Report: Discover Card
Category: Credit Card Processing (ACH) Companies
Discover Card cancelled my 84 yr old mother West Valley City Utah
*REBUTTAL Employee ..I admit I do not know what we would do about a person in a coma or on life support
Rebuttal Box
Respond to this report!
Are you an owner, employee or ex-employee with either negative or positive information about the company or individual, or can you provide "insider information" on this company? Victim of this person/company?
Are you also a victim of the same company or individual? Want Justice? File a Rip-off Report, help other consumers to be educated and don´t let them get away with it!
Discover Card
Fax:
West Valley City, Utah, 84130-0943
U.S.A.
Submitted: 6/28/2004 6:26:48 PM
Modified: 10/11/2004 10:49:51 PM
Clarence
weatherford, Texasmy mother is beridden and unable to even feed herself let alone talk on the phone. i let them know this and that i had legal power of attorney. they said ok and to send them a copy of this and there would be no problems. i got a letter to her today saying that they had cancelled her account because they couldnt contact her by phone. when i sent the copy i gave them 3 phone numbers to call and let me know they had recieved it.
never heard a word from them until this letter. they were told that my mother was not living at home as she is in a nursing home and has been for a yr and a half. but they called the home phone and said they couldnt make contact. duh. i live about three hundred miles from her and i had her meds from the druggist set up to be billed to her discover card. i pay her bills for her and she or i have never been late and paid the full amount due.
Clarence
weatherford, Texas
U.S.A.
Click here to read other Rip Off Reports on Discover Card
Looking for premium tickets? Concert Tickets | Sports Tickets | Theatre Tickets just visit www.TicketFeeder.com
Search for additional reports
If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, please use the search box below:
In order to assure the best results in your search:
- Keep the name short & simple, and try different variations of the name.
- Do not include ".com", "S", "Inc.", "Corp", or "LLC" at the end of the Company name.
- Use only the first/main part of a name to get best results.
- Only search one name at a time if Company has many AKA’s.
Rebuttal Box
Respond to this report!
Are you an owner, employee or ex-employee with either negative or positive information about the company or individual, or can you provide "insider information" on this company? Victim of this person/company?
Are you also a victim of the same company or individual? Want Justice? File a Rip-off Report, help other consumers to be educated and don´t let them get away with it!Repair Your Reputation
Got Reports filed against you? Resolve the issues and rebuild trust through our Corporate Advocacy Program.
Updates & Rebuttals:
- Power Of Attorney K [8/5/2004 7:57:35 PM]
- I'd love to be the underwriter Robert [8/6/2004 5:53:13 PM]
- look before you leap Winston [8/8/2004 12:11:28 PM]
- fyi: Winston (look before YOU leap) K [8/10/2004 9:54:26 PM]
- FYI-K Buck [8/15/2004 6:53:59 PM]
- Still trying to figure out ... and why SHE needs the credit card Robert [8/16/2004 4:23:43 AM]
- fyi-robert Buck [8/17/2004 9:14:40 AM]
- for robert Clarence [8/17/2004 8:34:55 PM]
- Thank you, Robert! Comk [8/17/2004 10:58:58 PM]
- wrong wrong and wrong Robert [8/18/2004 4:35:29 PM]
- Discover's responsibility? Amy [8/18/2004 4:39:35 PM]
- fyi-comk, keep making excuses for the rip-off you did to my mother Clarence [8/19/2004 8:51:45 AM]
- fyi-robert&amy Clarence [8/19/2004 8:16:37 PM]
- slander discover did wrong and are just trying to degrade you Winston [8/20/2004 9:00:48 PM]
- Wrong again, Clarence! ...a somewhat intelligent man? KBerger [8/24/2004 11:01:55 PM]
- Just for you, Winston ...reading comprehension is not your forte KBerger [8/24/2004 11:37:50 PM]
- more excuses from discover Clarence [8/25/2004 8:56:23 PM]
- Oh, please! K [8/26/2004 1:28:22 PM]
- k - quit dodging ...Discover legal dept did nothing to verify the poa - the only one of her cards that didnt accept the poa Clarence [8/27/2004 9:33:21 AM]
- I responded to this.... K [9/7/2004 11:03:05 PM]
- more stupid excuses Clarence [9/9/2004 8:32:14 AM]
- See you later, Clarence! ..you have clearly not read or have not understood what you have read in my last post. K [9/9/2004 7:11:13 PM]
- FYI-K the crime was committed Clarence [9/10/2004 9:28:34 AM]
- I cannot resist K [9/12/2004 9:36:52 PM]
- Love is in the air.. occupy space Robert [9/13/2004 4:16:39 AM]
- egg on your faceyou are the one who needs to use common sense Clarence [9/13/2004 11:17:58 AM]
- Hello, Robert! K [9/21/2004 9:50:17 PM]
- PS: Just for you, Clarence.... K [9/21/2004 9:59:32 PM]
- Easy to address situational points Kate [9/22/2004 5:54:30 AM]
- thank you Winston [9/23/2004 8:36:44 AM]
- You've hit the nail on the head Kate... WHO actually needs the card? Robert [9/23/2004 7:42:37 PM]
- Clarence - I'm not sure I'd let it go - but if you do follow up..... Kate [9/24/2004 6:09:44 AM]
- hello, Kate, you don't seem to have read the posts accurately K [9/25/2004 6:21:52 PM]
- dodging again Clarence [9/26/2004 11:58:13 AM]
- Clarence - one last thought '...read the SELDOM read cardmember agreement'. Kate [9/27/2004 5:41:29 AM]
- The Most Important Fact is being Forgotten... A [9/28/2004 12:28:25 PM]
- They just can't let it go Clarence Kate [9/29/2004 10:24:09 AM]
- Kate, How dare you... A [9/30/2004 9:03:55 AM]
- another employee Clarence [10/1/2004 9:52:04 PM]
- Wow - somebody needs us to just pray for them Kate [10/4/2004 7:30:53 AM]
- 'K' in Phoenix: Get back to work! Dina [10/4/2004 8:14:19 PM]
- Nope, I am still here! K [10/6/2004 11:42:36 PM]
- AND FURTHER (hope these don't post backward) K [10/6/2004 11:50:23 PM]
- Just some more insights.... K [10/7/2004 12:03:39 AM]
- Especially for DINA K [10/7/2004 12:19:54 AM]
- Dictionary :-) Kate [10/7/2004 5:35:32 AM]
- K, you failed to address Dina. Pat [10/7/2004 12:46:39 PM]
- k-still making excuses - normal big brother tactics, just their way of trying to make a 84 yr old,disabled,elderly retired banker look bad becaused they screwed up Clarence [10/7/2004 8:09:45 PM]
- A question just for Clarence. Pat [10/8/2004 9:59:50 AM]
- to pat Clarence [10/8/2004 9:27:16 PM]
- VERY TELLING INFO HERE, CLARENCE! K [10/8/2004 9:42:22 PM]
- And further.... K [10/8/2004 10:02:36 PM]
- Poor little 'K' Dina [10/9/2004 9:44:13 AM]
- more lies and excuses Clarence [10/11/2004 12:06:33 AM]
- and another thing K [10/11/2004 5:40:49 PM]
- Clarence.... I admit I do not know what we would do about a person in a coma or on life support K [10/11/2004 6:23:35 PM]
Power Of Attorney
It is not infrequent for employees of the Fraud/Loss Prevention and/or Legal or Probate departments to come across unverifiable Power of Attorney documents. It is also not uncommon, unfortunately, for Discover to come across outright fakes of such documents.
