CHIC SILBER

The OP probably heard about FT recently and took a shot

With only 40K (I would have thought several hundred thou)

it doesn't seem likely to me that the post is a fraud

Too many people do far too much online and jeopardize

much of their info to the webcruds

7 years to gather so little seems hardly worth it

Some of the posters should lighten up

dgwright99

^

MarkXS

Does anybody know if the address for CO given by the alleged Ms. Guttierez in her letter to the OP is in fact a valid CO address?

I'm wondering if there's an alternative theory here - that it's not even CO writing the OP but somebody scamming him? Unlikely, but the entire scenario as presented sounds unlikely too.

macabus

Yup, already confirmed the address.

Couldn't find a Ms. Guttierez at CO , though.

sfogate

She's real.

chasbondy

Good for them. Oil at $118 a barrel and the industry in financial crisis, so they continue to decrease customer service so they can hire people to play on Craigs and Ebay. Makes perfect sense to me.

sadiqhassan

And with the incompetence that I've seen from some CO agents, it wouldn't surprise me if the people monitoring ebay / craiglist to be just as incompetent and have made some sort of clerical mistake.

ContinentalFan

I think everyone is getting a little paranoid here. It's easy, really easy to figure out the use of italics, particularly if a person has been on a forum run by vbulletin. I think we have to assume all is well unless there's evidence to the contrary.

ani90

I am sure all is well and surely we can all participate in any way we want to but I bet if you look up in 6 months you will see there have been no further posts by the OP on any other subject after the next week or two, like many others with similar single agenda subjects/reasons for being on FT - not that anything is wrong with that by FT rules, but just an observation.

My personal feeling is forums like FT should have a mandatory period of membership - say 3 months - before members can post to prevent use of the forum as a platform for single agendas or greivances and to encourage new members to be more involved subsequently.

The first channels of communication/action for someone aggrieved with CO should not IMHO be directly to FT even before one seeks official response from CO - at least one could send a letter or email first before and see COs official response before we start drawing conclusions. For example, as some have suggested this letter could be a simple error and if the OP wrote to CO, the response could be a simple 'sorry the letter went to you in error, we apologize and have restored your account' and thus unnecessary discussion of the subject here. In contrast if CO's response gave specific details then we can respond in a more informed manner.

As it stands there is no information given so far by the OP that allows any respondents to give useful opinion or advice other than that that was told to OP on the phone which is to write to CO.

Duhey2

It's not all that hard to find out somebody's onepass balance....that's why I would never leave a boarding pass or anything with my OP number on it lying around (on purpose at least).

Xyzzy

Hello there -- can we please stick to the topic instead of bashing the person who started the thread and speculating as to their motives. Questions about account OnePass suspension are perfectly valid here.

Xyzzy
CO forum moderator

From NYC

While there’s, rightly, not enough information in the OP’s posts for CO Insider to help him out within this thread, I’d certainly be curious to find out, at the next DO or CO event, how many accounts CO has suspended each year because of claimed improper activities, and how many of the suspensions were incorrect. Also, as opposed to the OP’s situation, does CO contact the person first for an explanation and then cancel the account, or is it cancel first and wait for a protest by the account holder.

chasbondy

I don't see anyone at CO willing to push 10 numbers on a phone pad to discuss the matter first, as it's too much effort and the right thing to do.

adastra

That's often standard operating procedure at a large corporation - flawed as it may seem to the customer, they assume they are in the right and make the move. When I had another membership suspended for "abuse," I didn't find out until I tried to use it (2500 miles from home). Then it took far longer to contact the company and resolve that no, I hadn't done anything wrong, and get it reinstated. But they made no effort to contact me (though they claimed a certified letter was "on the way," but I never received one).

Banks frequently suspend credit cards for suspected fraud without attempting to contact customers. My bank started charging me a fee when a paper statement was returned to them - I complained about the lack of communication, and they said that the onus was on me to notice.

ijgordon

It's also less expensive. They only need to engage in a (costly) dialogue if the customer comes back and protests.

I've heard a recent story about a bank canceling or reducing all outstanding HELOCs based on the assumption that housing prices have declined meaningfully. This is not the case in all markets (i.e., most of Manhattan) but it was easier/cheaper for the bank to do the blanket cancellation and reinstate upon request, than to evaluate each individual loan.