Citibank readyCredit - Give yourself a present this xmas

Status
Not open for further replies.
New Chump said:
Apparently duer to technical difficulties the credit's for this promotion haven't been done and they advised I should have the credit added to my account by Monday next week.

Citibank actually proactively called you to tell you that, netaddict? :shock: Or did you harass them to get them to tell you?

I'm a bit confused, because earlier in the thread you mentioned that:

Yes, received $440 about a week ago.

Was the $440 from your November work on the account, and Citibank still need to stump up for your December efforts?


NC

I called them on the 1st of the month and asked where my December credit was, they told me basically what they told me when they called me. I didn't request a call back or anything and never made a offical complaint as such besides saying I wasn't impressed. The call today seemed like a mass marketing type call where they are calling a lot of customers.

The $440 was for the November account.
 
After Citibank confirmed over the phone that the Cashback would be paid on my next statement, I wrote a secure email to Citibank confirming our conversation.

On Friday Citibank wrote to me, saying basically that "spend" wasn't what Citibank originally said it was, and offering:
1. interest paid on my "non-genuine spend" transactions refunded;
2. no $160 credit facility fee;
3. orginal balance transfer @4.9% reinstated; and
4. $500 "ex gratia payment as recompense for any inconvience".

I think on Monday I will formally decine their offer, and ask Citibank to comply with the terms of its original Caskback offer.

I may be utilising the sevices of the banking ombudsman like e_wolfe, to help Citibank understand why it should honour the terms of its offers to/contracts with its customers.

NC
 
New Chump said:
On Friday Citibank wrote to me, saying basically that "spend" wasn't what Citibank originally said it was ...

I declined the $500 offer and lodged my complaint with the Banking Ombudsman. I have recieved a letter from the Ombudsman confirming that they have recieved my complaint and that they have advised Citibank that they have until the 9th March to resolve the issue or the Ombudsman will take action to settle the dispute.
The conditions of the offer were quite clear. Spend includes honoured cheques, cash withdrawals and retail transactions. Citibank can't now try and change the terms of the offer.
 
My ReadyCredit statement closed overnight and no cashback was credited to my account even though they had phoned me to tell me it would be.

I've called Citibank this morning and they have confirmed someone will contact me by the end of the day to get the money credited. Lets see if it happens and the money gets credited.
 
Take Citibank to task

e_wolfe said:
New Chump said:
On Friday Citibank wrote to me, saying basically that "spend" wasn't what Citibank originally said it was ...

I declined the $500 offer and lodged my complaint with the Banking Ombudsman. I have recieved a letter from the Ombudsman confirming that they have recieved my complaint and that they have advised Citibank that they have until the 9th March to resolve the issue or the Ombudsman will take action to settle the dispute.
The conditions of the offer were quite clear. Spend includes honoured cheques, cash withdrawals and retail transactions. Citibank can't now try and change the terms of the offer.

I have received similar letter from Citibank saying that the cashback will not be honoured. The letter is from the Customer Advocacy Unit (phone 02-82253190).

I am declining the $500 settlement offer and I am lodging a formal complain to the Banking Ombudsman. In addition to this, I intend to get the mass media involved.

We should all make Citibank honour the offer.

The Channel Nine 'A Current Affair' can be contacted at http://aca.ninemsn.com.au/storyidea/story_ideas.asp and the Channel Seven 'Today Tonight' can be reached at http://seven.com.au/todaytonight/contact_fairgo.
 
Sponsored Post

Struggling to use your Frequent Flyer Points?

Frequent Flyer Concierge takes the hard work out of finding award availability and redeeming your frequent flyer or credit card points for flights.

Using their expert knowledge and specialised tools, the Frequent Flyer Concierge team at Frequent Flyer Concierge will help you book a great trip that maximises the value for your points.

Make Citibank honour the offer

I have checked out the Banking Ombudsman website and got the impression that we can make claim for interest on the cashback not paid in December and/or January. Based on Citibank's 12.99%pa interest rate, each day of non-payment would cost 0.03559% ($11 for every $1000 they don't pay each month).

We can also lodge a dispute on-line. Check it out :

https://www.bfso.org.au/ABIOWeb/abiowebsite.nsf
 
What link/page did you get the impression you can claim interest from them? Keen to read up on that.
 
netaddict said:
What link/page did you get the impression you can claim interest from them? Keen to read up on that.

kaki is correct - see page 53 of the POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL in the Publications section.

Getting 12.99% is not going to fly though - Mr Ombudsman uses a term deposit rate.

I take it from your question, netaddict, that Citibank shafted you on your December "spend"?

NC
 
netaddict said:
Supprisingly no, I got my cash back for December overnight.

