A discussion on the ethics and legality of scripting 1 cent transactions!

[moa999]

Although with the points lost seemed they didn't use or trade, even after warning from BW

 

[SOPOOR]

just started reading this thread based on something I read on a different forum

but despite it being in the ambigous terms and conditions, I hate it when a company offers somethign and then realises it may not be as profitable as they thought and they reneg or cancel your account

just like price matching, even if you follow their terms and conditions, some businesses will reply, "oh its below our costs so we arent allowed to sell it to you" and reject you

just like credit card companies who say oh gambling transactions wont accure points, the bank still makes its money from the merchant fees, so why even care
most people dont ever use their points anyway, many expire, many buy overpriced toasters, so its still a win win

if these 1c transactions werent considered and are being expolited, then they should learn from it and next time dont offer it, or make the limit of $1 per trnasaction
same as this thing, if

 

[get me outta here]

Just visiting this thread after few days away. There are a few posts 'missing' for whatever reason. Was there a decision on whether the confiscation of points was a one off?

 

[get me outta here]

It has kindly been pointed out that the comments I thought missing are actually in the other BW thread.

Just visiting this thread after few days away. There are a few posts 'missing' for whatever reason. Was there a decision on whether the confiscation of points was a one off?

 

[Nutcase]

So I see that the BWA $0.01 payment scheme has finally been dealt with appropriately by BWA.

Whilst it took some time, the right outcome has occurred and common sense has prevailed.

Good to see.

 

[SOPOOR]

So I see that the BWA $0.01 payment scheme has finally been dealt with appropriately by BWA.

Whilst it took some time, the right outcome has occurred and common sense has prevailed.

Good to see.

I have not been involved in this whole saga however I would be so annoyed if any of my accounts were affected.

An offer was made and it was used by people and the bank or Qantas is annoyed because why??

I received a promo for a bank where it said used your card once a week for a free movie ticket every month. For 6 months.
I simply purchased a $1 item once a week and never used it for anything else.
So should my account have been suspended too???

 

[serfty]

...
I received a promo for a bank where it said used your card once a week for a free movie ticket every month. For 6 months.
I simply purchased a $1 item once a week and never used it for anything else.
So should my account have been suspended too???

Did you use a script to do this? If not then I see no issue ...

 

[SOPOOR]

Did you use a script to do this? If not then I see no issue ...

No I didn't use a script. However had I used this promo without a script, I'm sure it wouldn't matter.

50 transactions a day is time consuming manually but quite doable

 

[Deleted member 29185]

Did you use a script to do this? If not then I see no issue ...

I'm bemused by all this. If scripting is legal and/or not in breach of any trade practice act (and I can't see how it could be as banks themselves use scripting every day), and it is not specifically ruled out by the Ts&Cs, then I can't see how they (BW) have a leg to stand on, and QF is even more shaky. It'd take a game person, but anyone who is stripped of scripted but genuine points, should value them against a toaster (or some equal or worse low value redemption) and go them for the full return of the points (not the cash equivalent) through the small claims tribunal. Lock out solicitors ( and their prohibitive fees) and more importantly, huge costs if things don't go well and I'd be thinking a claimant would have a better than average chance of winning!

 

[serfty]

I would suggest Scripting - even for just one cent is quite legal - in fact I doubt any law has been broken.

However BW's appear to consider such a breach of their T&C's.

 

[basso]

I would suggest Scripting - even for just one cent is quite legal - in fact I doubt any law has been broken.

However BW's appear to consider such a breach of their T&C's.

Have Bankwest themselves made a claim it is against the T&Cs?

 

[burmans]

Have Bankwest themselves made a claim it is against the T&Cs?

I can't claim to have read every letter from Bankwest but all those which have been reported on this forum and on OZBargain report that their closure letters refer to 23.1 of Investment and Transaction Account Terms and Conditions http://www.bankwest.com.au/library/pdf/PDS_20040121-155909.pdf. These letters make no claim it is against T&C's, merely that they have the right to close the account and are doing so.

While there are clauses in http://www.bankwest.com.au/library/pdf/PDS_20120824-143838.pdf that are being claimed by a number of people on this forum as being the reason for closure, I have yet to seem any communication reported as being from BW themselves to that effect. Still awaiting that evidence.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

I would suggest Scripting - even for just one cent is quite legal - in fact I doubt any law has been broken.

However BW's appear to consider such a breach of their T&C's.

Yes, but a tribunal would look at things BW seem to wish didn't exist ... like the fact they apparently have known of this for a long time and have done next to nothing to stop it. They can have whatever opinion they wish, but it doesn't automatically transpire that their opinion is legally right!

I agree that they can close an account at will, however clawing the points back (and even urging QFF to take steps) is something that I suspect would be found to be extremely questionable.

 

[Aussie_flyer]

The points haven't been clawed back and the qff accounts haven't been affected. Nutcase is way off.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

The points haven't been clawed back and the qff accounts haven't been affected. Nutcase is way off.

There have been a few now stating a clawback, but I'm unsure about how many relate purely to incorrectly awarded points and how many relate to the scripting haul. I agree, that it seems extremely unlikely that QFF have taken any action at all.

 

[Aussie_flyer]

There have been a few now stating a clawback, but I'm unsure about how many relate purely to incorrectly awarded points and how many relate to the scripting haul. I agree, that it seems extremely unlikely that QFF have taken any action at all.

yes that was in relation to reports of incorrectly credited points, not the ones earnt during the lifetime of those accounts.

 

[NoName]

The points haven't been clawed back and the qff accounts haven't been affected. Nutcase is way off.

This is exactly right. Other than reversals for incorrect point transfers that have occurred since the closures took place, no points have been reversed. Wishful thinking from Nutcase, although god only knows why he cares.

 

[serfty]

...

I agree that they can close an account at will, however clawing the points back (and even urging QFF to take steps) is something that I suspect would be found to be extremely questionable.

AFAIK, NO points earned directly from transactions of 1¢ or more were "clawed back".

 

[burmans]

I believe Ausflyer and NoName have got it exactly right!

 

[Isochronous]

I can't claim to have read every letter from Bankwest but all those which have been reported on this forum and on OZBargain report that their closure letters refer to 23.1 of Investment and Transaction Account Terms and Conditions http://www.bankwest.com.au/library/pdf/PDS_20040121-155909.pdf. These letters make no claim it is against T&C's, merely that they have the right to close the account and are doing so.

While there are clauses in http://www.bankwest.com.au/library/pdf/PDS_20120824-143838.pdf that are being claimed by a number of people on this forum as being the reason for closure, I have yet to seem any communication reported as being from BW themselves to that effect. Still awaiting that evidence.

[redacted]

BW has never asserted that 1c transactions are a breach of the T&Cs, nor have the BW cheerleaders on this thread properly understood the definition of fraud much less proven how fraud has in fact occurred. One must also remember that (i) contracts are construed contra proferentem; and (ii) contractual discretions must be exercised reasonably and not arbitrarily or capriciously. That has been interpreted by courts to require procedural fairness. Arguably BW has breached that duty by not warning people to cease undertaking these transactions before closing the account.