Change name or get new membership?

[777]

I appreciate the opinions from everyone. Whether correct or not, the way I see it the person that held the account previously Miss X, no longer exists and is now Mrs Y. So as Mrs Y has never been a Velocity member before, she has chosen to get a new membership to go with her new name. Much the same as she has a new passport, new drivers licence and credit cards. As Miss X no longer exists, all the others were cancelled and reissued as Mrs Y.

You're analogy breaks down here. The same person still exists.

Simple question: Did she have to re-sit the drivers test when she got her license? If she did, you're right she's a new person. If she didn't they just updated her details with new paperwork.

 

[777]

I know the OP referred to the 500 point bonus, but as far as I can tell there is currently no bonus point offer for new members - I believe the offer expired on 30 June. So if the OP opens a new account now they won't get any new member bonus, and therefore they will not fraudulently be receiving any benefit as far as I can see. In any case, I don't think the odds of this scenario playing out are anything like 1 in 20, I'd actually say it's an extremely unlikely scenario (especially the bit about closure of the account receiving points via family pooling), but to be fair that's something we could only speculate on.

I am not really trying to estimate the odds. I agree the chances are small however spend anytime on Flyertalk and you will find a lot of stories of people losing points, status, and other benefits due to having a duplicate account. People get in issues with it all the time. As for the bonus, it is probably less of an issue now the bonus has expired but the OP clearly cites the bonus as an incentive to open a duplicate account against the T&Cs of the program.

On a more general note, to pick up on OzEire's point, if your concern was about T&C violation, why not just say that in the first place? The OP is a relatively new member to this forum, who asked a pretty reasonable and straightforward question ("Is there any down side that you can see to her signing up again, under her new name and then pooling to me?"). Up until now, there were 5 separate replies advising the OP to make the name change, but not one even attempted to explain why there might be an issue with the other option.

That's what i just did. I am not sure why you're having a go at me given i am the only one who has explained it and i've only joined this thread today.

My response was prompted by the OP asking a question, getting a clear weight of answers in favour of one option and then seemingly deciding to ignore it and indicating he hadn't understood the risk. I figured the detail was necessary at that point.

 

[Jack_OC]

That's what i just did. I am not sure why you're having a go at me given i am the only one who has explained it and i've only joined this thread today.

My response was prompted by the OP asking a question, getting a clear weight of answers in favour of one option and then seemingly deciding to ignore it and indicating he hadn't understood the risk. I figured the detail was necessary at that point.

Eh, was this not your initial response?

Probably could have done a name change in the time it took to post/ read this thread.

You posted that before the OP had come back to indicate what option he was going to choose. I already acknowledged that your subsequent response was the first to actually explain what a downside might be with the other option, I just asked why you didn't respond along those lines in the first place, rather than with the comment above.

 

[777]

Eh, was this not your initial response?

You posted that before the OP had come back to indicate what option he was going to choose. I already acknowledged that your subsequent response was the first to actually explain what a downside might be with the other option, I just asked why you didn't respond along those lines in the first place, rather than with the comment above.

Because between my first post assumed that the OP was concerned about the time involved in taking the advice offered and attempted to directly address that.

My second post was there to make sure the OP was aware of the risk they was taking in opening a duplicate account as a minority was advising them to do.

 

[Jack_OC]

Because between my first post assumed that the OP was concerned about the time involved in taking the advice offered and attempted to directly address that.

My second post was there to make sure the OP was aware of the risk they was taking in opening a duplicate account as a minority was advising them to do.

The OP originally asked "Is there any down side that you can see to her signing up again, under her new name and then pooling to me?" Prior to your comment, 2 people had advised submitting the name change and another had said they previously went through the name change process with no problems, but none of them had answered the question about whether or not there was a down side with the new account option. On the other side of the fence, 2 people had said opening a new account was fine, both speaking from prior experience of doing the same thing. And 2 other people suggested a third option - just continuing to travel under her maiden name. IMHO, it's not really surprising that none of this convinced the OP to change his plan of opening a new account.

However, the issue you raised might make people think again (even if I personally don't agree about the extent of the risk). I just wondered why you would take the time to comment on this thread initially, but not mention the potential down side with opening a new account that you had thought of, even though that would have been a direct response to the OP's question, and nobody else had mentioned anything similar. Anyway, it's not a big deal.