Although I cannot say for sure what your/your mother's situation is or was...I can say that every effort is made to verify the validity/existence of such documents. If we cannot verify them, then an account may be closed either temporarily or permanently.
Sadly, there are many cases of elder abuse and fraud against elderly persons who cannot care for themselves. Much abuse occurs when accounts have persons acting as Power of Attorney.
All of this is to say that Discover does not close accounts willy-nilly. It is a fairly drastic step taken only when we feel the financial interests of our company AND/OR our customers are at stake.
Again, though I cannot begin to assume anything about your particular situation, I must say I've personally found one thing to be true in regards to 'complaints' regarding Power of Attorney/Elderly Cardholders....
'HE (OR SHE) THAT PROTESTS SO LOUDLY MAY BE PROTESTING SO LOUDLY TO RE-DIRECT ATTENTION FROM HIS/HER OWN ACTIONS.'
***My views are solely the views of a long time, experienced employee and may or may not be the same as those of my company.***
I'd love to be the underwriter
Let me get this straight. She's 84, bedridden, can't move or feed herself, talk, or do anything else. But she HAS to have a credit card. RIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGHT!!! Discover cancelled her card for GOOD reason. You named all of them.
look before you leap
as a person with legal background i wonder if discover tried to contact the lawyer who made the poa as his name is on the poa or if they tried to contact the county clerks office to see if it was legally filed,which is listed on the back of the last page of the poa. doesnt look like they did.also the poa is for him to only change address or to get info on the account,nothing else.and the report doesnt say she cant talk but that she couldnt talk on the phone as she couldnt hold the phone would be my guess.and he stated that he had the card setup with the drug store to charge her meds as he lived out of town.sounds like a reasonable thing to do as there may be no other way for her to pay for them as she is unable to write.and maybe there is noone there to go pay for them.sounds like some things were not done right to me. too bad there isnt a credit abuse of the elderly or disabled law on the books for cc companies as the is a good reason to have one.
fyi: Winston (look before YOU leap)
It is our legal department that handles POAs, and I assure you they do a very thorough job of it.
As for your remark about 'she couldn't hold the phone...' well, there are caregivers all over the country that are capable of holding a phone to a person's ear if that is the only challenge they face. And if that was in fact the only barrier to this particular woman using the phone, why did her son not do this for her???
Also, the author of original complaint cites 'i got a letter to her today saying that they had cancelled her account because they couldnt contact her by phone. when i sent the copy i gave them 3 phone numbers to call and let me know they had recieved it.'
WELL, we did not say we tried to contact HIM. We tried to contact HER. His giving us 3 phone numbers is a moot point if he's the only one answering the phone and is blocking our access to the Cardholder! Now, if we were calling a number she USED to live at, then we should have been given a phone number to contact her at the nursing home.
FYI-K
your legal dept did not contact the attorney who drew up the poa as he has known mrs gosch for at least 40 yrs. her brother-in-law(a retired county offical of 36 yrs checked with the county clerks ofc and they had no contact from discover. the numbers he sent were for them to let him know that they had received the poa. so they could have called him and done this and could have found out the next time he would be in lubbock(as he lives 300 miles away) to call them and let her talk to her which they didnt.
so i dont see were he is blocking access to his mother as she may not even have a phone at the nursing home. and did they even ask him for a phone number? NO they didnt. just excuses to cover up the way they did her wrong.so K you need to read the whole thing and check all the facts before writing a rebuttal.discover gets caught and all they can do is make excuses to cover up there lousy way they do business with elderly or disabled people. and it is not always the bad ones who scream the loudest,-as you wrote before.
the good and honest also YELL at being done wrong, as my mother was.
Submitted: 8/16/2004 4:23:43 AM
Modified: 8/16/2004 10:34:49 PM
Robert
Hubert, North CarolinaU.S.A.
Still trying to figure out ... and why SHE needs the credit card
I am still trying to figure out how and why SHE needs the credit card. She is in a nursing home. The nursing home provides everything she needs including medication. This is not arguable. My grandparents were all in homes, Private and public, and they never had to purchase any meds for themselves. She has NO NEED for a credit card from anyone. It appears that Clarence NEEDS the credit card. Must have looked that way to Discover too. They cancelled HER card for various reasons that Clarence has already stated and SHE is not complaining. HE is. He also states that the card is always paid up in full and on time. I doubt that. If it was, he would be able to get one in HIS name and not be using HERS. Grow up Clarence, start paying YOUR bills and one day, the credit card people will bestow upon you that horrid little slip of plastic. The fact that people who are in bankruptcy can get them says alot about the underwriting requirements they use to issue them.
fyi-robert
robert -as before you dont know what you are talking about.person who can get medicade get thier meds paid for in a nursing home. people who have house,property,stocks,etc do not qualifly for medicad. they are private pay, which means they pay for the nursing home,meds,etc themselves.so check the facts before you write rebuttals.
for robert
well i can see that robert dont know a whole lot about the laws of texas.to have your meds paid for in a nursing home you have to qualifty for medicaid. a person who owns a house, property, stocks, etc does not qualifty as this is for low income people.
so people that have the thingor things listed above have to be private pay. which means they pay for the nursing home,meds,etc. themselves as my mother has too. so before you go writing things in a rebuttal make sure you know what you are talking about.
as for me having plastic, i dont need one as i pay cash for everything. bet you cant say that. an i am the one screaming for her as she is unable to. so you and k need to learn the facts before you write or as the old saying goes (look before you leap)
Thank you, Robert!
Thanks, Robert, for being a voice of reason in this thread (in addition to mine, of course!).
What you said is dead on. 99.9% of the time, when a 'child' or 'grandchild' takes control of an elderly person's finances, even WITH a POA, they either commit outright fraud or, in the case of a valid POA, they 'forget' to tell us when the Cardholder dies and keep using the card for themselves or else blatantly ignore the guidelines of a POA.
And you are right again, Robert, when you suggest that a lot of POA's use the invalid's card for themselves because they CANNOT get credit of their own.
I fully expect that our original complainer will come back with 'I've got plenty of good credit of my own, I don't need my mother's' or something similar. Fact is, he's just going to keep posting because he thinks he's right. Notice I said THINKS rather that KNOWS.
I will never know who is right in this matter, ultimately, and am gracious enough to admit there might have been some mistakes made with his mother's account. We are humans that make mistakes. Having said that, I am fairly certain we are not wrong in this case, even without having seen it, because people as vocal as this gentleman has been about his problem typically get the problem resolved in their favor with time and effort...admittedly, sometimes it takes a LOT of time on the phone/by mail to untangle such events. But in the end, when our customer is right, we absolutely take care of them. Period. The fact that he is still unhappy tells me that he didn't get HIS way...
