Some Accounts suspended for "potentially" dodgy points transfers

[Punky]

A contractual discretion has to be exercised reasonably in accordance with principles of procedural fairness and cannot be used in an arbitrary or capricious manner. I hope the affected innocent parties fight back hard and reclaim their points.

Oh I do love confected outrage.

 

[Punky]

I'm an admin on a small closed Facebook group where a few of our members who would be known here on AFF have accounts affected by this.

Well, this has raised the issue of the members of that group. Has anyone outside of that Facebook group been affected. (I am just trying to work out if this is some fancy data analytics thing, or some more isolated instances. I'd expect data analytics to throw up a bunch of stuff to look at, rather than picking on a small closed Facebook group. The evidence points to a more targetted approach.

 

[Deleted member]

Well, this has raised the issue of the members of that group. Has anyone outside of that Facebook group been affected. (I am just trying to work out if this is some fancy data analytics thing, or some more isolated instances. I'd expect data analytics to throw up a bunch of stuff to look at, rather than picking on a small closed Facebook group. The evidence points to a more targetted approach.

I believe that is the case, however plenty of the contributors (like me) are in fact unaffected by the process.
it may well be , that within the relative security of a closed group, individuals feel more comfortable discussing what is happening to them, particularly if they have been unfairly targeted.

 

[Happy Dude]

It's just occurred to me that VA are damned if they do and damned if they don't here.

Go through the motions of enforcing their rules, ie asking for proof of relationship/address, and get bombed with strongly worded legal letters and branded "amateur hour" and "pathetic". Smack!

Or sit back and do nothing and potentially have their program abused.

 

[Happy Dude]

A contractual discretion has to be exercised reasonably in accordance with principles of procedural fairness and cannot be used in an arbitrary or capricious manner. I hope the affected innocent parties fight back hard and reclaim their points.

Or they could simply provide the evidence that they're not doing anything "dodgy". No fighting required, hard or otherwise, if they are "affected innocent parties".

 

[BAM1748]

It's just occurred to me that VA are damned if they do and damned if they don't here.

Go through the motions of enforcing their rules, ie asking for proof of relationship/address, and get bombed with strongly worded legal letters and branded "amateur hour" and "pathetic". Smack!

Or sit back and do nothing and potentially have their program abused.

I think before stripping away points a letter with a please explain is fair.

 

[anat0l]

I think before stripping away points a letter with a please explain is fair.

To be fair, no points have been stripped away (officially) yet; just that accounts have been suspended. You lose the utility of the points, but not the points themselves. Assumably, if you pull through the audit successfully, they will be waiting for you in full on the other side.

If VA really wanted to just kill off the points they could do that without suspending accounts, just with one big fat debit line in the activity statement. I'm not sure which approach would be more or less just or unwelcome.

 

[lovetravellingoz]

Yes they should just advise that points are frozen while they investigate whatever the irregularity is.

They cannot not freeze as people would just move the points out.

 

[blackcat20]

Yes they should just advise that points are frozen while they investigate whatever the irregularity is.

They cannot not freeze as people would just move the points out.

Which is exactly what they have done. Accounts are frozen, and will be unlocked once the user has provided evidence that transfers/pooling are legit.

 

[trippin_the_rift]

Velocity has an array of ephemeral data sources available to them which can identify non-family transfers.

However, this does highlight how ancient the program design hs become (Qantas is similar, to be fair).

Velocity has dedicated resources to 'fighting loyalty fraud' and trying to catch people out by monitoring accounts, online forums etc. This has a real cost in terms of both human hours opportunity cost from other business they could be pursuing.

So instead, Velocity could adopt a model similar to Krisflyer where you can nominate X persons every 24 months and there is a fee to add more.
Not only does this remove costs of chasing down accounts and mitigate potential legal issues, but it also allows Velocity to map out the extended network of each member, and gives small business a real reason to want Velocity points if they could be used on employee flights, holidays etc.

It's also important to note the airline makes money when award seats are redeemed. It's called positive working capital and has all kinds of positive benefits for both FFP and host airline. So long as the points were obtained legally it's a revenue positive position for Velocity.

All the big airlines including US3 don't have a focus on this anymore because frankly - there are larger opportunities.

 

[RooFlyer]

<snip>
It's also important to note the airline makes money when award seats are redeemed. It's called positive working capital and has all kinds of positive benefits for both FFP and host airline. So long as the points were obtained legally it's a revenue positive position for Velocity.
<snip>.

