Qantas Account: Notice of suspension

[dajop]

I think I’d like to know the amounts we are talking about before declaring fraud. While we know the number of transactions the actual $$$ has been left out. Meaning we are drawing our own conclusions. Nature abhors a vacuum and all that.

I wouldn't assert that it is fraud, that's a pretty bold accusation . But I am convinced the OP was sailing close to the wind. QF's actions are the only thing upon which we can draw a conclusion, and they wouldn't take such a step unless something flagged some sort of behaviour that (at best) isn't in the spirit of the program.

 

[Jack_OC]

I think I’d like to know the amounts we are talking about before declaring fraud. While we know the number of transactions the actual $$$ has been left out. Meaning we are drawing our own conclusions. Nature abhors a vacuum and all that.

I don't think we even know the number of transactions TBH. The OP has been a little vague about that. Was it 3 or 4? He has also qualified this estimate by saying "I think" and "from memory". That suggests he doesn't really know how many it was (or doesn't want to say). Meanwhile QF's email referred to "a significant number of these purchases ...".

 

[burmans]

If you read the Bankwest thread which the OP contributed to you will find several that exploited a loophole.Bankwest then closed accounts.Several people got wind and transferred points to QFF.A while later QF started closing accounts.It was quite obvious that Bankwest had notified QF as Bankwest would have paid for the points.

If you are referring to the fact that BW had an account that paid a certain number of points regardless of the size of the transaction, I'd object to the categorisation of this as a loophole. This feature was described quite clearly in the product description.

The fact that this means that quite clearly BW hadn't thought it through and that customers could put through a large number of very small transactions doesn't make it a loophole, it makes this an oversight of the behalf of the bank.

 

[MrJetset]

Could the OP please state:

1) How much he roughly spent in $
2) How much he returned in $
3) How many times he did this

That would help with the advice he seeks.

There are legitimate reasons for return, items not fitting etc and this is how The Iconic and others operate. But without any actual indicators we can't possible help or advise.

 

[RichardMEL]

I don't think you'll get those answers, and there's no reason whatsoever for the OP to give this kind of information (though many of us are of course curious given QF's actions ) however the OP has invited this line of questioning and speculation by creating this thread and asking the question about account suspension. IMHO.

 

[Mrmaxwell]

Shouldn't the correct process be for QF to contact the OP first with a please explain?

If this process doesn't yield results or the information is not forthcoming then I can certainly understand the next process being a small suspension such as 21 days.

Suspending someones working account first and THEN advising we are going to investigate is guilty until proven innocent...terrible customer service when what they really should be investigating is their pathetic legacy IT processes.

 

[JohnK]

I think I’d like to know the amounts we are talking about before declaring fraud. While we know the number of transactions the actual $$$ has been left out. Meaning we are drawing our own conclusions. Nature abhors a vacuum and all that.

How about if you order $2500 worth of goods 3-4 times and return each time and keep the points? That's 100,000 QFF points. Not bad for no cost. Don't even have to apply for credit card.

 

[Pushka]

How about if you order $2500 worth of goods 3-4 times and return each time and keep the points? That's 100,000 QFF points. Not bad for no cost. Don't even have to apply for credit card.

Sure and that’s what has been speculated but it might not be anywhere near that.

 

[MrJetset]

Well we all know how these threads end on FT....

 

[JohnK]

Sure and that’s what has been speculated but it might not be anywhere near that.

True but as a reference point go to the Bankwest thread.

 

[RichardMEL]

Sure and that’s what has been speculated but it might not be anywhere near that.

I don't think QF would take action for a trivial amount of points....

 

[sjk]

Could the OP please state:

1) How much he roughly spent in $
2) How much he returned in $
3) How many times he did this

That would help with the advice he seeks.

You are perhaps being influenced by the hive mind.

What advice has he sought other than whether others have received a similar suspension notice?

 

[andye]

Shouldn't the correct process be for QF to contact the OP first with a please explain?

If this process doesn't yield results or the information is not forthcoming then I can certainly understand the next process being a small suspension such as 21 days.