I stand by my responsibility to protect the assests of my company and its customers. If this woman's account remained closed despite his efforts, there WAS WITHOUT A DOUBT a VALID REASON for that decision.
Submitted: 8/18/2004 4:35:29 PM
Modified: 8/19/2004 10:11:59 AMRobert
Hubert, North CarolinaU.S.A.
wrong wrong and wrong
Wrong Clarence. I also pay cash for everything. Sorry to burst your bubble. I threw out the plastic years ago. Have alot more $$ now because of it. On to the subject. I know how medicaid and medicare both work. I also know that private homes do not have any such requirement for the inmates to provide their own meds. The cost of them is added to the monthly bill.
Let's pretend that you are incapacitated or for any reason just not capable of covering HER Discover card bill. Do you really think any of us out here on Earth believe that when the bill doesn't get paid, the home will just let her get sick or die because she got no more meds? Of course not. They will, as they currently do now, pay for the meds themselves and pass the cost on to whomever is responsible for the bill to the home. And I have yet to find a home that takes plastic.
I had a grandmother in a very private home, 2 more in a private home, an aunt in a public one, and currently have an uncle in a private home that is VA approved. I know full well how this works. Not one of them EVER had need of a credit card. My family covered the costs for them all, including the aunt in a public home.
She had to pay what she could by liquidating all of her assets (very limited after taking care of her husband for years after he got cancer, Thanks EXXON ya rat bastards) and we took care of the rest without her knowing it. She was very proud and didn't like 'charity' especially from family. And it didn't matter an iota when it was in Illinois, Maryland, Arkansas, Tennessee, or Florida. Texas is no different than any other state. Peace be with you, and take care. I know how frustrating it is to lose people slowly. God bless.
Discover's responsibility?
I used to work for Sears Credit. I have never heard of anyone calling a lawyers office to verify a POA. I have never seen any such thing in my 7 years working there. I don't know if it becomes Discover's responsibilty to research that it they have suspicion that the document is false, but they will often close accounts as a security measure.
They can not sit there and call every laywer's office to verify every document that comes through their office. I know at Sears documents were pretty much accepted as is unless there was suspicion that they were fraudulent. I don't think Discover would have done anything like this without reason.
Also, if they did not accept your POA as valid, then they do not have to contact you to tell you that as far as I know. That all turns around to the 'you are not authorize, it is not your account' spiel, then followed by send us a valid POA. Maybe check with them on what they take as a valid POA.
fyi-comk, keep making excuses for the rip-off you did to my mother
as usual you didnt read everything and still dont know the facts,and keep making excuses for the rip-off you did to my mother. hope you dont grow old and need discover to help pay for things you need to stay alive as they will do you the same way. as i said before i pay cash for what i buy and dont need plastic.
as for your comment on me committing fraud, that could be considered slander in some ways. hope winston will let me know on this as he has a legal back ground. and my mother is still very much alive as to that comment of not letting you know when the cardholder is deceased.
and you keep dodging the facts as to why people were not contacted on the poa and why i wasnt contacted to set up to where i could have been in lubbock and have called discover and talked to her.so quit making excuses for the sorry company that discover is and the way they do elderly and disabled people.
and yes i will keep posting to let anyone who reads this know that my mother was ripped off by discover.discover was the only one of her credit cards that didnt accept the poa with no problem. so that says a lot about discover in it self
fyi-robert&amy
robert-i didnt said the nursing home takes plastic. i said more than once that the card was set up at the druggist of HER choice to pay for her meds. also if no one could take care of her then the state takes over her assets to pay for her care until it runs out and then she goes on medicaid,which then pays for her stuff. this is not just meds,but clothes,personal needs,etc.that she has to pay for on her own. The nursing home does not pay for these.and amy-i just wanted you to know that sears accepted the poa without any problems as well as the rest of her cards except discover which says alot about them. also k said that her legal dept does everything to verify a poa and i would think that talking to the attorney or the couny clerks ofc would be a good way to do this, wouldnt you? so discover is just a rif-off to eldery and disabled people.
slander discover did wrong and are just trying to degrade you
yes clarence,i would say that a good attorney could make a well paying case out of this.the way it was worded would make anyone think that they were saying you were commiting fraud.as you live close to the dallas/ft worth area,i would bet thatyou could fine several that would take the case as she said she would do anything for her company. so i feel that discover is in on this as she has answered alot of complaints on discover.and with discover in it ,then an attorney is going to see alot of dollar signs. i would also check your credit and see if they have run a credit check on you. if they have and made any statements about your credit in their rebuttals then that is releasing private info to the public without your okay. this is also illegal.also would check your mothers credit report too.i cannot believe that that would keep making excuses for what they did as anyone who reads this from top to bottom can see that they(discover)did wrong and are just trying to degrade you. SOCK IT TO THEM!!!!
Wrong again, Clarence! ...a somewhat intelligent man?
Clarence...your buddy Winston clearly is no great 'legal eagle'. You bluster about suing Discover Card (or was it me?) for 'slander'. Well, you've got no leg to stand on. Any dictionary defines slander as: 1. malicious, false, and injurious statement SPOKEN about a person. 2. the UTTERING of such statements 3. Falso ORAL defamation.
Clarence, surely you realize I have done NONE of these things.
I think the word you were wanting to use to FALSELY accuse me is LIBEL: 1. a PUBLISHED false statement...(similar to slander, but WRITTEN not SPOKEN)
So...GET IT RIGHT before you go around the internet WRITING things that make you look foolish.
Also, for LIBEL to apply, I would have had to specifically accuse you of something. I have done no such thing. Nowhere in any of my posts did I name you and accuse you of anything. If you find a direct quote, then by all means point it out to me. What I've done, at worst, is drawn parallels between your complaint and POSSIBLE scenarios for what might have occurred (ie: 'It is not infrequent for employees of the Fraud/Loss Prevention and/or Legal or Probate departments to come across unverifiable Power of Attorney documents...' That does not accuse you of anything, and it most certainly does not accuse you of fraud. Not even my statement 'It is also not uncommon, unfortunately, for Discover to come across outright fakes of such documents.' is not libel because it does not direct an accusation at you, it merely states a fact.
Further, I have always stated that I have not reviewed the case you speak of personally. (ie: Although I cannot say for sure what your/your mother's situation is or was...I can say that every effort is made to verify the validity/existence of such documents. If we cannot verify them, then an account may be closed either temporarily or permanently..'
Further, if you want to point fingers and play the 'defamation' game, refer back to your numerous statements such as this: '...for the rip-off you did to my mother...'
'Rip-off' is defined as: 1. a fraud or swindle (Discover did not defraud or swindle your mother...we simply closed OUR account. If you read the SELDOM read cardmember agreement you will see that Discover clearly states that all accounts issued are OUR property and that credit is extended (or HELD, hence the term 'CardHOLDER') as a PRIVILEGE. Those privileges can be revoked at any time by the holder OR by US.)
