Selling Tradelines / Piggybacking Part II: $1000+/hr, 20-40k/yr. Side Gig

[dragoncar]

Having just had a child, is there anything I should do to protect his SSN?  Like add him as an AU on my card, create an SSN online account.  Besides checking his credit report regularly

Also can I get him a good enough credit history to bust out and walk away with millions?  Leaving him to hold the bag

[arebelspy]

Yeah, add him as an AU to start building his credit (though you can do it later--the whole point of piggybacking is it gives them the whole history of the card later) and then lock his credit profile so people can't apply for something in his name.

Congrats, DC!

[px4shooter]

That's weird.

Definitely don't add them if you aren't comfortable.

I'd contact the tradeline company and ask what verification they did. It may just be an old person who never had much use for credit before, but now wants to boost their credit to do a reverse mortgage or something. They likely have talked with the AU.

As someone else said, these are ripe with synthetic identities being created. While not illegal in every state, the laws are quickly catching up.

[hgjjgkj]

The new company is continuously trying to add 3 AUs to BoA cards. Just getting more cavalier and more dangerous all the time.

[frugalnacho]

@ditkanate — thanks!


I feel weird about adding my AU. His name seems fake and he’s 70 years old. I ran a background check just out of curiosity and only his current address shows up.

It looks like this is probably a fake person. :-/ I have never had such a scarce pull from my background checks even for undocumented non residents...

Is this his address?

[lexde]

Had my second spot sold today, too. Nice!

[frozen]

The new company is continuously trying to add 3 AUs to BoA cards. Just getting more cavalier and more dangerous all the time.

The first time I added 3 users to BofA I was immediately shut down. This was in 2016.

[katsiki]

Had my second spot sold today, too. Nice!

Awesome!  That was fast - they must have really needed more cards.  Hopefully, others will see more activity too.

[ravevan]

Is it every wise to make a few small charges on AU's card after you get it in the mail? Does that make it any less suspicious for the CC companies? Thanks.

[ducky19]

Is it every wise to make a few small charges on AU's card after you get it in the mail? Does that make it any less suspicious for the CC companies? Thanks.

I have never done this and have only had one Capital One card restricted (recently had the restriction removed) and no cards shut down. There's really no need.

[robartsd]

Yeah, add him as an AU to start building his credit (though you can do it later--the whole point of piggybacking is it gives them the whole history of the card later) and then lock his credit profile so people can't apply for something in his name.

Congrats, DC!

It is a good idea to establish a credit profile matching your child's name and SSN as soon as you have the SSN issued. Until there is a credit profile, all the credit agencies can tell is that the SSN has been issued - making it easier for someone else to establish a profile with that SSN in their own name.

[secondcor521]

In other news, I have a negative data point to report.

After adding an AU last week from New Company, Barclay's has put a security hold on my account with them.  Based on advice from New Company, I called in and spoke with a security analyst who began asking pointed questions about my AUs.  Since I wasn't prepared, I hung up on them.  They tried to call me back and I elected not to answer.  I'm seeking input from New Company as to how to proceed.  Until I hear from them my plan will be to not talk to Barclay's, rest that card with New Company, and then call Barclay's after my current AU's term is up and see if I can get them to remove the security hold.

This was my seventh AU I added to this card since 1/1/17, all through New Company, never more than 2 AU's at any one time.

[RedwoodDreams]

Hope Barclays isn't catching on the way Discover seems to have. Those slots have sold reliably well for me.

In other news, my Barclays card listed with old TL company is an LL BEAN Visa, and I just noticed a statement on their card home page that they're changing the card over to Citibank. Old TL co. says they'll just change it over because they do accept Citibank, but just fyi in case anyone else has an LL Bean Visa in one of these systems.

[elysianfields]

Hope Barclays isn't catching on the way Discover seems to have. Those slots have sold reliably well for me.

In other news, my Barclays card listed with old TL company is an LL BEAN Visa, and I just noticed a statement on their card home page that they're changing the card over to Citibank. Old TL co. says they'll just change it over because they do accept Citibank, but just fyi in case anyone else has an LL Bean Visa in one of these systems.

Good catch, mine is an LL Cool Bean card as well.  Thanks for sharing this!