Suspending someones working account first and THEN advising we are going to investigate is guilty until proven innocent...terrible customer service when what they really should be investigating is their pathetic legacy IT processes.

I don't think there is anywhere near enough information to draw some of the conclusions being made-but...loopholes by definition are exploitable. If you go crazy, you're doing it accepting the risk of being banned.

Temporarily suspending an account does stop the member withdrawing and disappearing with ill-gotten points (remembering that a true badun wouldn't be using their WP account with all correct personal details). If all above board, it's not that long a suspension.

Ps: i agree the OP has no obligation to satisfy our collective curiousity

 

[Jack_OC]

Shouldn't the correct process be for QF to contact the OP first with a please explain?

If this process doesn't yield results or the information is not forthcoming then I can certainly understand the next process being a small suspension such as 21 days.

Suspending someones working account first and THEN advising we are going to investigate is guilty until proven innocent...terrible customer service when what they really should be investigating is their pathetic legacy IT processes.

The reason for suspension pending investigation is simply to stop someone redeeming the points ASAP before they lose them. This absolutely does not constitute treating someone as "guilty until proven innocent". Think about it for a moment - if you are accused of a (real) crime (in the real world), the authorities can take various actions immediately while you await trial, which might include restricting your right to travel, or even imprisoning you to make sure you don't abscond before the case is heard - even though you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. There have also been a number of high profile cases recently where people have been suspended from their jobs while under investigation for alleged wrongdoing - again this does not mean they are presumed guilty.

 

[drron]

If you are referring to the fact that BW had an account that paid a certain number of points regardless of the size of the transaction, I'd object to the categorisation of this as a loophole. This feature was described quite clearly in the product description.

The fact that this means that quite clearly BW hadn't thought it through and that customers could put through a large number of very small transactions doesn't make it a loophole, it makes this an oversight of the behalf of the bank.

Precisely the definition of a loophole-
"an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules"

 

[JohnK]

If you are referring to the fact that BW had an account that paid a certain number of points regardless of the size of the transaction, I'd object to the categorisation of this as a loophole. This feature was described quite clearly in the product description.

The fact that this means that quite clearly BW hadn't thought it through and that customers could put through a large number of very small transactions doesn't make it a loophole, it makes this an oversight of the behalf of the bank.

Ah yes the good old Bankwest harvest where people cancelled accounts and asked for new account to be setup but when they got the new card the old card still worked. So let's put hundreds of thousands of 1c transactions through a macro to try and scam points knowing there is a glitch or loophole in the system. The rules changed a few times but people still kept trying to get around the rules.

 

[serfty]

scam points

That is an incorrect use of the word 'scam' - that word is generally used in the context of 'dishonestly'.

Some people legitimately paid bills in 1¢ increments to earn 5 points each time. This was as per the rules of the bank's product and certainly not dishonest. It was not a 'scam'.

After a time the bank decided it did not want these people as customers. Again this was within the rules of the product.

 

[MrJetset]

You are perhaps being influenced by the hive mind.

What advice has he sought other than whether others have received a similar suspension notice?

I’m not influenced by anything other than my own mind. You post in an open forum, you should expect questions and feedback.

The reality is that universally all of these OPs are found to have violated the T/Cs and are banned from the program.

 

[lovetravellingoz]

That is an incorrect use of the word 'scam' - that word is generally used in the context of 'dishonestly'.

Some people legitimately paid bills in 1¢ increments to earn 5 points each time. This was as per the rules of the bank's product and certainly not dishonest. It was not a 'scam'.

After a time the bank decided it did not want these people as customers. Again this was within the rules of the product.

Agree. I think that there is a vast difference between "gaming" a system to full advantage and "scamming" a system.

 

[JohnK]

That is an incorrect use of the word 'scam' - that word is generally used in the context of 'dishonestly'.

When you cancel an account and continue to use the account because the bank has not flagged the account as closed that is scamming. And this was done with multiple accounts. You can call it what you like.