2. financial exploitation [also didn't happen...but as a side note, my very first response to your 'issue' was directed at this very situation....the exploitation that the elderly fall victim to at the hands of persons filing false POAs. Again, I am not accusing you of this. I am merely stating (as I did in my first reply to you) the processes in place for POAs that we receive on a daily basis. We get dozens of fake POAs (forged signatures, non-existent attorney's offices, etc) each day.]
Really, Clarence, you sound like a somewhat intelligent man. But to make these sorts of mistakes (slander vs. libel, incorrect use of the term 'rip-off') just makes you appear otherwise.
Just for you, Winston ...reading comprehension is not your forte
Firstly, have a look at my reply to Clarence regarding proper use of terminology...specifically slander vs. libel.
Secondly, regarding your statement 'the way it was worded would make anyone think that they were saying you were commiting fraud.'...well, I challenge you to point out that wording to me after reading my previous post to Clarence. Perhaps reading comprehension is not your forte?
Thirdly...where, exactly, in this thread about the 84 year old bedridden mother issue did you find the words: [i would bet thatyou could fine several that would take the case as] 'she said she would do anything for her company.' except when you said it? I never said I would do anything for my company. I DID say: 'I stand by my responsibility to protect the assests of my company and its customers. '
Fourthly: You state 'so i feel that discover is in on this as she has answered alot of complaints on discover.' Please refer back to my initial post on THIS thread: ***My views are solely the views of a long time, experienced employee and may or may not be the same as those of my company.*** I do not visit the Discover Card 'gripe' board on this website at Discover's request or even with their knowledge. However, I meant what I said.
I'm a long time employee and I am here to offer the 'other side of the story' so that the folks that read the 'Anti-Discover' posts don't just get one SLANTED view of Discover Card.
Customers get angry at us for a variety of reasons and certainly always feel that they are 'RIGHT' even if that is not the case. I'm just here to offer insight into the often vague complaints made by unhappy customers. Since you've read this board at length and have indicated you've seen my many posts, you should be able to understand what I mean. One perfect example is the guy who was angry because Discover wouldn't give a refund for a 'No show' hotel stay. He slanted it in his favor, and all I did was put some balance on the 'see-saw' by explaining how the 'merchant/Cardholder' relationship works. Clarence is angry that we closed his mother's account, and I have simply responded with information on the way we handle incoming paperwork: what the process of review is, what might cause a closure of an account, etc.
Fifthly, you state: 'i would also check your credit and see if they have run a credit check on you.' Just so it is on the record, I personally have not run a credit check on Clarence. This would be difficult w/o knowing his full name, addres, etc. I realize you are not accusing me of having done so. I just want to clear up that even if his report DOES show that we've looked at his credit file, it would only be one of MILLIONS of 'pre-screens' we do for something called a 'pre-approved' application. EVERY person in the country is subject to these pre-screens unless he or she OPTS OUT with the credit bureaus. In other words, if you are attempting to imply that Discover might have done some sort of 'retaliatory' review of his credit because of his posts, I know that that would be untrue because, again, w/o his full name, address, ssn, etc., they wouldn't be able to screen his credit file. Now, they may or may not have checked his credit in regards to the POA...I don't know if this is a requirement of POA paperwork processing or not. I doubt it, but because I do not review POAs myself, I can't be sure.
ALSO your statement:
'if they have and made any statements about your credit in their rebuttals then that is releasing private info to the public without your okay'
Response...I don't see anyplace in the thread where such statements were made.Robert might have cracked a joke about persons who 'ride on their parents' credit' and I also see where I agreed with him, but I wasn't speaking specifically of Clarence. Rather, I was agreeing with that statement in GENERAL. So, nice try, but no dice.
As for checking his mother's credit, since she was a CARDHOLDER we would have had every right to check her credit up to the date when the account was closed. That's what credit companies DO to determine credit worthiness, and we state as much on both our applications AND in that SELDOM read paperwork called 'THE CARDMEMBER AGREEMENT'.
LASTLY, after all of the above (and the previous posts) in regards to your 'SOCK IT TO THEM!!!!' I can only say 'GOOD LUCK!' Because if anyone in the legal profession or with any knowledge of the legal profession has read this entire thread, they'd be hard pressed to build the big $$ case you allude to in your last post.
Still amused, K
more excuses from discover
as i would expect i get mores excuses.i quote this from your thank you robert post.whena child or grandchild takes control of a elderly persons finances,even WITH a POA,they either commit FRAUD or in the case of a valid poa,they forget to tell us when the cardholder dies and keep using the card for themselves or blatantly ignore the guidelines of the poa.the only thing i can do with a poa on any credit card account is to change billing address,check acct balances,and other info about the acct.
so i dont see why you are accusing me and anyone else in the same place as me of the above as you wrote. there is no give in what you wrote. no maybes,could,etc in your statement. discover did not do everything to verify the poa as i have stated above in other posts. so as far as libel is concerned i would say that the statement above is directed at me, but that would be up to a jury to decide. also your statementabout not having my full name ,address,etc is a down right lie as it is on the POA.also if your pre-screen was run after discover received the poa then that would look very ???.
would it not? your legal department did not do everything to verify the poa so quit stating that they did. okay instead of ripped off,then how about abused?
Oh, please!
Clarence, Clarence, Clarence. I am shaking my head at you right now. Your previous post had a lot less 'Steam', so I am pretty sure you now realize how pathetic your 'case' would be. I doubt a jury will get a chance to decide anything because, as I said, I don't know of a lawyer (except one that is about to be disbarred) that would take such a weak case.
You quoted my 'thank you, Robert' post with the following:
'whena child or grandchild takes control of a elderly persons finances, even WITH a POA, they either commit FRAUD or in the case of a valid poa, they forget to tell us when the cardholder dies and keep using the card for themselves or blatantly ignore the guidelines of the poa'
Sure, I wrote that. But nowhere does it mention your name. It is merely a generalization about the sorts of fraud INVOLVING POAs (notice I did NOT say INVOLVING Clarence's POA) that Discover Card sees on a daily basis. I was simply responding to Robert's statements:
'I am still trying to figure out how and why SHE needs the credit card. She is in a nursing home. The nursing home provides everything she needs including medication. This is not arguable.'
The only 'mistake' I made was not pasting the PORTION of his statement that I agreed with because I can see where ROBERT'S (not my!) subsequent statements: 'She has NO NEED for a credit card from anyone. It appears that Clarence NEEDS the credit card. Must have looked that way to Discover too. They cancelled HER card for various reasons that Clarence has already stated and SHE is not complaining. HE is.'
Now, if I had made THAT statement, then I most certainly WOULD have appeared to have been accusing you of something. HOWEVER, I did not. Also, you stated: 'so i dont see why you are accusing me and anyone else in the same place as me of the above as you wrote. there is no give in what you wrote. no maybes,could,etc in your statement'
I'm only going to ask: Did you FAIL reading comprehension in grade school?? You seem to have an ongoing problem with assimilating information. Please refer back to the same post you 'partially' quoted: To leave room for the truly honest POA holders out there, the portion of my 'Thank you, Robert' post that you CONVENIENTLY left out to attempt to SLANT the situation in your favor, was this: '99.9% of the time, [when a 'child' or 'grandchild' takes control of an elderly person's finances...]' SO I CLEARLY left room for the honest POAs out there. I can neither place you in that group NOR place you outside it, as I have stated many times that I have not viewed the account in question.