[ducky19]

The only problem with that is the card will show up as a new account in your credit report - it won't carry the age from the old card. You'll have to wait for a year at least for it to age enough to be in the system. I had a Hilton Citi card that sold reliably well that was transitioned to AmEx (rendering it useless for TL). It showed up on my credit report as a new account.

[PointsLawyer]

Hi everybody, long time MMM reader, first time posting. I'm a lawyer who represents consumers against large businesses (often banks). I recently had a client who was shut down for Piggybacking on a Discover Card. To bring me up to speed when we started, he linked me to this thread. I'm writing this because I learned some info during the representation that I want to share with everybody as a cautionary tale. (If you read to the end of this, you'll see that I don't think too much caution is warranted.) I've shared this with others, and they've found it helpful.

First, the boring disclaimer. Nothing in here is legal advice. I'm not your lawyer. Your legal rights are important, and you should talk to a lawyer with legal questions. I'm not trying to solicit business--just providing information. (But if you want to ask me a question about a potential claim or anything, by all means send me a message. Maybe I can help.)

A little background. One of the areas I litigate in is the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. The Act was originally passed to prohibit discrimination in lending. But there's a second component of the ECOA that I've litigated with lots of success. If a bank closes down your credit product (and think outside of the box--this includes those lines of credit that come with checking accounts), the bank MUST give you a "specific reason" for why you were closed. I find a lot of banks don't do this (or the reason they give is too vague (or outright wrong).

A client had a piggybacking operation rolling, and that member had his/her cards closed (and those of relatives who were also Piggybacking). The client has a closure letter from Discover that says the account is being closed because Discover "Can No Longer Provide Your Servicing Needs." My position is that this wasn't a specific reason for closure as required by ECOA, and off to the races we go.

But here's why I wanted to write this post. The entire time we've been discussing these claims, there were hints and implication that something nefarious was going on (beyond the simple selling of AU slots). And then there was reference to the banks losing a lot of money due to piggybacking. I'm thinking, "maybe the bank has to make a few extra plastic cards and mail them out, but I'm not seeing what terrible harm is befalling the banks." But then I got the details.

As is often the case, a few bad apples are ruining it for everyone. Here's the scam. Someone with no credit history uses piggybacking to build up a credit profile. That person signs up for a bunch of credit cards with great credit limits. That person maxes the card, pays off the card, maxes it again, and then disappears. Oh, and that check they sent to payoff the card, it bounces.

I have a few thoughts in response to this intel:

1. The fraudster's conduct is not the fault of the cardholder who sold an AU slot. This is the fault of the banks and the fraudsters.
A. The banks have a hole in their defenses. First, the CRAs allow piggybacking to work. Second, the CRAs are overly reliant on the credit reporting system in granting credit lines. This is for the banks to fix--not the cardholder's fault.
B. The primary cardholder who sold an AU slot may have given the fraudster the tools to do this dance, but it's the fraudster who's ripping off other banks at the end of the day.

2. Having said all of that, and this is most definitely not legal advice, I don't understand how there could be civil or criminal liability for the cardholder who sells an AU slot to a fraudster. The AU-seller didn't pass a bad check. They didn't run up the credit cards. They simply took advantage of a system.

[However, it's worth noting that there could be something in a cardmember agreement that would open up the cardholder to a breach of contract claim from the cardholder's bank (but then there's an issue of how that bank was harmed--I don't see how they are in any meaningful way).]

3. If I were on the other side, I could make the argument for the cardholder who sells an AU slot having liability (although I personally don't find it convincing). The somewhat silly hypothetical I think of is the person who furnishes a gun to a murderer. In the piggybacking scenario, the cardholder sells an AU slot to a fraudster. And in doing so, they sell the fraudster the hypothetical gun (a good credit profile) that is used to harm another bank. Does it seem like a stretch to you as well?!

So there's my intel and "warning." I'm not sure what the reputable companies are doing to vet the AU buyers. But maybe this will help some of you.

I'm not trying to be a complainypants and scare people away from doing this. MMM is all about data, and this is some data that might help inform people's decisions. Also, this is high level. I can't confirm that this happened in the case of my clients, only that this type of fraud activity is happening in general and is tied into piggybacking.

