Compensation?

[mitwg]

Is there a list anywhere of the type of compensation that a bank or card might be required to pay under Fos?

I'm thinking about the self employed truckdriver who, like the op, is duplicate charged $10k. If the driver doesn't pay the 'extra' $10k and all the interest, he's rooted with bad credit. But if he pays the $10k pending a refund, he can't pay the truck registration or the kid's local Catholic Primary school fees. Or he would've bought a lotto ticket and won that weekend. where does Fos draw the line? What types of claims does it deal with?

I'm not 100% sure on this, but I don't believe there is a set guideline on how much you have to pay for X scenarios as there's just too many variables to have a formula.

The process involved is pretty much a negotiation, where both the company and the complainant provide their side of the argument and related documents. FOS only acts as the mediator in between and will assess both side's of the story to state whether it makes sense under the relevant regulations. In most cases, the complainant will state the desired outcome he or she is wanting from the complaint and the company will assess whether the resolution the complainant is seeking is reasonable or not. So the company will either agree or make a counter offer.

As far as losses are concerned, only direct losses can be claimed and this is the same, whether the case goes to FOS or to court. Consequential losses (what if? scenarios) are generally not covered.

What I mean here is, say you run a online business and Telstra suddenly cut off your internet for no reason. So due to lack of internet connection, you could've missed a transaction deadline or something resulting in penalties imposed by your supplier. This would probably be a direct loss so there is a good chance the court may get Telstra to reimburse you for the penalties imposed by your supplier. On the other hand, you can't claim that 'I would have made 50 share trades online that would have made me $2,000,000 during the time the internet was down'. This is a 'what if' scenario that isn't going to get covered, unless you are a professional trader (i.e. you run a business) and you can formally quantify that as a business loss.

So to answer your question, the damages incurred to the driver by not being able to pay for the registration is a loss that is probably likely to get covered but the loss of potential winnings from lotto isn't.

As for the payment, I have a feeling suppliers cannot charge for an outstanding payment that has an open dispute with a EDR. This is definitely a consumer protection thing but it also works for the benefit of the company as well because it means they can avoid paying for potential damages incurred due to the truck registration issue described above so as a mechanism, this rule reduces liability for both parties and this is a good thing. I've definitely seen this regulation applied previously in different industries but I'm just unsure on whether it applies to FOS complaints as well or not.

 

[desiredusername]

I was hoping for more of a list like:

- yes they award lost and missing points
- yes they award compensation if b/s delays mean you miss a airline promo (like the VA 30% bonus)
- yes they award compo if they screwed up and you didn't get points for a holiday.
- yes/no they didn't give cash or vouchers for cash seats you couldn't buy with overdue points
- yes they force Amex to reimburse duplicate payments
- yes it took some aust frequent flyers a year to get the bonii but Amex did/didnt pay extra for pain and suffering
- yes they cancelled the $10,000 of duplicate charges to the OP's card and they grabbed the money off the airline until the mess was sorted
- yes thay decided I didn't have to pay the nigerian scam
- yes they compensated 5k/5t people with $1c transactions
- yes they made the bank pay legals when the banks run up borower's legal costs
- no they didn't make the bank pay because I really really was going to punt on the winner of the Melbourne Cup
- yes they made the card waive annual fees for misrepresenting which card was right for me

that sort of thing.

 

[mitwg]

The investigators won't have that much understanding of AmEx's products to come up with a list as specific is that. Mostly, the investigators will be legal professionals who understand the law but have close to little product knowledge (unless they've dealt with a similar case before themselves). FOS will obviously have 'precedents' as well but because you are assigned a specific investigator for a case, not all previous cases will be taken into account, unless the issue itself is a big enough issue for FOS to release an official position statement on the issue or something similar.

So when hearing the complaint, I think it would be up to the customer to sort of point some of the things on the list. Having prepared a structured argument like that would definitely help the complaint get more out of the company then if the complainant was seeking for a resolution for an X amount without any formal grounds on how that was calculated.

 

[desiredusername]

The investigators won't have that much understanding of AmEx's products to come up with a list as specific is that. Mostly, the investigators will be legal professionals who understand the law but have close to little product knowledge (unless they've dealt with a similar case before themselves).

Yes, spot on. Try telling them that a US card operation in Oz is subject to regulators who phone tap and

 

[vet]

http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/pdflib.nsf/LookupByFileName/rep218.pdf/$file/rep218.pdf


explains the EFT Code. I think page 40 might help the OP.

 

[sampson]

does fos do these compensations?

AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION ACT 2001 - SECT 12GF

Actions for damages (1) A person who suffers loss or damage by conduct of another person that contravenes a provision of Subdivision C (sections 12CA to 12CC) or Subdivision D (sections 12DA to 12DN) may recover the amount of the loss or damage by action against that other person or against any person involved in the contravention.
(1A) Subsection (1) has effect subject to section 12GNA.
Note: Section 12GNA may limit the amount that the person may recover for a contravention of section 12DA (Misleading or deceptive conduct) from the other person or from another person involved in the contravention.
(1B) Despite subsection (1), if:
(a) a person (the claimant ) makes a claim under subsection (1) in relation to:
(i) economic loss; or
(ii) damage to property;
caused by conduct of another person (the defendant ) that was done in contravention of section 12DA; and
(b) the claimant suffered the loss or damage:
(i) as a result partly of the claimant's failure to take reasonable care; and
(ii) as a result partly of the conduct referred to in paragraph (a); and
(c) the defendant:
(i) did not intend to cause the loss or damage; and
(ii) did not fraudulently cause the loss or damage;
the damages that the claimant may recover in relation to the loss or damage are to be reduced to the extent to which the court thinks just and equitable having regard to the claimant's share in the responsibility for the loss or damage.
Note: Subdivision GA also applies proportionate liability to a claim for damages under this section for a contravention of section 12DA.
(2) An action under subsection (1) may be commenced within 6 years after the day on which the cause of action that relates to the conduct accrued.


I'd get onto fos straight away and ask them. And call ASIC Misconduct & Breach Reporting direct, in Adelade, because fos are free and we get what we pay for. I think they have banks on their board. Btw theadvocate.co sounds like he knows his beans too.

 

[desiredusername]

Third parties can claim damages according to ASIC's webpage (that refers to the now supercded Trade Practices Act: I assume there's something similar in the new trade practices act). Can Ms Op claim school fees because the big bad bank double charged dad rather than reverse the airline's obvious double charge on the spot, as they do for nigerian scams? Or should Ms Op say "daddy, don't pay because, when the bank sends out the tough guys, I'll ask ASIC if they have a spare $1.1m for fines + my school fees"?

 

[sampson]

ASIC Misconduct & Breach Reporting were on the verge of ordering Amex to pay cash over delays and things in the 10k/20 transaction debarcle. Complaints to FOS escalated into systemic reports that filled inboxes everywhere.

As a side note, Which bank faces a petition for an enquiry or commission into activities. The aggitators have newspapers on their side.

 

[sampson]

I just love threads on this topic. For 9 months I have been in dispute with Amex over a series of multiple duplicate charges. I received no satisfaction from the customer service people and, almost universally, my emails were misunderstood or ignored. After 4 months and 10 unsatisfactory emails. I escalated the dispute with the Australian office. Now, 9 months later Amex have admitted their error, apologised profusely and refunded the overcharge. As "a gesture of goodwill", they have also refunded the interest charge they levied on me last December. I think they are merely returning that which they are not entitled to, and no goodwill is involved. The total sum involved is just under $10000. I now face the dilemma of whether I walk away or whether I should seek further compensation of say MR points for inconvenience, the time I have spent on it, and their free use of my money over a period of 6 months. I am gungho but the SO says "back off" - you got your money back, be grateful.

I am deliberately keeping the details to myself but I would appreciate any advice on whether they should be paying more than merely returning what is mine and, if so, what is appropriate.

I have a long unblemished record with Amex and this all happened on a Platinum card.

Some Decisions by FOS are here if that helps. (I think they told the Senate they're overworked and backlogged btw)

Decisions :: Financial Ombudsman Service

Tactics used by its Members/Banks against FOS.

It makes you think "Is this why we're screwed around".

Guideline 5 – Clause 22
Dealing with Member breaches of the
Investments, Life Insurance and
Superannuation Terms of Reference Page 1 of 2
Guidelines to the FOS Terms of Reference
(Investments, Life Insura
nce and Superannuation)
Dealing with Member breaches of the FOS Rules
1 July 2008
1. Background
By joining FOS, members agree to
be bound by its Constitution and the
applicable Terms of Reference made und
er the Constitution, which form a
contract between FOS and its members.
Clause 22 of the Investm
ents, Life Insurance and Superannuation Terms of
Reference states
22 Obligations of members to cooperate
Members are required to comply with these Terms of Reference, and to
comply with procedures adopted by the Service for the purposes of resolving
complaints.
This can be relevant to a large number
of situations where a member is not
acting in accordance with FOS’ procedures and
Terms of Reference
. The most
common situations where a member ma
y be in breach of Clause 22 are:
•
Not responding to a complaint as required under Clause 25, or delaying
in providing a response/s;
•
Failing or refusing to provide information requested by FOS;
•
Conduct which undermines FOS’ ability to deal with a complaint in
accordance with its Rules
(for example, issuing
legal proceedings in
respect of the issues raised by
the FOS complaint, or threatening
defamation proceedings against the consumer); and
•
Repeatedly lodging

objections to jurisdiction which are frivolous,

vexatious or lacking in substance

 

[mistado]

I just love threads on this topic. For 9 months I have been in dispute with Amex over a series of multiple duplicate charges. I received no satisfaction from the customer service people and, almost universally, my emails were misunderstood or ignored. After 4 months and 10 unsatisfactory emails. I escalated the dispute with the Australian office. Now, 9 months later Amex have admitted their error, apologised profusely and refunded the overcharge. As "a gesture of goodwill", they have also refunded the interest charge they levied on me last December. I think they are merely returning that which they are not entitled to, and no goodwill is involved. The total sum involved is just under $10000. I now face the dilemma of whether I walk away or whether I should seek further compensation of say MR points for inconvenience, the time I have spent on it, and their free use of my money over a period of 6 months. I am gungho but the SO says "back off" - you got your money back, be grateful.