My remarks on this thread are limited to generalizations about the POA issues that exist within the scope of FRAUD PREVENTION because that was the only time I interacted with anyone in regards to POAs.
AND to answer your further accusation as quoted from your last post entitled 'more excuses from discover' : 'also your statementabout not having my full name ,address,etc is a down right lie as it is on the POA.also if your pre-screen was run after discover received the poa then that would look very ???.would it not?'
I apologize for any misunderstanding here. What I should have said was 'I do not have access to your name and address' because I don't. You are correct that Discover must certainly have them along with your POA paperwork. And while I recognize that you are just a finger-pointing little man who is trying to come up with any way whatsoever to make Discover look as if they've done you wrong, I have to say that your knowledge of the way a credit company works is very, very faulty. (Read it CAREFULLY, Clarence, so you don't keep making silly mistakes in your replies):
Our screening for pre-approved applications operates COMPLETELY independently of our Fraud Prevention AND Legal departments (legal being the department that VERIFIES and maintains POA files). In that aspect, if you feel like accusing our right hand (new accounts) not knowing what the left is up to (the legal and fraud prevention departments), you'd be 100% correct.
New accounts only has access to anything that is going on with CURRENT accounts for the first 6 months they are open. Even then, they only have such access to the CARDHOLDER's information (ie: your mother's name, address, ssn, dob, mmn) NOT that of a non-involved Third Party. So if they DO have information about you at all, and if Discover HAS looked at your credit, it was an unbiased look that had nothing to do w/ this situation, regardless of the date.
Still, I doubt you'll believe me even though I speak the truth. Even if Discover checks your credit today, it's got nothing to do with your mother's account, these posts, or anything else. It's just Discover using their account at the credit bureaus to run a general search of people w/ acceptable credit scores so that we can invite them to become Cardholders. Nothing more sinister than that, dear imaginative Clarence.
But just as a side note: perhaps you should look into writing crime fiction. You've got a great lot of imaginative theories and a lot of good emotions that need an outlet.
Also, if you don't want Discover or any other creditors to have access to your information FOR THE PURPOSES of pre-solicited/pre-approved applications, I suggest you call 1-888-5-OPTOUT (or 1-888-567-8688) and add yourself to the OPT OUT for either the 2 year or the PERMANENT term. If you do not, we are well within our rights to access your credit file, at least for 'pre-approved/solicited' purposes.
Finally, as to your query : 'okay instead of ripped off,then how about abused?' Well, you may feel abused, but again, since the account you speak of (and ALL cardholder accounts, for that matter) remain the property of Discover Card, if any abuse occurred (which it did not) it would only be Discover abusing Discover. Hardly makes sense, does it?
k - quit dodging ...Discover legal dept did nothing to verify the poa - the only one of her cards that didnt accept the poa
k - read the whole and quit asking the same questions that have already been answered in other posts. why she needed the card has been answered several times already and i have explained that the nursing home doesnt supply everything.as for the weak case, you should know that laws differ from state to state and i have found more than one attorney that would take the case. as far as cc co are concerned you still are the only one of her cards that didnt accept the poa and gave me problems. so this says alot about discover. and i am screaming about this as she cant on her own.
As far as your remark about abuse, that is wrong or have you never heard of mental abuse? your legal dept did nothing to verify the poa except call her home phone when they knew she wasnt even there, and this is stated in the letter they sent her telling her they had cancelled her account dated 6-23-04.
So you saying that discover does everything to verify a poa was a down right LIE! im not a little man that needs my mothers cc for myself but a son who is very upset that my mother was abused by discover and want people to know what kind of company they are. That is if youre elderly or disabled dont depend on discover to help you in your time of need or assist thier family in helping you.
I responded to this....
I actually responded to your last ridiculous post over a week ago, but it somehow never got posted. So here I go reposting it.
Your last post (submitted 8/27/04) says:
' read the whole and quit asking the same questions that have already been answered in other posts. why she needed the card has been answered several times already...'
HMMMM. Again, I think you need your eyes checked. Nowhere in my last post did I ask you what your mother needed the card for. SO I think maybe YOU should read the posts more thoroughly.
Then you go on to make another of your ill-fated attempts to frighten me:
'as for the weak case, you should know that laws differ from state to state and i have found more than one attorney that would take the case. ..'
Umm, dear Clarence, there IS no gray area here. The laws do not differ in ANY states regarding Libel and Slander. It either does or does not exist. What constitutes either one DO NOT DIFFER by state. The PENALTIES might. So please quit watching too much Court TV and acting all self-important and knowledgeable, because the state laws only differ in what they will GIVE you if you win your case or what they will DO to the offender if you don't. Have fun wasting the money chasing this one, Clarence. Someone with as much financial knowledge and legal knowledge as you claim to have should realize it is a wasted effort to attempt a suit for libel based on the posts in this thread. But if it gives you something to do with your time, chase that carrot.
also you state:
'as far as cc co are concerned you still are the only one of her cards that didnt accept the poa and gave me problems. so this says alot about discover'
Maybe so. I will never know why we 'gave you trouble' because I have not personally viewed the account in question. And again, for the COMPREHENSION IMPAIRED, there was most probably a very good reason for our decision. I won't answer this sort of comment again, because I will only be saying the same thing...over and over and over.
You write, 'As far as your remark about abuse, that is wrong or have you never heard of mental abuse? your legal dept did nothing to verify the poa except call her home phone when they knew she wasnt even there, and this is stated in the letter they sent her telling her they had cancelled her account dated 6-23-04.'
Boy. I thought I defined the term 'abuse' pretty well in my last post. You still don't seem to get it: there was no abuse, mental or otherwise, of you or your mother.
You write: 'im not a little man that needs my mothers cc for myself but a son who is very upset that my mother was abused by discover and want people to know what kind of company they are'
I didn't say that you were a 'little man that needs [your] mother's cc for [yourself]..'
I said (and you can refer back to the posts) 'you are just a finger-pointing little man who is trying to come up with any way whatsoever to make Discover look as if they've done you wrong...'
Gosh, your inability to assimilate this material is frightening.
You write: 'but a son who is very upset that my mother was abused by discover'
Again, Clarence, get out a dictionary. We didn't abuse your mother in any way. We couldn't reach her, so we closed OUR account to protect our assets and your mother's. If she wanted it reopened, she could call us with the help of a nursing home aid.
Winston tried correcting us and said 'and the report doesnt say she cant talk but that she couldnt talk on the phone as she couldnt hold the phone would be my guess.' Is that true? Was Winston right? If so, she can call us any time with the help of an aide from the nursing home. We'll be happy to look into the situation.
You're so fond of mentioning that we never tried to call. And you're right. We never tried to call YOU. Part of the verification process for POAs includes trying to contact the cardholder. Why? Because we get lots of fake POAs or forged POAs every day. ((DON'T JUMP THE GUN...I'M NOT ACCUSING YOU OF ANYTHING, SO DON'T GET OUT THE PHONEBOOK AND START LOOKING FOR LAWYERS JUST YET)) Calling the cardmember is a natural first step toward making sure they are aware of the POA.