If anybody has any questions about this stuff, you can shoot me a message, and I'll do my best to get back to you in a timely fashion.

Cheers

P.S. I'm loving the verifications for the forum. (Except for the Capthcas).

[Making Cents]

Thanks for your very helpful and informative post, PointsLawyer. I am concerned enough about fraud after reading recent posts on this page that I am going to stop my modest tradeline sales (one card, 2 AUs so far) as soon as I get paid for the two I've already laid the groundwork for. I definitely don't want to contribute to anything illegal or abusive, even if my own involvement is not illegal. I'll be content to collect my $300 and pass Go.

On a different subject, has anyone here had to change bank info for the direct deposits to get paid by [old company]? I don't see any way to do that online at the website so I guess I'll need to do it through email, but wondered if anyone else had this experience?

[Mod edit: redacted specific company name]

[beekayworld]

Thank you pointslawyer!
Zeroing on Point #3:   

It reminds me of how bartenders are held liable if they over-serve patrons who are visibly intoxicated and then get in an accident.

In the bar analogy, the TL company is the establishment (bar or restaurant) and we credit card holders are the bartenders. But I'm not sure what the "visibly intoxicated" is analogous to.  Is there some effort we are supposed to make to determine the AU is legitimate? 

Maybe selling CLs is more like private sales of guns where the seller isn't required to do a background check.

3. Having said all of that, if I were on the other side, I could make the argument for the cardholder who sells an AU slot having liability (although I personally don't find it convincing). The somewhat silly hypothetical I think of is the person who furnishes a gun to a murderer. In the piggybacking scenario, the cardholder sells an AU slot to a fraudster. And in doing so, they sell the fraudster the hypothetical gun (a good credit profile) that is used to harm another bank. Does it seem like a stretch to you as well?!

[PointsLawyer]

Thanks for your very helpful and informative post, PointsLawyer. I am concerned enough about fraud after reading recent posts on this page that I am going to stop my modest tradeline sales (one card, 2 AUs so far) as soon as I get paid for the two I've already laid the groundwork for. I definitely don't want to contribute to anything illegal or abusive, even if my own involvement is not illegal. I'll be content to collect my $300 and pass Go.

Happy to help. I was a bit concerned posting because I didn't want to spook people unnecessarily. But, when I learned about this, I thought it best to share. I do a lot of work for people who are credit card opportunists (whether it's debt management, signup bonuses, manufactured spend, or piggybacking), and it hadn't even crossed my mind that this was a concern. When I first heard of piggybacking, my concern was how does the cardholder add AUs and protect himself or herself. I hadn't considered this other angle. So I thought there was value in sharing.

[PointsLawyer]

Thank you pointslawyer!
Zeroing on Point #3:   

It reminds me of how bartenders are held liable if they over-serve patrons who are visibly intoxicated and then get in an accident.

In the bar analogy, the TL company is the establishment (bar or restaurant) and we credit card holders are the bartenders. But I'm not sure what the "visibly intoxicated" is analogous to.  Is there some effort we are supposed to make to determine the AU is legitimate? 

Maybe selling CLs is more like private sales of guns where the seller isn't required to do a background check.

3. Having said all of that, if I were on the other side, I could make the argument for the cardholder who sells an AU slot having liability (although I personally don't find it convincing). The somewhat silly hypothetical I think of is the person who furnishes a gun to a murderer. In the piggybacking scenario, the cardholder sells an AU slot to a fraudster. And in doing so, they sell the fraudster the hypothetical gun (a good credit profile) that is used to harm another bank. Does it seem like a stretch to you as well?!

You're asking all the right questions. I can't say definitively, but it does seem like a stretch that there would be liability if someone sold an AU slot without knowledge of a fraudster's intent (and doesn't ignore some massive red flag).

[lexde]

@Making Cents — do you mind taking the company names out of your posts? I think the intent of ARS and the way the thread is set up is to avoid having the names searchable on the ‘net. :-)

[arebelspy]

Hey PointsLawyer,
Thanks for the input!

I think we've reached pretty much the same conclusions.

This is exactly why I think choosing your tradeline company carefully is so important.

I know you haven't read this (massive) thread all through, so apologies to others for repeating myself.

