Qantas Account: Notice of suspension

[opusman]

The email doesn't say that Clause 8.1 has anything to do with the Qantas Mall. It just says the suspension has been put in place under Clause 8.1, which makes sense, as Clause 8.1 outlines their right to suspend accounts under certain circumstances.

Not under "certain" circumstances, under specific circumstances. Namely:

If a Member has committed a material breach of any of the Terms and Conditions or has failed to pay any money due under Qantas Frequent Flyer, or Qantas Club or Qantas Business Rewards by the due date

How can the OP's actions on the Qantas Mall constitute a "material breach of any of the Terms and Conditions" when the T&Cs don't mention the Qantas Mall?

 

[Jack_OC]

Not under "certain" circumstances, under specific circumstances. Namely:



How can the OP's actions on the Qantas Mall constitute a "material breach of any of the Terms and Conditions" when the T&Cs don't mention the Qantas Mall?

I'm not sure why you think the distinction between "certain" and "specific" is important here.

In any case, I'm not saying that the OP's actions constitute a material breach - I have no idea if that is the case or not. I'm merely pointing out that Clause 8.1 is relevant to the suspension of the account, given that Clause 8.1 deals with account suspensions.

I'm also not sure if it necessarily matters that the QFF T&Cs don't specifically mention the Qantas Mall. A number of the T&Cs are very general, for example:

9.1.2 A Member may earn Qantas Points only in relation to:
.........
(b) eligible transactions (acquisition of goods or other activities or transactions) entered into after the Member's enrolment date; and

9.1.3 Points will not be awarded in relation to any products or services that are cancelled, refunded or returned. Qantas Loyalty may cancel or deduct any Points that have been awarded in relation to cancelled, refunded or returned products or services.

Those clauses seem to be relevant here. Again, just to be clear, I'm not saying the OP has materially breached any of the T&Cs, I'm just saying that some of the T&Cs appear to be relevant to this situation, even if they don't directly mention the Qantas Mall.

 

[opusman]

I'm not sure why you think the distinction between "certain" and "specific" is important here.

Because "certain" is open to interpretation. The T&Cs are a legal document, and it's only their specific wording that matters.

I'm merely pointing out that Clause 8.1 is relevant to the suspension of the account, given that Clause 8.1 deals with account suspensions.

It deals with account suspensions for the reasons it lists. Not account suspensions because you do something not referred to.

9.1.2 A Member may earn Qantas Points only in relation to:

I think you've found the most relevant clause, but it's hard to see how the member can be responsible for fulfilling those requirements. "These are the only way you earn points" isn't the same "you may not do this to earn points".

 

[TheRealTMA]

I’m not yet convinced, and from the comments, or believe that the email actually was from Qantas and not a general phishing email.

 

[Jack_OC]

Because "certain" is open to interpretation. The T&Cs are a legal document, and it's only their specific wording that matters.

“Certain” in the context that I used it means “Specific but not explicitly named or stated” (certain | Definition of certain in English by Oxford Dictionaries). Therefore, I believe it is perfectly accurate to say that that clause 8.1 outlines QFF’s right to suspend accounts “under certain circumstances”. In any case this seems like a rather pointless semantic debate.

It deals with account suspensions for the reasons it lists. Not account suspensions because you do something not referred to.

Right, but one of the reasons it lists is incredibly broad (material breach of the T&Cs). It seems clear that QFF is alleging such a breach, and therefore clause 8.1 is relevant. That’s all I was saying.

I think you've found the most relevant clause, but it's hard to see how the member can be responsible for fulfilling those requirements. "These are the only way you earn points" isn't the same "you may not do this to earn points".

As I’ve said a few times already, I have no idea if the member is guilty of anything. However, as I alluded to in my first post on this thread, hypothetically, if someone identified a glitch that led to points accrual when they were not entitled to accrue points, and then deliberately exploited that glitch in a big way, I could see how that might be construed as a material breach of the T&Cs.

