|
|
Credit Card Issuers have since conjured up more Predatory Advertising to Target Credit Cardholders With Low Financial Literacy Capacity that continued unchecked by Two Of Australia's Three Financial Services Regulators and Forfeit Interest Free Period And Pay Interest On Each Purchase From The Purchase Date notes that for most of the 55+ years existence of Credit Cards, the Credit Cardholder paid Interest on any part of the Total Amount Owing that was not repaid by the Payment Due Date. If the Total Amount Owing was $500 and the Credit Cardholder repaid $400 by the Payment Due Date, the Credit Cardholder paid Interest on $100 until the remaining $100 was repaid. And then the Interest Free Period was re-instated. Slowly but surely, almost all Credit Card Issuers moved from the former interest charging model of charging interest for only any shortfall until repaid, to charging Interest for all Purchases if the Total Amount Owing is not repaid by the Payment Due Date.As evidenced in Example 1 of Unconscionable Conduct, it doesn't matter "if the monthly repayment is a dollar short, or paid a day late", most Credit Card Issuers charged a Credit Cardholder interest at the Purchases interest rate for all Purchases in the preceding month. Some Credit Cards also withdraw the Interest Free Period for up to two subsequent months if the Total Amount Owing is not paid by the Payment Due Date which means that if a Credit Cardholder failed to pay the Total Amount Owing in the third month, he/she could forfeit their Interest Free Period for five months, and many Credit Cardholders with poor Financial Literacy Capacity have so forfeited. In Example 1 of Unconscionable Conduct St George Bank also withdrew the flummoxed Credit Cardholder's Interest Free Period for the following two months, because of the 2.16% shortfall in payment of his Closing Balance, being $40. St. George Bank relied upon Clause 18.1 "Interest charges on purchases and our fees" of its "Conditions of Use - Credit Guide (Effective: 20 May 2014) of a 62 page document in Arial 8 font because Peter McK. did not pay the entire Closing Balance of $1,936.92, but paid $1,896.92 ($40 shortfall) 10 days prior to the Payment Due Date. Credit Cardholders with poor Financial Literacy Capacity are much more prone to not repay the Total Amount Owing by the Payment Due Date and then be severely penalised as in above. Unconscionable Credit Card Interest Charging explains that the ABA, in an effort to improve its tarnished image, outlawed in Dec 2017 Credit Card Issuers from charging interest on any repaid portion of the Total Amount Owing. =================================================== Key Facts Sheet informs that encompassed within the National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Home Loans and Credit Cards) Act 2011 (passed on 4 July 2011) is an obligation for each Credit Card Issuer to provide a Key Facts Sheet, in the format prescribed in SCHEDULE 6, to each prospective new Credit Cardholder prior to the prospective new Credit Cardholder executing a binding Credit Card contract (a continuing credit contract under which credit is ordinarily obtained only by the use of a Credit Card). Below is an extract from Division 3—Key Facts Sheets for credit card contract of the above Act 2011:
Below are conditions within SCHEDULE 6 which describes the format of the Key Facts Sheet that Credit Card Issuers are breaching:
Many advertised Credit Card Products breach the above obligation to provide a Key Facts Sheet, in the above format prescribed, to each prospective new Credit Cardholder prior to the prospective new Credit Cardholder executing a binding Credit Card Contract. Some Credit Card advertisements 'Dangle the Carrots' and 'Conceal the Spiders' and circumvent listing rudimentary information required pursuant to SCHEDULE 6. Labyrinth of ‘Concealed Spiders’ contains such evidence. Example 8 - Unconscionable Conduct - Citibank Platinum Card, Citibank Classic Card and Citibank Simplicity Card notes that Citibank is presently running an extensive advertising campaign assertedly to help existing 'other bank' Credit Cardholders that are currently swamped with Credit Card Debt Accruing Interest to enjoy a Zero-interest balance transfer @ 1.5% B.T. fee for 24 months. Citibank's strategy is driven by empirical evidence that Credit Cardholders that hold significant Credit Card Debt Accruing Interest often mismanage Zero-interest balance transfer offers as explained in "Zero-interest balance transfers credit cards can have sting" and Example 8. Citibank's altruistic advertisements are appalling and Unconscionable, yet Australia's pre-eminent Credit Card regulator, the RBA, that enjoys the authority to request any financial information it deems relevant from any Credit Card Issuer to ensure "the economic prosperity and welfare of the people of Australia" remains complicit. The fact that there is no Interest Free Period if there is a Balance Transfer is often concealed. Rather Predatory Advertising of many Balance Transfer advertising promises Jumbo Reward Points for making large amounts of Purchases, knowing full well that some new Credit Cardholders are oblivious that the interest meter is running from the date of each Purchase @ 20.99% circa if there is a Balance Transfer amount. And when the 24 months Zero-interest balance transfer expires, any outstanding Balance Transfer reverts to the Cash Advance interest rate of 21.74% circa. Citibank conceals that it charges a Late Payment Fee of $10 per week if a Credit Cardholder fails to pay the Minimum Monthly Payment by the Payment Due Date. Has ASIC ever imposed the afore-mentioned Criminal penalty: 100 penalty units upon any Credit Cardholder for failing to provide a Key Facts Sheet, in the format prescribed in SCHEDULE 6, to each prospective new Credit Cardholder prior to the prospective new Credit Cardholder executing a binding Credit Card contract?
|
| ||||||||
|
|