In short: There are a lot of tradeline companies out there. Many of them do very little (if anything) to properly vet that the AUs are, in fact, real people (not synthetic identities), and that these real people don't have previous instances of fraud (either criminally or via fraud flags on their credit report), and that they are who they say they are.

When you use those tradeline companies that don't verify these things, the risk of card shutdown goes way up, and your risk of liability (in my opinion) goes up as well.

If the banks, or a federal agency, decides to go after a tradeline company for facilitating fraud, and argues that they have purposefully been enabling fraud, the question becomes what can that company do to show that they haven't been facilitating fraud, but in fact have been trying to prevent fraud? What if that bank, or agency, decides to go after the cardholder (i.e. you/us), saying they should have known they were helping fraud?

The two companies I use/recommend are the only ones I've found with measures that I personally found comforting (both in what techniques are done, and in how they document and preserve this in case a future investigation/audit occurs) versus all the others I looked in to. Many don't do much, if anything, sadly; they don't care about facilitating fraud, or leaving their cardholders exposed to risk.

If and when they are challenged on their practices, being able to show what exactly they do to try and prevent fraud, and what was done in that particular case, is helpful for 1) trying to not have it happen in the first place (best scenario), and 2) protecting both them, and you, if fraud still does occur (as it might on occasion, despite best efforts to prevent it).

I can honestly say that I am in no way knowingly trying to participate in fraudulent activities, or purposefully enabling other people to do so, but rather I've chosen companies specifically because I think they are using practices to try and prevent fraud.

I think many other people here feel the same concern, and that's their primary criteria as well for choosing an AU company.

Your concern is a very real one, and very valid, and it's the first thing I thought about, and what caused me to look carefully at tradeline company practices before I recommended any. It is the reason why large amounts of due diligence on these companies is needed, IMO, and why the vast majority of them I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole.

Very interesting about them needing to provide a specific reason for card closure (and "we cannot meet your needs" not being specific enough, in your opinion).

Thanks again for the thoughts!

[arebelspy]

Can I ask you, PointsLawyer, why is it worth someone to retain you when their card was shut down, and what do you estimate the cost to them will be (in terms of your billing and hours)?

[robartsd]

Can I ask you, PointsLawyer, why is it worth someone to retain you when their card was shut down, and what do you estimate the cost to them will be (in terms of your billing and hours)?

Cost of lawyer will eventually fall on the bank if the bank is found to be in the wrong.

[robartsd]

A. The banks have a hole in their defenses. First, the CRAs allow piggybacking to work. Second, the CRAs are overly reliant on the credit reporting system in granting credit lines. This is for the banks to fix--not the cardholder's fault.

The financial industry could shut this down immediately if they set it up so that piggybacking doesn't work. Already doesn't work with American Express because they report the date the AU was added where others report the date the credit line was opened.

[lexde]

Can I ask you, PointsLawyer, why is it worth someone to retain you when their card was shut down, and what do you estimate the cost to them will be (in terms of your billing and hours)?

Cost of lawyer will eventually fall on the bank if the bank is found to be in the wrong.

Yep. I don't know of a single attorney who would do this with any other arrangement. It'd have to be contingency (if plaintiff wins, attorney gets a percentage of entire award, nothing if they lose usually).

[secondcor521]

@PointsLawyer, please add my thanks as well.  I've been thinking along the same lines as I have a Barclays card where their fraud department has asked me pointed questions about my AUs and put a security hold on my account.

As a general question, do you think there is any risk in stating plainly to a credit card company that one has added acquaintances who were vetted by a third party as AU's?  If one also says that the cards never made it to the AU, I can't see how they can be concerned about fraud.

Basically, what is your opinion of a consumer taking the approach of "Hey, I did nothing wrong.  I used a service you provide, no fraud occurred, any private arrangement I have with my acquaintance is none of your business."  What is the likelihood of that working to keep the account open?

Personally I don't mind if I lose an account, but I don't want to see "Closed by credit grantor" on my credit report.

[dragoncar]

Can I ask you, PointsLawyer, why is it worth someone to retain you when their card was shut down, and what do you estimate the cost to them will be (in terms of your billing and hours)?

Cost of lawyer will eventually fall on the bank if the bank is found to be in the wrong.

