CB Rewards Platinum 2:1 VA, SQ KF / VA now [was 15K:10K]

[kamchatsky]

I wonder what the banking ombudsman would have to say about this.

Nothing, as it is in their T&Cs actually.

 

[lovetravellingoz]

Nothing, as it is in their T&Cs actually.

Agreed...as the CSR read it out to me when I spoke with them. So they know the score.

I told her while it was not her fault, that it was not the point and that they were treating myself as a long term customer with contempt.

I told her to log an official complaint on my file.

As soon as my Citibusiness is at 20K, and it is almost there I will transfer and cancel the card, and advised her to log this too.

 

[spentan]

hmm, i presume qantas on the citibusiness gold is still 1:1?

I can do 1.5:1 still in the app, thinking of doing it, but have no use currently for SQ/Velocity points. (and SQ expire)

hm,

 

[burmans]

Agreed...as the CSR read it out to me when I spoke with them. So they know the score.

I told her while it was not her fault, that it was not the point and that they were treating myself as a long term customer with contempt.

I told her to log an official complaint on my file.

As soon as my Citibusiness is at 20K, and it is almost there I will transfer and cancel the card, and advised her to log this too.

The T&C's Edison quotes are not for CitiBusiness

6.
General
6.1

We may decide to no longer offer Citibank
Rewards. If we do this we will give you at least
thirty days written notice if we decide not to
offer Citibank Rewards.
5
6.2

We reserve the right to vary these Terms and
Conditions from time to time. We will give
you thirty days written notice if we decide to
change these Terms and Conditions.

The conditions on Edisons post do not exist

10.
Airline Loyalty Programs
10.1


You must be a member of the Airline Loyalty

Program in which you wish to claim Airline

Loyalty Points and have advised us of your

Airline Loyalty Program membership number

prior to any such redemption.

10.2


If you are a member of the Airline Loyalty

Program, you are subject to the terms and

conditions of the Airline Loyalty Program.

10.3


If you redeem Points for Airline Loyalty Points,

the Airline Loyalty Points may take up to 28

business days to appear in your Airline Loyalty Program membership account.



Once again the condition does not exist!!

 

[lovetravellingoz]

The T&C's Edison quotes are not for CitiBusiness

6.
General
6.1

We may decide to no longer offer Citibank
Rewards. If we do this we will give you at least
thirty days written notice if we decide not to
offer Citibank Rewards.
5
6.2

We reserve the right to vary these Terms and
Conditions from time to time. We will give
you thirty days written notice if we decide to
change these Terms and Conditions.

The conditions on Edisons post do not exist

10.
Airline Loyalty Programs
10.1


You must be a member of the Airline Loyalty

Program in which you wish to claim Airline

Loyalty Points and have advised us of your

Airline Loyalty Program membership number

prior to any such redemption.

10.2


If you are a member of the Airline Loyalty

Program, you are subject to the terms and

conditions of the Airline Loyalty Program.

10.3


If you redeem Points for Airline Loyalty Points,

the Airline Loyalty Points may take up to 28

business days to appear in your Airline Loyalty Program membership account.



Once again the condition does not exist!!

I think you are confused. The T&C I was referring to were what the CSR read out to me tonight. Not what edison quoted.

She apologised profusely but quoted that they have the right to vary the transfer rate.

My agreement with edison was that there is no case to take to the Banking Ombudsmen.

 

[oz_mark]

The T&C's Edison quotes are not for CitiBusiness



Once again the condition does not exist!!

For Citibusiness try section 7 of the CitiBusiness document...
http://www.citibank.com.au/global_docs/pdf/MCG10972_0112_LR_2.pdf

 

[burmans]

For Citibusiness try section 7 of the CitiBusiness document...
http://www.citibank.com.au/global_docs/pdf/MCG10972_0112_LR_2.pdf

I'm not denying they have the right to change under the T&C's, I'm saying they don't have the right to do so without notice given 6.2 says they must provide.

 

[oz_mark]

I'm not denying they have the right to change under the T&C's, I'm saying they don't have the right to do so without notice given 6.2 says they must provide.

They have to provide notice to change the T&Cs, but they haven't changed them....

 

[Spizz]

I can still transfer over at 15k:10k through their website.

 

[burmans]

They have to provide notice to change the T&Cs, but they haven't changed them....

Yes, well I have had advice that FOS won't regard it this way, while I am not in a position to disclose why it is very reliable advice and I will be following this route.

 

[oz_mark]

Yes, well I have had advice that FOS won't regard it this way, while I am not in a position to disclose why it is very reliable advice and I will be following this route.

Changes in redemption rates are allowed by the T&Cs, but redemption rates themselves are not part of the T&Cs.

I would have thought you would have more luck heading down the precedent route, where NAB had to grandfather existing points at an existing redemption rate (see ACCC ends investigation of proposed retrospective point value changes to the NAB Rewards Program | ACCC). The issue was one of the retrospective nature of the change....

 

[deluxeflyer]

Just a thought, but one could upgrade from Rewards to Signature to retain the more favourable conversion rates.
Bear in mind too that the earning rate is greater with Sig at 1.5 CB to $1.
The extra fee would probably be marginal,
maybe around $200 pa but you get the extra benefits of Signature too.
Might be able to negotiate the fee.