So as not to spin the thread in a totally different direction, I'd love if you could start a thread somewhere and go through this in detail.

 

[Mal]

I disagree with the way that Velocity has done this, especially the way they communicated with members, and the unilateral locking of accounts with the overtone that you have been bad and need to clear yourself.

This really doesn't endear loyalty towards Velocity, and they will alienate some members who are completely innocent.

 

[Princess Fiona]

I disagree with the way that Velocity has done this, especially the way they communicated with members, and the unilateral locking of accounts with the overtone that you have been bad and need to clear yourself.

This really doesn't endear loyalty towards Velocity, and they will alienate some members who are completely innocent.

I agree with this too Mal.

 

[cove]

If nothing has been done incorrectly then a statutory declaration should sort it all out in a couple of weeks. I am thinking Velocity must be looking for people selling off points or status to third parties. Locking up family accounts for longer than 2 weeks would be harsh for travel warriors who fly so much.

 

[trippin_the_rift]

If nothing has been done incorrectly then a statutory declaration should sort it all out in a couple of weeks. I am thinking Velocity must be looking for people selling off points or status to third parties. Locking up family accounts for longer than 2 weeks would be harsh for travel warriors who fly so much.

Let's say you're arrested. It should be fine if you're innocent, right? In the meantime your life is put on hold, society judges you, your boss has pressure to fire you because you might be a criminal. But don't worry. You're innocent ...

I used to head up a large social network which had virtual currency/points, and we had people trying to defraud the system on a daily basis.
There's folks who straight up try to scam/hack the system, and they're easy to catch. It's when you're not sure about an account that care needs to be taken. We had some members refer to the T&C, submitted ACMA or ACCC complaints and every so often an empty legal threat would arrive on our doorstep. Fraud is a very real issue for online businesses and if member accounts are displaying signs of unusual activity, steps need to be taken to ensure there's not 100 other accounts all ready to strike (as with Air India a few months ago).

Paypal is an excellent example of how not to restrict account access and make the user feel like they're a criminal, but this is only done because they have KYC and financial service requirements. Velocity does not have such legal requirements to my knowledge.

So, aside from the obvious commercial upside of ditching the whole 'family member' system which would turn the current cost center into a revenue stream for Velocity, the communication email could ask the member to fill in a family tree on their profile and provide FF# for each member. Reward the member with points for completing the task.

Setting the relationship status in stone means Velocity can match this against other accounts, and if any discrepancies then action can be swift and harsh. In fact, Velocity could easily amend their T&C today to allow points to be used on anyone outside your family with a 25% premium on the points cost. There's no shortage of ways this could be handled but one thing is clear - the current system sucks for everyone.

In addition to this, Velocity could require every award redemption pax be a Velocity member. This would strengthen the family relationship structure they're tracking across the entire database, and push more member signups as they're required for award tickets in the process.

Job done. Velocity, which address should I send the invoice to?

 

[cove]

TTR you look so smart in a suit and tie.
Air points are not really secure and over time the security will need to be beefed up as so many of us think points are as good or better than a bank deposit.
Velocity would love a new cost but it comes behind the name royalty revenue stream that Sir RB needs.

 

[Happy Dude]

I disagree with the way that Velocity has done this, especially the way they communicated with members, and the unilateral locking of accounts with the overtone that you have been bad and need to clear yourself.

This really doesn't endear loyalty towards Velocity, and they will alienate some members who are completely innocent.

I'm all ears as to why acting in accordance with their own T&C's (see Section 9) could be disagreeable, or even considered unreasonable. What should they have done?

 

[mannej]

I'm all ears as to why acting in accordance with their own T&C's (see Section 9) could be disagreeable, or even considered unreasonable. What should they have done?

I don't think the issue is Velocity acting within their T&C's, but it is the lack of tact they have displayed here. How does it make a member feel should they be found with no case to answer?

 

[Pleb Status]

I don't think the issue is Velocity acting within their T&C's, but it is the lack of tact they have displayed here. How does it make a member feel should they be found with no case to answer?

They should not take it personally, particularly as 'others' have been targeted as well. Supply the Statutory Declaration as requested and move on.

 

[mannej]

They should not take it personally, particularly as 'others' have been targeted as well. Supply the Statutory Declaration as requested and move on.

They are entitled to be offended by the manner it has been handled. Honestly from what I have seen it shows how amateurish VA have handled this.