We stop at least one attempt to takeover an account via a completely faked or forged POA every day. So we always call the person whose name appears on the account to see if they have created a POA with someone. So I don't get why you'd be so surprised that we'd try to contact your mother. It's our job. It's what we do. And like I said, we stop a lot of potential fraud that way. The next step, if we reached your mother successfully (your MOTHER...not YOU) would be to call YOU...the person on the other end of the POA...the one that will be acting as the cardholder's agent. You also would not believe the number of POA's that we get where the 'AGENT' knows nothing about the POA.
(It's like this. Let's assume there is a Widowed man named AL whose daughter is named ANNA. We get a POA that lists ANNA as AL's new agent. ANNA is being given permission in the POA to handle all of AL's financial transactions....write checks, handle the credit cards, EVERYTHING. So step ONE is to call AL and see if he knows anything about this POA. For the purposes of this demonstration, let's pretend he DOES NOT know. Ok. So AL doesn't know about the POA but he IS able to competently answer our questions about his account and is LUCID.
He knows what is going on, understands what we are asking him and why. So next we contact ANNA to ask her why we have a POA that AL doesn't know anything about. Only ANNA doesn't know anything about it either. So she calls AL on three way calling and AL, ANNA, and DISCOVER have a nice long chat about this POA. It is determined it is a fake and that some unknown person is trying to unlawfully gain access to AL's account.))
Clarence, if we didn't handle the POAs in that order (call the Cardmember. Then call the 'AGENT') we'd be passing on MANY more fraud losses to our customers. So what it boils down to is pretty simple. We couldn't reach your mother, so the verification process appears to have stopped there. If you are unhappy, feel free to help your mother contact us if she can. If she can't, feel free to resubmit the POA or send a letter. If not, quit whining and for pete's sake, quit blustering about a lawsuit that no reputable lawyer would touch with a 10-ft pole.
Do you have any idea how each subsequent post just makes you look dimmer and dimmer? You keep telling me 'read the whole and quit asking the same questions...' and your buddy 'buck' said 'so K you need to read the whole thing and check all the facts before writing a rebuttal'
I would have to urge YOU, Clarence, to follow this advice. GET IT RIGHT when you respond to my posts. If you don't, you're just making yourself look like a bigger and bigger idiot...and while you are doing this, you make anyone reading these threads (at least anyone of reasonable intelligence) think that Discover knows what they are talking about and that the guy complaining either failed reading comprehension, didn't get past grade school, or has the world's shortest attention span.
Please attempt to make your next post an intelligent one that shows you have read AND understood my post. Otherwise, you're wasting my time. And since you keep repeating the same info over and over with nothing new to add to the situation, you're BORING me also.
more stupid excuses
wrong k-you did say you were still trying to figure out why she needed a credit card. where was the attempt to set up any call to my mother as the only thing they did was call her home number when they already knew she wasnt there.
so now im an idiot who does know what mental abuse is and discover did this to my mother.and your past statement about your legal dept doing everything to verify a poa is still a big fat LIE! and if you had read all of the previous posts then you would have known winston was right.
plus you never even asked for another number,etc to contact my mother. so you are the one that looks stupid in these posts and anyone that reads them will see that you are just making dumb excuses to cover up the wrong that you did to my mother.so until your next list of excuses,see ya and have a good day.
See you later, Clarence! ..you have clearly not read or have not understood what you have read in my last post.
This will be my last post, since your previous post added nothing new to the conversation.
Once again, dear Clarence, you have clearly not read or have not understood what you have read in my last post. You now state: 'wrong k-you did say you were still trying to figure out why she needed a credit card.'
Where? Point out a specific post of mine that said this or asked this. To correct you, I direct you to one of ROBERT'S posts. He didn't post too many, so even you should be able to locate it. ROBERT said: 'I am still trying to figure out how and why SHE needs the credit card....'
I've never asked why your mother needed or wanted the discover card. I challenge you to find such words uttered BY ME. plus you never even asked for another number,etc to contact my mother
And again, in response to your statement: where was the attempt to set up any call to my mother as the only thing they did was call her home number when they already knew she wasnt there. '
You may have told us she wasn't at that number, but again, for the reading comprehension impaired, PART OF THE VERIFICATION PROCESS INVOLVES CALLING THE CUSTOMER AT THEIR 'LISTED' NUMBER. If you had provided a contact phone for your mother at the nursing home, we would have called it.
You go on to say 'plus you never even asked for another number,etc to contact my mother'
Well, in my last post I said: 'If you are unhappy, feel free to help your mother contact us if she can. If she can't, feel free to resubmit the POA or send a letter. If not, quit whining .'
Let me now add...feel free to arrange a 3 way call between you, your mother, and Discover the next time you visit her at the home. She may not have a phone in her room, I am aware of this and I am anticipating that you'll use that as an excuse as to why it cannot be done. However, there are public phones in every nursing home I've ever visited, and on the off chance that there aren't any functioning, you can likely use a phone of one or another of the staff members.
Let me guess....your next post will probably beg off all of my above suggestions with the excuse that you're just so tired of dealing with it or just so mad or whatever that you aren't going to bother. So in the end, if that is the case, then you have nothing further to complain about because you were offered possible suggestions to fix the solution and CHOSE not to.
I will not post again. I don't see the point. I never expected you to be placated or satisfied with my responses and I don't expect you to attempt a resolution by calling Discover as I mentioned earlier. I expect you'll just go on griping so you can have the last word. I don't mind giving it to you. Anyone that reads this entire thread (God bless them, because it is a LONG thread!) will see that I have accomplished my goal of providing both sides of the story and some background information into the way such matters work.
The readers are intelligent enough to realize that while you may feel slighted, you've been given information to help you decide whether you want to contact Discover and work it out or just keep blustering to anyone who will listen. I, for one, am opting to walk away feeling that I've done what I could to help you find the solution by suggesting you AND your mother call Discover and see if it can be worked out.
oh..PS: Next time you write a rebuttal...take a look at the fine print below the 'Submit your rebuttal' checkbox. It says '...the State of Arizona has exclusive jurisdiction over any disputes arising out of this posting.' And, by checking the box, you agree to accept this. So I think if you are still chasing that lawsuit angle, that if there WERE differing laws as to what constitutes 'libel' (and I'm certainly not losing any sleep over this one, because like I said, there are no differences in what CONSTITUTES it...just what the CONSEQUENCES are) you will notice that the State of Arizona is going to be the court presiding over it. So if by some chance the laws change just for you, Clarence, it won't make a bit of difference because it wouldn't be the laws from your state that decide the matter anyway. They'd be laws from mine!