Yep. I don't know of a single attorney who would do this with any other arrangement. It'd have to be contingency (if plaintiff wins, attorney gets a percentage of entire award, nothing if they lose usually).

I think ARS and the rest of us would basically like to know what a typical award is, and what percent is lost to legal fees

[PointsLawyer]

Can I ask you, PointsLawyer, why is it worth someone to retain you when their card was shut down, and what do you estimate the cost to them will be (in terms of your billing and hours)?

I take almost all of my cases on a contingency (like 99% of cases). The contingency is typically a sliding scale (smaller settlement figures means a larger percentage to recoup my time). I think it's the only way to make the model work. Doing it this way, people come to me with closed cards (or whatever), and I aim to monetize their claims. The cards are already closed, and so I try to make some "found money."

I'd say my average contingency is 40%. But that's because the typical recovery is not particularly large (think 4-figures). I do occasionally have larger claims, and that brings the contingency down.

[PointsLawyer]

A. The banks have a hole in their defenses. First, the CRAs allow piggybacking to work. Second, the CRAs are overly reliant on the credit reporting system in granting credit lines. This is for the banks to fix--not the cardholder's fault.

The financial industry could shut this down immediately if they set it up so that piggybacking doesn't work. Already doesn't work with American Express because they report the date the AU was added where others report the date the credit line was opened.

Agreed. I think the explanation is that these are large, slow-moving institutions. I'm reminded of manufactured spend. Banks came out with rewards programs to encourage spending and compete for customers. Then a small subset of savvy folks started gaming the system hard. And banks are finally starting to crack down and introduce defenses.

I expect the same thing will happen with the banks and their reporting of AU lines. But it's a matter of when it happens.

[PointsLawyer]

Can I ask you, PointsLawyer, why is it worth someone to retain you when their card was shut down, and what do you estimate the cost to them will be (in terms of your billing and hours)?

Cost of lawyer will eventually fall on the bank if the bank is found to be in the wrong.

Yep. I don't know of a single attorney who would do this with any other arrangement. It'd have to be contingency (if plaintiff wins, attorney gets a percentage of entire award, nothing if they lose usually).

I think ARS and the rest of us would basically like to know what a typical award is, and what percent is lost to legal fees

Lexde is spot on. I do all of these on contingency. It's hard to say what a typical award is because I handle a lot of different claims. Something like a non-compliant closure letter claim might resolve for anywhere from $5,000-$10,000+ (there are a lot of factors that affect this). And then the contingency is around 40% on those. I wish I could give more hard and fast answers for you but there are two limiting functions:

1. Practically every case is unique.
2. Settlement agreements typically have confidentiality provisions that would prohibit parties from getting into the details.

That's why I typically encourage my clients to send me anything that they think might be a claim. Worse case is I tell them "no."

[PointsLawyer]

Basically, what is your opinion of a consumer taking the approach of "Hey, I did nothing wrong.  I used a service you provide, no fraud occurred, any private arrangement I have with my acquaintance is none of your business."  What is the likelihood of that working to keep the account open?

I think it's highly unlikely that that would help your cause. The banks are not particularly good at nuance. A lot of blunt tools doing the work. The banks almost always include a term that they can close an account at any time. If you give them the reason to close the account, they'll go for it (explanation be damned). The banks see cases like these as potential future headaches. They don't want to mess with the potential compliance issues down the line.

Thanks for the good questions everyone. I'm enjoying the conversation. Heading to bed for now, but hopefully there will be more to talk about in the morning.

[arebelspy]

Sounds like you could get quite a bit of work now that you know about piggybacking.

Can you elaborate on what critera does (and doesn't) make for a good case?

Say someone reading this thread had a card shut down, what would make it worthwhile (what red flags should they look for) to send it to you?

I'm sure plenty of people here would happily take 60% of 5-10k for a card shut down anyways.

[PointsLawyer]

Can you elaborate on what critera does (and doesn't) make for a good case?

Say someone reading this thread had a card shut down, what would make it worthwhile (what red flags should they look for) to send it to you?

The "nice" characteristic of these types of closures is that the violation is often times the same. I'm guessing that anyone with a Discover card closed due to piggybacking received the same letter that I think is noncompliant and actionable. In the case of the discover closures I've seen so far, they've all had this same language about "we can no longer meet your servicing needs."