Hi netaddict, I was just wondering if the total amount of cash back you recieved was over $500. It seems that all of us that are owed much more than $500 in cash back from Citibank have all been told that we are not eligible for the cashback. Given that Citibank has offered each of us $500 to settle the dispute I assume that everyone who was eligible for a total cashback amount of $500 or less would have received their cashback.
 
netaddict said:
My cashback was just over $1000.


After reading all your messages, I have decided to decline the offer also. Does anyone know around how many people this has effected?
 
wallabies said:
After reading all your messages, I have decided to decline the offer also. Does anyone know around how many people this has effected?

wallabies,

Welcome to AFF. :D :D :D

After seeing the issues that everyone seems to have with Citibank I decided some time ago to give them a miss totally. Seem to be that they don't have a system of resolution that has any teeth. (or simply can't be bothered :!:)
 
I have been following this thread with great interest as I am in the same position as others. I have recycled enough funds (through internet transfers to another bank rather than cheque writing) so that the bonus payable is well over $4000 and have recently received the Citibank's $500 dispute resolution offer letter.

I contacted their Customer Advocacy Unit to seek a more fair and reasonable offer, they flatly declined and were of the attitude "well we apologised already, what else do you want?" I'll tell you what I want, I want SATISFACTION and $500 ain't gonna cut the mustard! :evil: He also stated that it did not make business sense for Citibank to pay people with transactions like me under this promotion, as if that's my concern. :roll: As a result of that call I am considering escalating the dispute to the Ombudsman.

A couple of issues which others members may perhaps comment on/take note of and may be useful for those considering whether to accept the offer or go to the Ombudsman:

1. It appears this is a widespread dispute, when I called the Ombudsman on Friday the consultant seemed to know about it, she said "yes there has been a Citibank issue lately". She said I was free to lodge a claim, but did also warn that there was no guarantee the $500 offer would stand if they got involved.

2. As this dispute clearly [I think] arose due to error/oversight/omission on Citibank's behalf in regards to the terms and conditions of the promotion, this dispute is primarily about misleading advertising? Paragraph 30 of the 2004 Banking Code of Practice states that banks are not to engage in misleading advertising.

3. In the dispute resolution offer, Citibank state transactions that do not appear to be for the purchase of goods and services do not qualify. Personally I don't think they have a leg to stand on with regard to this argument. They should have listed all exclusions in the terms and conditions of the promotion up front as is standard business practice.

4. Then they state "We accept that you may have thought that these transactions might have been eligible and apologise if there was any confusion". Have they just shot themselves in the foot with this statement in regards to misleading advertising? Because if I was confused then it was only because of their misleading advertising which did not exclude these types of transactions. :D

5. Prior to making my transactions, I even emailed Citibank through the secure email system and asked them if I pursued the funds transfer path, will I be paid under the promotion and if the was a maximum payable under the promotion. Amazingly they answered there was no maximum! You beauty, have Citibank shot themselves in the foot again? :D

6. The only thing that concerns me at the moment is that under the Ombudsman's Terms of Reference, in making a determination they must consider fairness to both parties, amongst other things. It is possible the Ombudsman may not view our claim kindly as

i) the dispute arose due to a honest mistake on Citibank's behalf, though we'd argue otherwise.
ii) customers are seeking to take advantage of that mistake
iii) Ombudsman may consider the claim frivolous and vexatious (Terms of Reference state the Ombudsman is not obliged to investigate if this is the case)

Sorry this post is so long and I know most of you guys would have already considered some if not all of my points. At this point I am inclined to go to the Ombudsman to seek full payment from Citibank (plus interest under section 53 of the Ombudsman's policies guide, take that Citibank! haha). I also like Kaki's idea of getting Current Affair or Today Tonight involve, but I want to give the Ombudsman a chance first.

Failing that, I was wondering what the level of interest is for class action [is that the correct term? I'm not a legal professional] against the bank if the Ombudsman finds against us?

Btw, does it feel good to have Citibank [apparently] by the b*lls? lol :D
 
I also just remembered Australia's customer complaint website:

www.notgoodenough.org

At this stage I will refrain from posting my complaint on that website pending the outcome of the Ombudsman's finding.

Citibank, if you are monitoring this thread, you should take note of the following article which appears on the above website. There is still time to correct the dispute.

Warning to businesses over complaints . . . Ignore them at your peril
by Darrell Giles. The Sunday Mail. Brisbane, Qld.: Jul 11, 2004. pg. 37

THEY'RE as mad as hell, and they're not going to take it anymore.

Shopper rage is on the rise in Queensland and the State Government has warned businesses to deal properly with complaints or face customers "bent on revenge".

And the most likely targets of the rage would be real estate agents, car yards and computer stores -- the most complained-about industries.

