US Bank bait and switch Internet, Nationwide

are available at this website!

*Just type in 685999 and the poem appears as 'Consumer Comment #40' at Ripoff Report #685999. The song appears at 'Consumer Comment #33'.

Thank You

Frank's Ripoff Report and his recent update from 1-5-2011 at Ripoff Report #563072.

Thank You

is available at this website!

*Just type in 502469 and it appears as 'Consumer Comment #20' at Ripoff Report #502469.

Thank You

HAPPY NEW YEAR

6 months late...the report is DEAD....

I'm honestly not sure why they would want a lawyer to subpoena this,(never heard of that; seems like a waste of their money and yours), but I'd go ahead with it. I'm sure it will detail the interest change clause. I am sure they're not making the rules up as they go along.

This person is lying or doesn't understand their credit line.

By them telling you to get a subpoena before they will show you the contract you signed is most likely in hopes the situation will blow over. Because many people would not bother.  In order to obtain damages for breach of contract or to obtain specific performance or other equitable relief, the aggrieved injured party may file a civil (non-criminal) lawsuit in state court

I do not know for sure the laws or a specific law regarding if the bank has actually fulfilled it's obligation simply because they mailed, or claimed they mailed a letter. I know that even if I ship out a small item or important letter, I pay the 70 cents at the post office for confirmation. This way I have PROOF I fulfilled my obligation. I would think the standards for a bank would be as high, or higher then anyone else who sends or claims to have sent an important document such as a contract change.

I hope you find a way to subpoena the bank as a copy of the original contract is the next logical step. However, regardless of what the contract you signed stated, and regardless of if they can prove or not you received a letter, it still does not mean they can always get away with it. There are contract laws that protect BOTH parties that sign it, and you may be able to void it regardless if they are violating the Truth in Lending Act or not.

Misrepresentation means a false statement of fact made by one party to another party and has the effect of inducing that party into the contract. A finding of misrepresentation allows for a remedy of rescission and sometimes damages depending on the type of misrepresentation.

What can be reasonably assumed by the information left on this report...is potential misrepresentation.

"Fraud in inducement" focuses on misrepresentation attempting to get the party to enter into the contract. Misrepresentation of a material fact (if the party knew the truth, that party would not have entered into the contract) makes a contract voidable.

Best of luck.

I appreciate your skepticism however this is the case.  The bank states that the contract I signed has verbage reading that the terms can be changed at any time.  The contract I have does not say this.  In fact it clearly indicates that due to this promotional program, I would remain on a tier based interest rate of 5.75% for the life of the original balance.  Of coarse assuming I met certain conditions.  I have requested a copy of the contract from the bank however they are unwilling to provide one until I file a subpoena. Indicated this is company policy and there is no other way to obtain a copy of the contract I signed. 

The bank said that legally they were allowed to change the terms of my contract if given notice to myself providing me the ability to opt out of the change, close my account, and continue to pay off balance at agreed upon terms.  According to US Bank this notice of a change in contract was sent via United States Postal Service on November 18, 2009 and stated I had until Feb 2010 to opt out. 

My issue is that I never received this notice from US Bank, therefore I didn't opt out.  USPS is a human driven operation, errors do occur.  How many times have you accidentally received some one elses mail?  When I confronted US Bank about not receiving the notice they said legally their due diligence was completed by mailing the notice, it legally was not their responsibility to confirm I received the notice before changing the terms on my account.  Now since it is past Feb, I do not have the option to opt out and am forced to pay a higher interest rate. 

I have filed complaints to US Bank, Better Business Bureau, Rip-off Report.com, and finally The Controller of Currency Administrator of National Banks.  I am waiting for responses.  However, if you are indeed a lawyer that works on these types of cases, I would love to speak to you further and possible use your services.  Let me know.  Thanks.

However banks and financial institutions are pushing the limits..or outright violating laws and regulations all the time. And they are sued for it all the time. And sometimes, the customer wins. For example, we can use the McCoy et al v. Chase suit filed March 16, 2009, in which the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff..even though the customer was notified of the rate increase (however late), and even though the customer defaulted. Now the OP in this report claims to have not been notified, and never defaulted, so I can't see how a court would rule against him, if they ruled in favor of Mccoy...here is an excerpt regarding the case from bankersonline.com website subject "Truth in Lending".


In the case put before the court, Chase Manhattan Bank, USA, NA, had used a cardholder default provision in its credit card agreement to increase the interest rate on McCoy's account. Notice of the increased rate was included on a periodic statement, but the increase was retroactive to the beginning of the statement period. McCoy sued Chase for Truth in Lending violations, arguing that the notice was required before or contemporaneous to the effective date of the increased rate, and that the retroactive increase violated that notice requirement.

Both the majority opinion in McCoy's favor and the dissent illustrate the requirement that federal courts must defer to an agency's interpretation of its own regulation except when the interpretation is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation. In this case, the three-judge panel could not agree on how to interpret the Federal Reserve Board's Official Staff Commentary, and disagreed on what deference, if any, it should give to the Fed's wording of its 2007 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. In that ANPR, the Fed summarized its understanding of existing law and regulation relating to notices and discretionary rate increases, and proposed Regulation Z amendments to increase notice requirements for rate increases to 45 days. The court did note that the Fed eliminated any ambiguity on a going-forward basis when its final amendments were issued on January 29, 2009 (effective July 1, 2010).

The court found that Chase was required to give McCoy notice of an increased interest rate based on McCoy's default, and that the notice must be given prior to imposition of the increased rate. McCoy did receive notice, but it was too late, said the court.

I agree with Ronny on this.  It's really sleazy.

One interesting thing is that they may have sent it to you but we found out the hard way that sometimes they 'disguise' the mailing so it looks exactly like junk mail.  The envelope looks like the ones that advertise credit cards or whatever.  Unless you always open them (we didn't, but do now), you may have received it and didn't know it.

To require you to subpoena a copy of a mutual contract is amazingly arrogant.

Let us know how this turns out.

To clarify; my originally agreed upon interest rate was 5.75% for the life of the balance.  This was determined from a Tier system. Customers of this promotion would either qualify for an interest rate of 5.75%, 6.75%, or 8.75%. The terms of my contract were changed to an interest rate of PRIME + 8.5, which is equaled to 11.75%. 

Something about this report doesn't sound right.

You claim that you signed a legal contract stating that your interest rate would never go up if you followed a few conditions; I got that.

So, what you're saying is that USB is intentionally breaching the contract on a whim? Nope, I don't believe you. You're either missing some clause in your contract or you broke one of those conditions. What you're describing is blantantly illegal and I highly doubt the bank would risk getting sued for this.

The bank just "telling" you they can change terms at will, or that "it was sent in the mail" is NOT a get out of jail free card for them, quite the contrary.

Report this bank to the FTC, FBI, BBB, and the Banking Commission in your state to start with. Inform them that this bank is in violation of the truth in lending act. Call the media, local and national, and continue RELENTLESSLY to report this at this site..and similar consumer advocacy websites. Google "US bank FRAUD, SCAMS, RIP OFFS etc.) and join blogs and sites with similar complaints against these thieves and tell your story.

Many customers have won in cases against financial institutions that change terms at will for no reason other then greed, which is what these scumbags have done to you according to the report you lodged. In certain cases even if it was in the agreement you signed, it will not always hold up in court. Apparently this banks terms were not clear or fully disclosed, which is why they do not want to issue you a copy where it states they can break the agreement. Because by US contract law..THEY CAN NOT.

Persistence is the best advice. If you let these creeps step all over you...they will put on the biggest shoes possible. Fortunately, the LAW is on your side so make them pay.