I would have been able to pay them from checking/savings, but not based on my income. In fact, I never exceeded my monthly credit limits and paid in full each month. I actually did ask Barclay's if copies of my savings and brokerage statements would suffice, but they declined. I charged a little over $1.4M each of the last couple of years, and I do not earn anywhere near $1.4M annually. That was their issue.

Their issue was that you're a statistical outlier who doesn't fit their price/rewards model for the card, and you're costing them too much while providing minimal revenue (ie paying interest on balances). I'm pretty sure if you got a business card and did same amount of spend, they'd have no issues regardless of stated income.

Good point regarding the business card. That is the route I probably should have gone initially. Unfortunately, they will not allow me to apply for them at this juncture, as I've tried many times. In fact, I am immediately denied without a credit check/no hard pull.

I would really like to get my hands on the Wyndham card. AA is a non-issue, as I have an AA card through Citi. It's not the end of the world, but I hate the idea of being banned by a bank.

Did you have any other financial relationship with them such as a loan, mortgage, brokerage account?

If not, you may want to approach one of their personal bankers in this manner, although once on the naughty list, most banks will not want to do business of any type with you.

I would feel the same way as you do in regards to being banned by a banking organization.

No, I unfortunately did not have a relationship with Barclay's outside of the credit cards. When I spoke to one of the credit analysts after yet another card denial, he was upfront with me, and said that bans are generally permanent unless Barclay's were to change their policies. It is what it is.

Wow and I thought Capone were scumbags about how they do bans. This is another level of shady. This is casino style ban since you "won" too much by slightly misusing their card.

I know many individuals will post on flyer talk that they never did anything wrong to get shut down, and then we find out that they were cycling credit limits or had late payments. In my case, I truly played by their rules. Never once was I late. never once did I exceed my credit limit. Never once did I purchase any gift cards or money instruments. I never paid via bill pay. All of my charges were legitimate travel expenses. I never even once asked for a retention offer.

You are right that I �won� too much. People thumb their nose at Wyndham hotels, but I managed several years of all inclusive Caribbean vacations and national park trips complements of Barclays.

But in truth, you weren't playing by the rules. Yes, you never did any of the things that get normal MSers banned by a bank, but you were using a personal account for a business, rather than a business account.
You funneled business expenses through that personal account and reaped the rewards.

When the bank saw that your expenses far outstripped your income, compliance probably got involved and then rat's eyes were on it. It probably didn't take them long to figure out that you were an unprofitable customer.

And, unfortunately, there is no rule that says that a company has to do business with an unprofitable customer.

I am not aware of any "rule" that prohibits or discourages using a personal card for reimbursable work expenses. This is just a matter of scale. The charges exceeded the cardholder's ability to pay, based on Barclays algorithm which only looks at income.

But banning them for life? That's a d!ck move. They could have closed the card and invited him to apply for a business account.

It does seem like an odd course of action, but mass market companies are not noted for individualized decision making. I don't know how risk tolerant Barclays (USA) culture is. If the algorithm says "No", someone would have to take responsibility for saying "Yes".

I am not persuaded that TTT103 using a Barclays Business card for reimbursable business expenses would have produced a different outcome. Business cards are issued to individuals, and the same discrepancy between income and expenses would still have been apparent.

I'm pretty sure this is a spite ban, not risk ban.

And businesses routinely spend way more than their gross profits. You can spend millions on supplies/materials but only make a profit in the low-mid six figures. Plenty of people rack up enormous amounts of UR/MR points this way and Chase/Amex never bans them.

That's not relevant to "business" credit cards. The cards are issued to individuals, not to companies. Business card applications typically ask about the individual's income and the business' income, but not the business' profit. The individual is 100% responsible for the debt. If the business outgrows the line of credit that the individual's income can support the issuer may ask for documented financial statements, or migrate the customer to a Corporate card account. However, in this example the card was not used by a business, it was used by an employee for reimbursable expenses. The employee was, in effect, loaning money to their employer. Using a "business" credit card doesn't change the risk in this circumstance.

This is definitely an interesting dialogue that we are having. It does make me ponder that I used a personal card for business expenses, but quite honestly, I�ve always done that. Even now, I use personal cards for reimbursable business expenses. Should I be doing that, I don�t know, but I�ve done that for decades without giving much thought to it.

I have never had an issue with any other card issuer, and have been with American Express for over 30 years and Chase for a little less than that. In fact, 25 to 30 years ago I used to put considerable spend on my diners club card. Also, without an issue. Back then you could go two billing periods before having to pay, and quite frequently I did so.

My business spending the last couple of years has been down considerably due to the pandemic, but will likely ramp back up eventually.

this is very interesting and concerning to hear. i hope its not new internal algos or policies changed. i dump plenty MO in WF and would like to know more details if possible. after 2 years of going silent, not sure why WF would come back with shutdown unless they did some type of historical review triggered by recent activity. you said "hub bank". how many ACH in/out monthly? whats the volume? that could be it. also, whats BG? i feel like i should know this. buying groups? if so, ur talking sources of funds coming from multiple different bank accounts under different titles/names. that would 100% be a fraud trigger. one of many BSA alerts.