 

[Pushka]

I’m not yet convinced, and from the comments, or believe that the email actually was from Qantas and not a general phishing email.

He can’t log in anymore.

 

[opusman]

Right, but one of the reasons it lists is incredibly broad (material breach of the T&Cs). It seems clear that QFF is alleging such a breach, and therefore clause 8.1 is relevant. That’s all I was saying.

I don't disagree, in fact I'm not really sure why you're arguing with me

If I was the OP I would be going back to QF and asking which of the "QFF T&C's did I breach?". The original point I was making was that the T&C's of the Qantas Mall (if they even exist - I can't find them) are irrelevant.

 

[Jack_OC]

I don't disagree, in fact I'm not really sure why you're arguing with me

I simply responded to your comment that clause 8.1 was irrelevant, and pointed out that I think it clearly is relevant. You replied twice to disagree, so I responded again. I’m not sure why you’re not sure why I would do that

If I was the OP I would be going back to QF and asking which of the "QFF T&C's did I breach?".

Yes, me too. No argument there!

 

[Matt_01]

I assume you have checked the original sender email address, if you can easily easily ID as phishing ignore it. If you can not call QF before responding.

Most emails with the detail you have provided are phishing. It is not about the T’s and C’s it is normally trying to encourage a response then log in to check or get or confirm details.

Scamming 101.

Without seeing full message that is my initial opinion.

 

[GoldCanyon340]

So easy to spoof an email. The veracity of the source email needs to be provided,

 

[juddles]

going by previous OP activity, they have been banned by other companies before for "stretching the envelope"

"a couple of innocent returns"?? LOL

 

[opusman]

I simply responded to your comment that clause 8.1 was irrelevant

Well I never actually said that. But whatevs...

 

[moa999]

going by previous OP activity, they have been banned by other companies before

Live on the edge I guess.

I'd read the 21 days as a manual investigation taking place.

If the OP has 3-4 returns of say 10+ purchases and constituting a minority of poibts earned from online purchases then id say no issue.

If it's multiple returns of Birkin bag priced items, then I'd say issue.

 

[Matt_01]

going by previous OP activity, they have been banned by other companies before for "stretching the envelope"

"a couple of innocent returns"?? LOL

juddled, goodpickup just looked at OP threads and other comments (based on your comment).

 

[Pushka]

going by previous OP activity, they have been banned by other companies before for "stretching the envelope"

"a couple of innocent returns"?? LOL

How do you know that?

 

[Jack_OC]

Well I never actually said that. But whatevs...

Sorry, was I incorrect to believe that you were saying 8.1 is not relevant? I’ve just re read your posts and it still looks to me like that’s what you meant in three different posts, but if that’s not what you meant, fair enough.

 

[Matt_01]

How do you know that?

Click on the member name then look at their previous posts.

 

[Pushka]

Click on the member name then look at their previous posts.

I did that first but when I tried drilling down it reduced posts, think it searched titles not posts. But do see some references. Fly by the wind I guess. Seems someone who likes testing boundaries. I don’t have an issue with that. Just full disclosure at the get go might have been good. ie - churned a lot of purchases for instance. When I asked that question, twice now, it’s been ignored.

 

[opusman]

Sorry, was I incorrect to believe that you were saying 8.1 is not relevant? I’ve just re read your posts and it still looks to me like that’s what you meant in three different posts, but if that’s not what you meant, fair enough.

Nope, I said it in reply to the question "Do the Qantas Mall T&Cs mention what actions they can take if they suspect fraud may have occurred?". i.e. Qantas Mall T&Cs are not relevant.

 

[Matt_01]

I did that first but when I tried drilling down it reduced posts, think it searched titles not posts. But do see some references. Fly by the wind I guess. Seems someone who likes testing boundaries. I don’t have an issue with that. Just full disclosure at the get go might have been good. ie - churned a lot of purchases for instance. When I asked that question, twice now, it’s been ignored.

And if you select recent activity you see individual posts not just the thread.