 

[Spizz]

Just a thought, but one could upgrade from Rewards to Signature to retain the more favourable conversion rates.
Bear in mind too that the earning rate is greater with Sig at 1.5 CB to $1.
The extra fee would probably be marginal,
maybe around $200 pa but you get the extra benefits of Signature too.
Might be able to negotiate the fee.

That is what I'm thinking as well. Hopefully Citi will be accomodating in making this happen for people affected by the changes.

 

[lovetravellingoz]

I'm not denying they have the right to change under the T&C's, I'm saying they don't have the right to do so without notice given 6.2 says they must provide.

You may wish to read:

7.3 We may alter the number of Points requiredto redeem a Reward, impose additional
restrictions on a Reward or conditions for
obtaining itincluding, setting a minimum
number of Points required to redeem a
particular Reward. We may also withdraw or
substitute any Reward for another Reward
without prior notice to you.


T&C have not actually changed. So no notice required on an alteration to T&C.


I will however maintain my complaint on it being poor customer service, in the hope of extracting something more than the fee waiver they have already offered (not so valuable now as the card now is the same earn as my Mastercard Black, or indeed free for life CitiPlat.)

 

[lovetravellingoz]

Just a thought, but one could upgrade from Rewards to Signature to retain the more favourable conversion rates.
Bear in mind too that the earning rate is greater with Sig at 1.5 CB to $1.
The extra fee would probably be marginal,
maybe around $200 pa but you get the extra benefits of Signature too.
Might be able to negotiate the fee.

I believe this is valid.
Years ago I was considering that when there was a difference between levels and I was going to upgrade in the year that I would redeem in. But the rates became the same, and so the need disappeared.

 

[lovetravellingoz]

Changes in redemption rates are allowed by the T&Cs, but redemption rates themselves are not part of the T&Cs.

I would have thought you would have more luck heading down the precedent route, where NAB had to grandfather existing points at an existing redemption rate (see ACCC ends investigation of proposed retrospective point value changes to the NAB Rewards Program | ACCC). The issue was one of the retrospective nature of the change....

Good find:

"Loyalty program promoters risk misleading consumers and breaching the fair-trading provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974 if they:

• advertise awards that are not available as represented

• hide in the fine print or fail to disclose the truth about the restrictions imposed on the redemption of those rewards

• seek to retrospectively change programs or offers to the disadvantage of consumers.

"The ACCC will continue to monitor consumer complaints received about the operation and conduct of loyalty programs".



Release Number:
MR 145/02


So looks like ACCC would be the way to go.

In my case fortunately I have now been able to move most of my points at the former 1.5/1 rate. That leaves about 50K between my wife and and my two Citibusiness accounts. So I have "lost" about 8K in points.

If I had a substantial amount of devalued points I would contact ACCC, or at least send then an email complaint.

If they get many such emails they may contact Citibank.

 

[burmans]

You may wish to read:

7.3 We may alter the number of Points requiredto redeem a Reward, impose additional
restrictions on a Reward or conditions for
obtaining itincluding, setting a minimum
number of Points required to redeem a
particular Reward. We may also withdraw or
substitute any Reward for another Reward
without prior notice to you.


T&C have not actually changed. So no notice required on an alteration to T&C.


I will however maintain my complaint on it being poor customer service, in the hope of extracting something more than the fee waiver they have already offered (not so valuable now as the card now is the same earn as my Mastercard Black, or indeed free for life CitiPlat.)

You are assuming that the T&C's of the vendor trump the laws of our country. Credit providers are subject to a number of laws, regulations and code, including the Code of Banking Practice, Credit Code, NCCP and other and are subject to regulation by a number of parties including APRA, ACCC, ASIC. Each of these have clauses about disclosure of material changes to conditions and each regulator have practice statements that reiterate this.

 

[oz_mark]

You are assuming that the T&C's of the vendor trump the laws of our country.

You have been arguing, though, that the clauses don't exist. They do. It is really the application of the clauses, that do exist, that you are arguing about?

 

[lovetravellingoz]

You are assuming that the T&C's of the vendor trump the laws of our country.

Err no. That the T&C may not be valid is an entirely different argument from statin that the T&C had changed without notice.

Your point was that you require notice for a change in the T&C, when as far as I can see no change to the T&C has been made and this was my point.


I have agreed with oz-mark that he has made a good point on the ACCC. "seek to retrospectively change programs or offers to the disadvantage of consumers.:

So I don't see any point in mounting an argument that Citibank have changed T&C without notice. I see every point in mounting an argument about disadvantaging customers with retrospective changes despite what the T&C says.

We will just have to agree to disagree on this.

 

[burmans]

Err no. That the T&C may not be valid is an entirely different argument from statin that the T&C had changed without notice.

Your point was that you require notice for a change in the T&C, when as far as I can see no change to the T&C has been made and this was my point.


I have agreed with oz-mark that he has made a good point on the ACCC. "seek to retrospectively change programs or offers to the disadvantage of consumers.:

So I don't see any point in mounting an argument that Citibank have changed T&C without notice. I see every point in mounting an argument about disadvantaging customers with retrospective changes despite what the T&C says.

We will just have to agree to disagree on this.

What I am arguing is that their is evidence that FOS (and probably other agencies) will not limit their definition of Terms and Conditions to those defined by Citibank. This was the original suggestion proposed and I do have very good reason to believe this line of reasoning would be succesful. But you are welcome not to take your argument to FOS.