As I said above, banks can typically close your card at any time and for pretty much any reason. But, they have to provide the specific reason for the closure. The point of this legal requirement is to allow someone with credit to understand their credit -- the requirement is educational in nature.

So from that rule we can work out the characteristics of a non-compliant letter. Any one of these things is typically going to mean you have a claim:

1. There is no reason given for the closure. I've seen this from Citibank, Fidelity, Bank of the West, and US Bank (to name a few).
2. There's a reason given but it isn't specific. This is where you get the vague closure. Closed due to "risk," for example. Or, with Discover "we can no longer meet your servicing needs." Huh? Is Discover getting out of the credit card game? What does that mean? This gets to the educational aspect of the law. Has the bank informed you about what's going on? If the answer is "no," then you probably have a claim.
3. There's a specific reason give but it isn't true. For example, I have a case going right now. The client got a call from his bank asking about his activity. The client explained what he was doing and offered to adjust his behavior if the bank didn't like it, and the bank (a high level compliance representative) said "no, you're fine." Three weeks later, his accounts were closed due to "unacceptable activity" on the account. My argument is that this is not a truthful reason because a compliance rep explicitly said the conduct was acceptable.

Once again, I'll note that none of this is legal advice. Don't go to small claims court and say you're entitled to $10,000 because some lawyer on MMM forum said you are. There's always nuance and detail. But if anyone has more questions or wants some clarification, please feel free to shoot me a message.

[robartsd]

As I said above, banks can typically close your card at any time and for pretty much any reason. But, they have to provide the specific reason for the closure. The point of this legal requirement is to allow someone with credit to understand their credit -- the requirement is educational in nature.

So basically all the banks have to do is say, "We closed your account because we don't like how often you change authorized users on your account," and they'd be in compliance with the law, but instead they are being vague about their reasons. All the while it would be super simple for them to make changes that would make piggybacking ineffective and it would just stop happening.

[Russ]

Dumb Q: does "no late payments" refer to a payment past due date which goes away after you pay the late fee, or a payment 30+ days past due date which shows up on your credit report?

[arebelspy]

Dumb Q: does "no late payments" refer to a payment past due date which goes away after you pay the late fee, or a payment 30+ days past due date which shows up on your credit report?

If it doesn't show up on the credit report, it shouldn't have any negative effect on the AU, so the latter.

[ravevan]

For those of you who have your and spouse's cards enrolled: do you typically call for your spouse to ask for the AU removal, or do you have her/him call? It's easier for me to just call but I don't want to get sent to fraud detection, etc.

[erutio]

For those of you who have your and spouse's cards enrolled: do you typically call for your spouse to ask for the AU removal, or do you have her/him call? It's easier for me to just call but I don't want to get sent to fraud detection, etc.

I call for my wife.  I don't think having a female or male voice would get you sent to fraud department. 
If I were to get sent to fraud, I could answer any security questions they would ask of my wife. 

[katsiki]

I would not expect a problem but would assume they will require authorization from spouse.  Unless you are planning to impersonate them.  Not recommended.

Typically, a csr from any financial company is going to require auth from spouse for you to speak on their behalf.

[topshot]

For those of you who have your and spouse's cards enrolled: do you typically call for your spouse to ask for the AU removal, or do you have her/him call? It's easier for me to just call but I don't want to get sent to fraud detection, etc.

If you are not a co-signor on the account, they should not allow you to make changes. If they do then any other AU could as well. It turns out I had been considered just an AU on my wife's card so I had to actually fill out an app to get approved to be a joint owner before I could add/remove AUs so she wouldn't have to deal with it.

[frugalnacho]

How quickly do you add AU?  I got an email monday evening saying I had new AU to add, but I didn't have time to log in and get the info and call yet.  I got an email from TL company today asking if they were added saying there were due by 5/21 (the night I got the notification).  Now I'm ready to add them, but the email made it sound like if they weren't added by 5/21 she had to replace them, so I don't know if I should go ahead and add them or if she's going to move them to another card.  This card has been filling up consistently and I just removed 2 AU last week, so I expect I'd get another 2 slots right away.

Do you jump on adding AU immediately? What's a reasonable time frame to get them added?  I feel like it often takes a week or so to show up after adding them anyway.

