaint received 2023-06-14 00:00:00
Product: Credit card or prepaid card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Other features, terms, or problems — Other problem
Company: FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF OMAHA
State: VA

Complaint narrative:
I had a XXXX card issued by First National Bank of Omaha and carried a balance that was around {$7000.00} by the end of XXXX, when I decided to accept another bank 's transfer balance offer. The balance transfer covered most of the balance, and I paid the remaining balance in a separate payment XXXX XXXX, XXXX. After getting the balance to zero, I used the card XXXX more times for minimal amounts that came to a total of {$34.00}. 

The card was an XXXX XXXX ( in connection with XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) and I opened the account sometime in XXXX, I believe. I no longer have those records. I always paid on time and kept the account in good standing for some 15 years, to my recollection. 

Then, something unfortunate happened. 
I made a payment of {$40.00} on XX/XX/XXXX to cover some recent charges and a {$70.00} annual membership fee, which I believe brought my account to zero again. I intended to keep using the card and so I did not ask for the account to be closed. I used it XXXX more times in XXXX for charges that totaled {$34.00}, as stated earlier. But FNBO never sent me another statement again after that, either electronically or by mail, even though my account was set to have statements sent to me by regular U.S. mail. From XXXX to the end of XXXX, I received no statement, no letters or late notices of any kind until XX/XX/XXXX, when a letter arrived in my mailbox informing me that the account had been closed to do an " extreme delinquency. '' I do not dispute that I owed that money. As soon as I read the letter, I made a payment by phone of {$34.00}. I then called the Collections department at FNBO to explain the oversight. Since I had been a customer in good standing for XXXX  years, the oversight amounted to what I viewed as " de minimis '' and any reasonable person could see immediately that it was just a misstep. I thought I would be able to re-open the account since I took care of the problem as soon as I was notified. I do not believe that FNBO 's failure to send me statements or reminders relieved me of the debt ; it was simply a mistake. But FNBO 's collection representative said he could not reopen the account. I would have to request that through customer service. The credit limit was {$10000.00} at the time. Overnight, that credit limit was cut to zero, which of course hurt my FICO score, particularly the credit usage ratio, which instantly became very high. My score went from " good '' to " fair '' immediately. 

I called FNBO customer service today, XX/XX/XXXX, to request the account be re-opened. I was denied that request. 

I think there is a reason why FNBO closed my account and it is different from the reason they stated in their letter. It should be completely obvious that I had no trouble paying my bills on time. I am not a bad credit risk. My excellent XXXX record with my account was completely disregarded, but it should have factored in. The action FNBO took was harmful to my credit score and it will make it harder and more expensive for me to borrow money in the future. I think the real reason for closure was that FNBO decided I was no longer a profitable customer, so they dumped me like garbage to the curb. It is quite odd that FNBO for reasons unknown, never reminded me about the balance due. What bank does not take reasonable attempts to collect any debt? We all know the banks and the credit rating agencies hold all the cards in our economic system and consumers can be bullied, exploited and spit out at will, with little recourse. It is one thing for a bank to play hardball with another financial institution -- that's capitalism. But consumers occupy the lowest rung in our economic system. Banks can take adverse actions with nary an explanation. Stories abound about banks slashing credit lines overnight of customers that paid off their accounts too fast and did not use their card " enough '' whatever that means. There is much conflicting advice out there on the internet about how best to maintain your credit score. Some say you should not use too much credit ; others say that you should use your card " sometimes '' but not " too much '' in order to, I suppose, give the banks a reason to keep you as a customer who pays fees and interest ; others say that paying off a card and not using it for a while will increase your score. Someone recommended keeping your monthly charges between 10 % and 30 % of your credit limit. Why is refraining from incurring debt simply not an option? 

Why must consumers be forced into playing a game whose rules they can not know? Consumers are armed with little knowledge, banks offer little to no transparency and their decisions can be very consequential to consumers. I believe I was shafted as a result of the bank 's changing appetite for credit exposure and its profitability model and the tiny delinquent amount was an excuse. Let 's be real. 

I have been punished by at least one other bank for paying off a credit card too soon and not using it enough. Why should banks be allowed to rig the system in a way that essentially encourages people to become hooked on their credit cards? Everyone knows financial institutions reap huge profits from interchange fees and it is in their best interest to keep spending levels as high as possible. This serves no one 's interest but the banks and their shareholders. It is part of today 's unfortunate shareholder-first mentality and it is wearing down regular people. It reduces trust in banks, and it creates bad will, and banks know that in today 's market, that doesn't matter much to them. In some cases, they are " too big to fail ''! They can be " rescued '' by the Fed to the tune of billions, and yet they punish petty missteps as if their retail customers are small children. What choice do we have? 

Something needs to change, and it can start with FNBO telling me why they think their practices are fair, proportional and reasonable. I don't think they can. They will simply say I deserved to have my credit line closed because I failed to pay a valid ( tiny ) debt, albeit one they didn't bother reminding me I had. I also think that giving me a pro-rata refund of my annual " membership '' fee of {$70.00} would demonstrate good faith. I don't need FNBO, their card or, frankly, any part of the {$70.00} back. What I need is transparency so I can manage my consumer debt without stumbling into a trap with major consequences by with such a minor misstep. Using this case, I would like to push for more transparency in credit decisions so that consumers don't have to make costly guesses.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief