Locked: PC Financial suspended my MasterCard because I did not answer their question

Busybuyer888 wrote: ↑I'm sure the questions don't change, for someone with a $500 credit limit or a $50,000 credit limit.

toram23901 wrote: ↑I wanted to know if a financial institution can really have the right to just suspend my credit card because I did not answer their question right away?

Here's the whole scenario.

Last Tuesday, I got a voice message at home from PC Financial asking for a call back to answer some questions for my PC MasterCard. My wife is primary on the card, so she called them back (the phone number on the back of the credit card). After a few transfers to different people, she was able to reach someone who knew what was happening. They said that they need some questions answered regarding the supplemental card holder (me). They asked if I am a secretary of state for another country. At this point, my wife asked them back, "Why are you asking these questions?"

The answer the CSR gave back was "It's a new law. All credit card companies need to gather this information."

My wife asked back, "Why have none of my other credit card companies called me about this?"

The CSR replied, "They may have different ways of collecting this information."

Next, my wife asked the CSR what law this is for.

The CSR just said that it was a new law, but could not give any details about it.

I have told my wife in the past to not just freely give out information whenever someone asks. Not even for financial institutions. She pressed for more info about this law, but the CSR just went around in circles, saying that it is the law and that they need to gather it. Finally, my wife asked for the supervisor because this went nowhere.

After a couple of minutes on hold, the CSR came back and said it was for "FinTrac". The CSR told her that she can research this and when she is comfortable with it, to call back and continue the call.

The next day (Wednesday) we went on vacation to the States, so we are out of the country. PC Financial, apparently suspended the credit card on Wednesday. Because this is not the primary card we use, it did not matter. But we did receive another voice message on Thursday from PC Financial. Being out of the country, I did not call them back.

On Monday morning, my wife tried to use her card, but found that it was suspended. On calling PC Financial, she was told that they suspended the card because she "refused" to answer the questions. The CSR this time had a more accusational tone. For about 10 minutes, my wife went through that this is not right, that they cannot just suspended an account like this. Finally she asked for a supervisor.

The supervisor was even worse and took things personally. He became even worse and stronger to accuse that we were in the wrong. My wife stood her ground that she was out of the country and this is really the first chance to call back. This back and forth went on for about 20 minutes until finally my wife got fed up and told the supervisor that this is going nowhere and to cancel the card. He did it right there.

So....this is the main scenario. I still feel that PC Financial was strong arming us on this one. I was just a strange question to ask. In a world of identity theft and everything, I am so hesitant to answer questions that are outside of the normal scope of what I expect. Especially when they cannot give me a good reason why they need it. "Just because"...is not a reason.

The final thing we did was to contact the "next level" of complaint at PC Financial. THAT CSR apologized for the experience and said that they should not have suspended the card like that...but also claims that they have the right to suspend the card if they feel like it, not just because of suspected fraud. We did squeeze out another 30,000 points out of them for this. We intend on using up all the points and cancelling the card still...but I wanted to know if this is me making a fuss, or was this justified? I think there are many people who would just answer any question that banks ask of them...but I just want to be clear why I am answering them.

mangina11 wrote: ↑Does this seem like a bit of a dumb law to anyone else?

Is a terrorist or criminal actually going to admit anything to a credit rep over the phone?

"Are you a terrorist?"

"No"

"Thank you Mr. Bin Laden. Have a great day."

RodDog999 wrote: ↑It may seem dumb to someone who too dumb to actually understand the law.

Politically exposed foreign person =/= terrorist

kenchau wrote: ↑Why is everyone assuming OP is not a secretary of state for another country. He never said he wasn't.

toram23901 wrote: ↑So, yes, the answer is a simple "yes or no". In my case it is "no".

ksgill wrote: ↑All a politically exposed person has to do is say, "No, I am not the secretary of state for another country".

rob444 wrote: ↑Yes, which makes the OPs refusal to answer the question very suspicious, and grounds to cancel the card. Anyone should have zero problem answering "no" in a fraction of a second regarding ANY question like this asked by a legitimate financial institution that you're a customer of.

JamesA1 wrote: ↑Are you now, or have you ever been a Communist?

JamesA1 wrote: ↑I agree with the OP. If a customer service rep of any private organization called and asked me intrusive personal questions, claiming that they were required to do so by law, but was unable to cite the specific provision of the law, I would legitimately refuse to answer on the spot. Even if they are legit, in the past I have been told by misinformed customer service reps that something was a law, or a government regulation, when in fact it was not. It's insecure to provide unnecessary personal information to anyone who asks. Organizations leak personal information like a sieve these days through carelessness, incompetence and occasionally corruption, but they can't leak what they don't have.

JamesA1 wrote: ↑When people don't stand up for the privacy rights of others, it's the start of a slippery slope.

rob444 wrote: ↑There are certain lines of questioning involving very private or sensitive subjects, that you can put your foot down and say "I'm not answering" out of principle. Being asked if you were a secretary of state in another country or have every been involved in terrorism or fraud? That ain't one of them... and it's a simple "no" answer to anyone that wants to ask.

JamesA1 wrote: ↑And who should judge whether personal information should be private or not? Bank officials and government bureaucrats? Suppose that somebody asks you about your religion? Or your sexual preferences? Or whether you support the current government? Or whether you have ever associated with a particular group? Or whether your family members came from a particular country? The question should not be "what harm could it do to answer?", but "why do they need to know that, and does that need trump privacy rights in this case?".

JamesA1 wrote: ↑And who should judge whether personal information should be private or not? Bank officials and government bureaucrats? Suppose that somebody asks you about your religion? Or your sexual preferences? Or whether you support the current government? Or whether you have ever associated with a particular group? Or whether your family members came from a particular country? The question should not be "what harm could it do to answer?", but "why do they need to know that, and does that need trump privacy rights in this case?".