 

[Dan_]

Again thanks all for the info and advice. Yes I did see something on Google+ about 500 bonus points, but then later realised it was an old offer.

If it comes back to bite me I'll be sure to update the thread and warn anyone else against it! I can't see it being too much of an issue though as she has 0 credits, points and status on the old account, and will continue to do so on the new account. That is unless I manage to get partner SG for her one day, which is unlikely.

 

[OzEire]

Your call.

+1

I agree, its the OP's call (or perhaps it should be Mrs OP's decision!)

 

[kevrosmith]

Again thanks all for the info and advice. Yes I did see something on Google+ about 500 bonus points, but then later realised it was an old offer.

If it comes back to bite me I'll be sure to update the thread and warn anyone else against it! I can't see it being too much of an issue though as she has 0 credits, points and status on the old account, and will continue to do so on the new account. That is unless I manage to get partner SG for her one day, which is unlikely.

Can you ring up and close/cancel this first account? That would cover the duplicate account situation.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

I just wondered why you would take the time to comment on this thread initially,

You do enjoy arguing that black is white, don't you?

Both medhead and 777 have given technically correct advice so why chastise them for it? The OP has chosen not to heed that advice which is fine also, but if things do go pear-shaped in the future, at least he (and she) knew it was a risk (albeit a presumably small risk). You however gave incorrect advice based on something that you did (which was also technically in breach of the T&Cs) but then go on to attack those that gave the correct advice. Argue all you like, but facts are facts, sport!

 

[Jack_OC]

You do enjoy arguing that black is white, don't you?

Both medhead and 777 have given technically correct advice so why chastise them for it? The OP has chosen not to heed that advice which is fine also, but if things do go pear-shaped in the future, at least he (and she) knew it was a risk (albeit a presumably small risk). You however gave incorrect advice based on something that you did (which was also technically in breach of the T&Cs) but then go on to attack those that gave the correct advice. Argue all you like, but facts are facts, sport!

Read the thread again, carefully this time.

 

[TomVexille]

Personally would have gone with the name change

 

[Deleted member 29185]

Read the thread again, carefully this time.

Thanks, but no. I got all I needed out of the first read.

 

[Jack_OC]

Thanks, but no. I got all I needed out of the first read.

Not sure what info you needed to be honest, as it seems your objective was just to wade in and resurrect a thread that had already come to a conclusion, simply to accuse me of being argumentative (nice irony).

On the off chance that you really are interested in "facts": I did not "chastise" anyone for giving correct advice. In fact, I repeatedly acknowledged that 777's second post on this thread was useful. My most recent comment before you chimed in specifically said that "the issue [777] raised might make people think again" (in contrast to the previous comments, which had not pointed out any down side with the new account option). Naturally enough, you decided to edit that out for the purposes of having a go at me (nice irony again!). Just to be clear, the only thing I was "chastising" 777 for was that he/she initially provided what I thought was a fairly snide and unhelpful response, when he/she actually had a useful answer that could have been provided instead. If you think the responses up to the point when I replied to Medhead were all as helpful and friendly as they could have been, then obviously you're entitled to that view, but it's not a view that I share. Either way, I'm not sure how you can construe what I said as "arguing that black is white".

 

[medhead]

The OP originally asked "Is there any down side that you can see to her signing up again, under her new name and then pooling to me?"

Perhaps you should read the OP again. Then you'll find they have an extremely dubious reason for not just changing the name. That reason was not even properly explained. So you'll find that I've rejected the weak reason for not doing the name change and therefore that question doesn't even come into it.

Neither option is wrong. What advantage is there in sticking with the existing account if she has no points, SCs or status?

She can open a new account online instantly, with no need to scan or email the certificate and no need to wait for someone at VA to review it and action it. Why is that "the wrong thing to do?"

Note your question: "what is the advantage?" Instead of one person having one account, you're supporting one person having 2 accounts. A clear breech of the terms and conditions. Why? To gain an advantage? How is that not wrong?

I've already mentioned the lack of justification for not just changing the name, which is the correct thing to do.