Fair Trading Minister Margaret Keech said new data revealed that many complainants were motivated more by emotions than the amount of money involved and would pursue matters until the bitter end.

A study of complaints to the Office of Fair Trading showed unsatisfied customers had feelings of anger, frustration, vengefulness, annoyance, bitterness, hostility, rage and disgust.

The University of Queensland Business School and Office of Fair Trading study looked at complaints from people aged 18-55, their employment status including managers, professional, retired and house duties. The amount at stake varied from $160 to $20,000, with most cases less than $1000.

One victim, discussing a complaint about a real estate agent, said: "Then I was really angry with her. Lying in bed at night, I was wondering what things I could do to her, what nasty things, like scratching her car, and every time she has an inspection staying there to tell everyone what a lying cow she is."

Some consumers said they would pursue a business for months, even if the matter seemed relatively insignificant.

One complainant vowed to not let a business "get away with something that's obviously very wrong" while others said they would fight to achieve a "moral victory".

"They can feel intense emotions with severe physical consequences, even when the money at stake is trivial," said Professor Janet McColl-Kennedy, who conducted the research with UQ Business School colleague Dr Rebekah Bennett.

One of the most infamous cases of shopper rage in Queensland was reported in The Sunday Mail in 2001 when a 28-year-old man snapped, wreaking havoc in his local chicken takeaway store because he was repeatedly served peas with his meals.

He caused $6800 to the Brisbane southside store, smashing cash registers, kicking glass refrigerators and throwing loose pavers into the shop windows. The man received a suspended three-month jail term and was ordered to pay damages and costs.

Dr Bennett said emotions of fear, anger and sadness were predominant when complaints were made about poor service or faulty products.

She said some complainants attempted a rational, planned approach -- but once emotions came into play, they resolved to pursue it "through to the bitter end".

"The consumer's motivation for redress can be purely emotional," Dr Bennett said.

"Incorporating this knowledge into addressing consumer concerns will make a positive difference to business profitability."

Mrs Keech said Queensland businesses had been put on notice.

"If you don't show respect and honesty when a customer has a problem then you are more than likely to make them feel hurt, angry and seek revenge," she said.

"Revenge is a powerful emotion. It drives consumers to go to great lengths for justice, even recognition."

Mrs Keech said a customer's sense of hopelessness or powerlessness often drove them to complain to the Office of Fair Trading.

"Individuals are motivated to attempt to regain control in their life or to reduce the sense of disempowerment imposed by the business by lodging a complaint.

"Businesses should factor in the emotional cost to the customer and not just the economic cost."
 
bits said:
3. In the dispute resolution offer, Citibank state transactions that do not appear to be for the purchase of goods and services do not qualify. Personally I don't think they have a leg to stand on with regard to this argument. They should have listed all exclusions in the terms and conditions of the promotion up front as is standard business practice.

I can't see how they can possibly state that the transactions must be for the purchase of goods and services as the offer also clearly stated that even cash withdrawals qualified for the cash back!!!

bits said:
Failing that, I was wondering what the level of interest is for class action [is that the correct term? I'm not a legal professional] against the bank if the Ombudsman finds against us?

I am definitely interested in class action against Citibank if the Ombudsman doesn't find in our favour.
 
e_wolfe said:
I am definitely interested in class action against Citibank if the Ombudsman doesn't find in our favour.

My suggestion is that Citibank be made aware (by more than one person) the link to this forum.

Sorry that its got to this. :( :( :roll: :roll: :twisted: :twisted: :evil: :evil:
 
Misleading and deceptive conduct

If the Ombudsman does not rule in our favour, I am considering escalating the matter to ACCC. There are several potential breaches of the Trade Practices Act 1974. Section 52 prohibits conduct by business which is misleading or deceptive, or which is likely to mislead or deceive. The Citibank admission that 'confusion' might have arised inidicates a possible intent to confuse the consumers. Section 54 prohibits corporations from offering gifts, prizes or other free items in connection with the supply of goods or services if it does not intend to provide them as offered. Citibank should have known of the problem (if t had been a genuine problem) in December when November statements were processed. At that point, Citibank should have the intent not to honour the cashback.
I am prepared to lose the $500 although I am confident of winning. It is a matter of principle to proceed with the larger claim.
 
Re: Misleading and deceptive conduct

kaki said:
If the Ombudsman does not rule in our favour, I am considering escalating the matter to ACCC. There are several potential breaches of the Trade Practices Act 1974.

Sounds like a good idea. Thanks for the information.
 
Unfortunately, section 51AF on Unfair Practices states "Part does not apply to financial services", the Trade Practices Act 1974 was the first thing I checked out, bugger. Regardless we still have a very strong case.

Happy to stand corrected if I'm wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top