FYI-K the crime was committed
read your own oh please post on you saying why does she need a credit card.and it sure took you a long time to even bring up the three way calling idea. wonder WHY?and as i have said before i sent the phone numbers to call me only to let me know that discover had received the poa as stated on the cover sheet.as far as the suit that you are so hung up on,
i hate to tell you but where the crime was committed is where it is handled except in federal cases.and as usual i see you are still dodging the outright lie about discover doing everything to verify a poa.and as far as another phone number for my mother.
no one even ASKED FOR ONE!!and it does say disputes but nothing about civil or crimnal laws. and as you say i hope everyone who reads this reads it from top to bottom and see that you and discover are very wrong and all you have done is LIE and make excuses,and call people names in trying to cover up what yall did to my mother.
I cannot resist
Here you are with egg on your face again, Clarence.
You directed me (in your last post) to MY post entitled 'oh, please!' where you claim I'll find myself asking why your mother needed a card.
NOPE!!!!!!!
It is now clear to 100% of the LITERATE public that you cannot assimilate written information very well because this is what that post said:
' I was simply responding to Robert's statements:
'I am still trying to figure out how and why SHE needs the credit card. She is in a nursing home. The nursing home provides everything she needs including medication. This is not arguable.' '
ROBERT made the statement: ''I am still trying to figure out how and why SHE needs the credit card. She is in a nursing home. The nursing home provides everything she needs including medication. This is not arguable.'
You then state: 'and it sure took you a long time to even bring up the three way calling idea. wonder WHY?'
Well, I'm afraid I was giving you too much credit for problem solving, Clarence. I would have thought you'd have had the common sense to figure this out on your own. But as I can see I was giving you WAY WAY WAY too much credit in the 'Logical thinking' department. Not only that but I think it is rather amusing that instead of actually following that advice you just mock it. Would I be right to assume you are not going to attempt such a 3 way call so that Discover can assist with the matter?
Also, you state, 'as far as the suit that you are so hung up on, i hate to tell you but where the crime was committed is where it is handled except in federal cases.'
HMMMMM. Well, the internet is not a PLACE. And even if a crime were committed (which it wasn't) since I would be the person you are accusing, since I live in AZ, and since matters of dispute having to do with this board and its postings, I think I am correct that any litigation would take place HERE in AZ. It can't be done in cyberspace (yet!) so I guess you're WRONG again.
Oh, and as for your comment, 'and it does say disputes but nothing about civil or crimnal laws. ' What exactly do you think the term 'Jurisdiction over any disputes arising out of this posting' implies? Sure, I could be wrong. Maybe you should ask the moderator? I don't think there's really any other possible meaning behind those words. What would the STATE OF ARIZONA care about a non-court related 'dispute'? ANSWER: THEY WOULDN'T.
Submitted: 9/13/2004 4:16:39 AM
Modified: 9/13/2004 10:53:44 PM
Robert
Hubert, North CarolinaU.S.A.
Love is in the air.. occupy space
'K', I am falling in love with you. You have all the same insights and comprehension that I have looked for in a female. Nice to know that there are still people out there who went to school and did something other than occupy space.
egg on your faceyou are the one who needs to use common sense
you wrote to find any place you had wrote the statement and i did. because robert did not write the oh please post. as for the nursing home statement that has also been answered before. and if you are not worried about legal action then why are you so hung up on making a big deal out of it? i never said out right that i was going to do anything.
that was a suggestion from winston.seems like you really worried about something.and for some one who hasnt seen the info on this acct and doesnt do this for discover,then how do you know that i have called or not to set up a call the next time im in lubbock?
so i would say that you are the one who needs to use common sense and not company rules when making these posts so you dont get egg on your face. and i see there is still no answer to your(discover does everything to verify a poa statement,so as usual we are dodging again.
and i new when you said that that was your last post that is was another lie.
Hello, Robert!
What a pleasure to find out you're still lurking around this thread! And thank you for the compliment.
Good to know I'm not the only one capable of rational thought. Also good to know I'm not the only one on this board who can spell and use proper grammar. Clarence can't even spell 'knew'. (See last post!)
As for Clarence's accusation...'i new when you said that that was your last post that is was another lie.'
Well, that may be a lie. I did say I wouldn't post again. However, any rational human being would see that the title of my post, 'I cannot resist', explains the reason for my additional posting. As in...I cannot resist posting when Clarence is making such a moron of himself!
Hope to continue seeing you on these boards, Robert!
PS: Just for you, Clarence....
Your last post states: 'that was a suggestion from winston.seems like you really worried about something.'
Not worried at all. I just love showing you your own stupidity (such as your confusion over the definitions of 'slander' and 'libel.) Since you are so gleefully certain I'm shaking in my boots, I guess I will have to ease up on mentioning Winston's scare-tactics. For the record, I've lost no sleep over it. Well, except for the moments I've spent giggling over your inability to use proper terminology...
NEXT YOU STATE: 'and for some one who hasnt seen the info on this acct and doesnt do this for discover,then how do you know that i have called or not to set up a call the next time im in lubbock?'
You're right. I don't. But since you are so eager to moan and whine and rage about what you think Discover has 'done' to you, I'm sure you wouldn't hesitate to come here and post that you called Discover and give some short, bitter rant about how the call went. So until I see such a post, I will have to assume (as will anyone reading these threads) that you are too busy whining and moaning to actually DO something constructive like set up the three-way call I mentioned.
Until you whine again,
Easy to address situational points
Firstly to the attorney who first responded. Spellcheck :-)
Your comments were right on point though.
1. This woman has passed a legal power of attorney to her son. He has the legal right to conduct her business affairs in her place. That is not negotiable. Discover does not have the ability to override the Uniform Commercial Code which regulates how businesses are allowed to conduct themselves.
2. There is no legal requirement that any person have a phone in their terms and conditions posted on their website. So this would not be a valid reason for canceling her account.
3. They can cancel anytime they wish for any reason, if they give the notice and make the efforts listed in the terms and conditions that were accepted AT THE INCEPTION OF THIS ACCOUNT.
Her son should see if he can locate her paperwork for this account origination. Read the terms and conditions. I would think that he will find Discover has not followed their protocol.
Why? Well that's anybody's guess, who hasn't called a company and dealt with a rude or insulting power hungry employee? Happens all the time.
I know that I will not be doing business with Discover until I see that they've reinstated this account, if it was indeed paid on time and in good standing. Sounds like it was to me and Discover made a mistake.
Final point - nobody has to justify why she needs a credit card. It's not up for negotiation. Her son negotiates for her, he needs it to obtain appropriate care for her, reliably and from a distance.
Shame on you people and Discover for not having the personal morals to stop and see what can be done to help this woman and her son.
Your time to be old will come. Don't ask for mercy you aren't willing to extend when you are able, when you are no longer able.
thank you
just wanted to say thank you for your post and also from clarence and his mother as it seems that the rip-off site is not posting his rebuttals.he has written 4 in the last few days and none of them have been posted.he has even written the webmaster and has gotten no reply.thank you again and im glad to see someone can see that discover didnt do his mother right.
Submitted: 9/23/2004 7:42:37 PM
Modified: 9/24/2004 10:57:46 PMRobert
Hubert, North CarolinaU.S.A.
You've hit the nail on the head Kate... WHO actually needs the card?
You state, and I quote...'he needs it' when you refer to WHO actually needs the card. Very good Kate. I always have the upmost confidence that people will find the truth if they just open their eyes. Take care.