[frugalnacho]

Fuck it I added them before hearing back.  20 minute phone call to citi.  I'll probably have to call back at least once to re add them because citi.

[secondcor521]

How quickly do you add AU?  I got an email monday evening saying I had new AU to add, but I didn't have time to log in and get the info and call yet.  I got an email from TL company today asking if they were added saying there were due by 5/21 (the night I got the notification).  Now I'm ready to add them, but the email made it sound like if they weren't added by 5/21 she had to replace them, so I don't know if I should go ahead and add them or if she's going to move them to another card.  This card has been filling up consistently and I just removed 2 AU last week, so I expect I'd get another 2 slots right away.

Do you jump on adding AU immediately? What's a reasonable time frame to get them added?  I feel like it often takes a week or so to show up after adding them anyway.

I usually add the same day if possible.  But to the best of my recollection, both companies usually give me at least two or three days notice (i.e., if my closing date is the 19th I'll get the email on the 16th or 17th).

If you didn't add them by the deadline (which is probably also your card closing date), I can understand them moving that AU to another card.  But I also think they should give you more than a few hours' notice, because most of us aren't always able to check email and do an add every day.

[lexde]

Fuck it I added them before hearing back.  20 minute phone call to citi.  I'll probably have to call back at least once to re add them because citi.

Do you have issues with Citi cards? I added my AUs online to my AAdvantage cards with no problems.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ditkanate]

Fuck it I added them before hearing back.  20 minute phone call to citi.  I'll probably have to call back at least once to re add them because citi.

Do you have issues with Citi cards? I added my AUs online to my AAdvantage cards with no problems.

Citi's site doesn't let me add the SS# online so I have to call, and the calls to them generally suck and take forever.  I tried adding online once but the AU didn't post since I didn't add the social. 

[frugalnacho]

Fuck it I added them before hearing back.  20 minute phone call to citi.  I'll probably have to call back at least once to re add them because citi.

Do you have issues with Citi cards? I added my AUs online to my AAdvantage cards with no problems.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes citi customer service sucks.  Last round I ended up having to call 3 times to add the AU.  See page 43 of this thread for my numerous posts on the topic.  Last night ended up being a 20 minute phone call and got transferred to fraud prevention.  They also don't let you add the SSN online, you have to call in.

Card closing date is the 22nd.  Got the email around 6pm on the 21st, with an apparent deadline of the 21st.  With a full time job and a 7 month old baby I don't always have the time to drop what I'm doing and spend 20 minutes on the phone with citi. 

If my card closing date is the 22nd, why did they wait until the 16th to request I remove the previous AU?  What advantage did having them on from the 23rd to the 16th if I just remove them at that point?  I could have had a much more reasonable window to get more AU sales and actually get them on my card before the statement closing date if they requested an earlier removal. It usually takes citi several days (and multiple call ins) before the AU is actually added to my account, so at least a few days notice would be nice.

[beekayworld]

If my card closing date is the 22nd, why did they wait until the 16th to request I remove the previous AU?  What advantage did having them on from the 23rd to the 16th if I just remove them at that point? 

They like us to leave a user on for a full two months. For some cards it's three months.  Look at your card history and I bet that user they asked you to remove on May 16th was added on March 16th.

I assume that having a user on for less than two months looks suspicious.

[Car Jack]

I tend to have an AU added and confirmed within an hour of notification.  A lot of good it's done me.  I'm now over a year without an AU.

[frugalnacho]

If my card closing date is the 22nd, why did they wait until the 16th to request I remove the previous AU?  What advantage did having them on from the 23rd to the 16th if I just remove them at that point? 

They like us to leave a user on for a full two months. For some cards it's three months.  Look at your card history and I bet that user they asked you to remove on May 16th was added on March 16th.

I assume that having a user on for less than two months looks suspicious.

I get that, but then it jams me up for the next round by only allowing like 5 days to sell the tradeline, notify me, and have me contact citi, and have citi actually add them.  The same thing happened last time.  I was contacted on the 21st to add AU, and it ended up being an ordeal because I had to call citi 3 times before they actually showed up.  A few hours notice is not enough time to get me to add them, and have citi actually add them to my account.