I am deliberately keeping the details to myself but I would appreciate any advice on whether they should be paying more than merely returning what is mine and, if so, what is appropriate.

I have a long unblemished record with Amex and this all happened on a Platinum card.

I have in the past gotten AMEX to compensate me in points for errors requiring my time and effort to prove them wrong. I usually get a supervisor or specialist customer service officer to call me and express my dissapointment and in the process feed the seed of " give me some pooints for my troubles"

 

[sampson]

I have in the past gotten AMEX to compensate me in points for errors requiring my time and effort to prove them wrong. I usually get a supervisor or specialist customer service officer to call me and express my dissapointment and in the process feed the seed of " give me some pooints for my troubles"

How many? If points are worth 'a cent' do they nickle and dime you or do they pay up to avoid lots of unhappy customers running off to ASIC and Fos and the truckie's kid's complaint to the Education Dept

 

[Jim Walsh]

I held an Amex card for 20 years. The last straw was when they cut the FF points earn in half and increased the annual fee to about $750. I rang to query the annual fee to see if there was anything they could do in light of the fact they I had been a member for 20 years and was told they couldn't do anything so I cancelled it. The last comment was thanks for your business.

 

[sampson]

the graph says the same thing Jim. High fees, low demand.

 

[BAM1748]

I rid myself of AMEX about 2 years ago, they just reduced follow up service levels to zero over time and with poor rewards; when I asked myself what I was getting out of using them I couldn't find anything.

Pleased I did by the sound of things I read here.

Matt

 

[Ex-bugman]

Interesting reading. Firstly, I'd be after more and would pursue them interest plus, just determine what level of "plus" you see as a bare minimum and how much more time and effort you are prepared to put in. I will say that Amex in Australia fall way behind their USA offices. When I had cause to use them in the states, a similar thing happened BUT I only had to wait 1 billing cycle, they refunded all interest, waived yearly fee (around $500US at the time) and gave me several thousand points. I should state though I was a class too 3 above the platinum level. My point being though, they fell over backwards to correct and keep the business, but not here. Interestingly enough, the AICD, Aust Inst of Co Dir's and Amex just parted company so that tells you a story in itself.

 

[vet]

I

The retention reimbursement works not as an admit of our wrongdoing (that is already taken care of by our reimbursement obligation) but more of us admitting that we still would like for them to invest their millions so we can charge them more fees in the future. The whole point is, if we are certain the client will leave us, we will not give a cent extra of reimbursement then what is necessary under the regulations..

I translate this as saying "We've written you off over 22 years so fk off, we don't care if we lose your $1200 annual plat fee".

 

[mitwg]

View attachment 28652
I translate this as saying "We've written you off over 22 years so fk off, we don't care if we lose your $1200 annual plat fee".

In a sense, yes that is the the meaning of it.

Sounds almost inhumane but in a capitalist society, a company is judged primarily on its ROI. The company gains nothing from giving away freebies unless you are certain that the customer will come back and continue to pay for the $1200 annual fee year on year. There is no tangible value in 'loyalty' if this doesn't translate to future cash flow.

I'm not saying you can ignore all intangibles (e.g. you cannot be branded as a company that doesn't care about customers because this WILL affect your sustainable ROI after all) but on a smaller level, the general aim of a public corporation is to extract maximum value from its customers. Providing freebies for no return isn't in line with this practice.

 

[desiredusername]

Amex must have computer problems streaming in everywhere. I have to wonder if the programmers go to work muttering wtf will the marketing dept inflict on me today

 

[desiredusername]

Page 2 sets out the FOS Financial Ombudsman Service compensation limits.

Btw, Amex definitely paid out 'split transactions' and pre-pays and compo at 1000 points per $1 so if you didn't get all your points, time is running out. apparently Amex had no right to demand to see receipts, according to ASIC Enforcement in Pirie Str Adelaide.

 

[desiredusername]

Hmmm. join the dots and pin the tail on the donkeys.

amex's 5k/5t 10k/20t computer 'went down' when the US Feds were poking around Australia in secret.




Fos told politicians that they don''t name their Members if the Member pays everyone to Fos' satisfaction. But did Amex just tell them that they paid 5k/5t and 10k/20t etc.

ASIC indicated they're the ones to investigate the missing unpaid '5k/5t' points but there's no clear answer if they give free compensation under "section 12GF".

The US Feds "FCPA" people are looking, yet there's no hint in Amex's Q report.

Fed Police talk about treble penalities, but not victim compendation.

The US Justice Dept says "Dodd Frank" awards 10% of penalties as a reward.

Fos is running because payments of zillions of 'split bill' transactions were denied to many, paid out to a few, and all were made under ther 'without prejudice' banner when the US DoJ was investigating Amex' Reserve Bank Undertakings.

Amex says the feds case will wreck their computer sy, but Amex's Computer stuff ups were Amex's, not everyone else's fault