Clarence - I'm not sure I'd let it go - but if you do follow up.....
I see that the rebuttal rules have changed and I think that's an improvement to this already valuable site. This has saved me several times - to have checked in here first before doing business with a bad business.
Winston - sunshine and google are two of my very favorite things. As a private citizen I have access to all records that alot of companies don't want us to have.
Firstly, I'd like to have you read all of K's responses above. She's a Discover employee and she's posted her last name and first initial.
Clarence, if I were you, here is what I would do. I'd either lodge a powerful complaint against Discover's actions and K's treatment OR I'd let the matter go and not look back. Personally, I'd have a tough time letting this go. So here's what and where I found:
The Federal Reserve System and the FDIC both keep public sites. Do a google search for them.
Discover is owned by Morgan Stanley. Discover 'Bank' is incorporated in the state of Delaware. That's telling in itself. Their FDIC certificate number is 5649.
Morgan Stanley is listed on the Fed. Res. site. This means they fall under banking standards and are regulated (as in their behavior) by both the state they are incorporated under as well as the Federal Gov.
Morgan Stanley is a 'Securities' co' and located in New York, New York.
They also own Novus Credit Service, in addition to the Discover Bank.
I'd start with a hot complaint the SEC in the state of New York. Do a google search for the secretary of state in New York.
I'd also file a complaint with State Attorney General in New York and start researching the legal ramifications in New York for ignoring a properly prepared power of attorney.
Just my thoughts.
God bless and whatever you decide to do, do it and put it behind you. Life's very much worth living.
hello, Kate, you don't seem to have read the posts accurately
Even though you made some valid points, you don't seem to have read the posts accurately, either.
No, we don't require someone to have a phone. But you stated accurately enough that we can cancel an account at any time for any reason, and we did just that. And we DID give notice we were closing it. Even Clarence doesn't argue that we sent a letter to announce we closed the account.
Nothing I've seen in our agreement says that we have to notify BEFORE closing. The closing and notifying can be done simultaneously...and they were.
dodging again
thank you kate for the info on discover and the follow up info.i am now doing all of the checking up on that info.and yes i had a real good feeling that K was doing this for discover.
also im going to check and see if my mother still has her terms and agreement from discover as she has had this since 1986.
also im sure you noticed that k never answers or says anything about what was done wrong from any of these posts.that told me alot about her. thank you again Kate from me and my mother.
Clarence - one last thought '...read the SELDOM read cardmember agreement'.
I do wish the best for you and your mother. Like you, I've gone the nursing home routine from a distance and I know the difficulties and how it must make you feel. I am sorry. Sometimes there are only bad choices left. You have to live with having made a bad choice sometimes - even if it was the 'best' choice available. Hard to describe.
Hope you believe in God and praying will help you cope. You have to know that what's going on is designed to make you angry and feel embarassed. The woman from Discover is an abusive personality, clearly. She even made a veiled threat, I feel, toward 'Winston' who had some legal knowledge.
She said something about an attorney about to be disbarred? Then Winston stopped posting. Scary stuff - the poisen she spews. However, a couple of predictions and I have no interest in speaking to her - I avoid evil and vile people because I CAN.
She's not married, because she's posting her poisen here. If she had a victim right at hand you can bet she wouldn't be surfing the internet looking for someone who's in a bad situation and targeting them for personal abuse.
I DID interpret her comments to be a slam about your credit. I DID see a number of remarks from her that I consider to be libelous.
She's a nasty, bitterly unhappy woman. And it's clearly by her own hand that she is so nasty. She's getting what she's giving. A nasty cycle.
BUT - one last thought here.....she keeps holding the terms and conditions out. I find people who do that are like the serial killers who can't seem to prevent themselves from giving the police clues. I don't know why they do that - but I've seen this a number of times. There is likely something in those terms and conditions and she's tickling herself by teasing you with it.
Her repeated comment, 'If you read the SELDOM read cardmember agreement'. I hope you find them Clarence and can subpeona Discover to produce their employee, K Berger to answer the contents of this posting.
Making the disclaminer that she's not representing Discover here and then going ahead and acting exactly like she's representing Discover - makes her disclaimer mute. :-)
Go get 'em Clarence. God speed to you and your mother, Sir.
The Most Important Fact is being Forgotten...
Clarence,
The most important fact is being forgotten here... Credit is a privilege, not a right. Discover is the owner of the account, not your mother, and not you. If they choose to close the account, they can close it for any reason they want. It clearly states that in the 'Termination' section of the Cardholder Agreement your mother had to have signed when the account was opened.
Good luck to you in your futile attempts to tilt at heavily fortified windmills.
They just can't let it go Clarence
I got an email that this had been updated. A newcomer with more negativism.
Maybe the last author isn't from the United States. That might explain the posting.
We used to have commercial 'heavily tilted windmills' in the USA.
Our law initially came from English common law and was heavily biased in favor of merchants and financial institutions.
The Uniform Commercial Code, which is the regulatory code for business conduct in the USA, was enacted to level the playing field.
The document in question here, I've heard it referenced to in several ways - a general, durable or lasting power of attorney. It gives a person the right to assign their decision making standing to an agent. In this case a mother to her son, Clarence.
Most senior citizens who execute Durable Powers of Attorney are getting assistance with their day to day personal affairs - which is what Clarence relates as having happened.
A durable power of attorney is a form of agency. The person who gives the power is the principal, and the person who receives the power is the 'attorney-in-fact' or 'agent'.
This matter of 'agency' is stringently regulated by the Uniform Commercial Code. It cannot be simply dismissed by anyone. It is a right to contract that all private citizen's hold in this country, if they have capacity.
Now....as to Discover Card's being a federally regulated financial interest - we have the United States Code. Here is what it says about discriminatory practice:
USC TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 41 > SUBCHAPTER IV > § 1691
§ 1691. Scope of prohibition
Release date: 2004-05-18
(a) Activities constituting discrimination
It shall be unlawful for any creditor to discriminate against any applicant, with respect to any aspect of a credit transaction—
(1) on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex or marital status, or age (provided the applicant has the capacity to contract);
So - we've addressed the capacity issue. Clarence's Mom is not capable to conduct her own affairs so she's given her blessing to her agent (her son) to conduct them for her. Which gives him her standing under that above Code. (And look specifically at the age notation under the 'Activities Constituting Discrimination'. I think this would be a real safety issue for a financial institution to find themselves in this position. ALSO if they do accept power of attorneys as a normal course of business and chose not to in a single case, without a valid excuse - is this not discrimination also?)
Now, saying all this - I do not believe that you can force a third party to honor a power of attorney for an elderly or incapacitated customer. But I believe they are at risk for any damages resulting in their failure to do so.
And any business with any level of integrity should be horrified at the idea that anyone in their organization would refuse a valid durable power of attorney.
What worse message to send to your customers than 'hey! Guess what our new program is? If you get in a wreck, or get old or sick - we're going to refuse to work with anyone on your behalf! You'll just be out of luck'.
These are just my thoughts Clarence. Like I said you do have the option of letting it go with the knowledge that, given the initial facts were all correct, you were really done wrong :-)