Who else still holds the Citibank Free For Life Premier Card?

[JohnGlav]

Interesting opinion, that NAB can void a contract by the transfer of ownership if that's what you're suggesting. I don't think so.

Brissy1, something that was shared with me on another forum.
It's not mine but I have permission to share it.
It's the best analysis I have read to date.

"For background, a material term of the fee free for life deal was that Citi would not charge an annual fee for cardholders for so long as they held the specific card (i.e. for life)… This was subject to Citi's market standard right to change other product features or change fees (except annual fees), which are in turn subject to financial services law. E.g. the 'significant event notice' 1017B requirement.

It's worth noting that many cardholders who originally signed up held the Citi 'Signature' card, which Citi then migrated over (both FFFL and regular cardholders) to the Citi 'Premier' card and the FFFL cardholders retained the $0 annual fee. I think this same change happend for other Citi FFFL cards too but I'm not sure.

NAB then acquired the Citi business in 2022 and Citi assigned the rights/obligations under the existing credit card contracts to NAB. From this point the issuer of the cards was NAB and the $0 annual fee still applies.

If NAB were to try to introduce a fee for the FFFL cardholders at this stage, I would say:

The standard provisions in their t&cs are subject to the initial agreement with Citi for a $0 fee for life, - noting that previous card branding and product changes didn't trigger a change to the fee by Citi or NAB - and any time a product transfer or change had occurred the original $0 fee was honoured. (I.e. it might be a different scenario if the product itself was withdrawn from the market with no transfers occurring with any cardholder)

If NAB assert that they nonetheless have the right to introduce an annual fee because of the condition of holding the original card is no longer met, this is problematic for them because someone could argue (a) it may breach their obligation to act 'efficiently, honestly and fairly' (see 912A(1)(a)) noting that this is a longstanding arrangement honoured since ~2014 by Citi and then NAB once they were assigned the contracts (b) there may be an equitable estoppel or similar remedy, given the cards have been issued under a FFFL arrangement since ~2014

There's probably other legal reasons to support the argument but, ultimately, when NAB bought the business off Citi they 100% would have completed due diligence and known that a subset of cardholders were under $0 annual fees. So they should just cop the loss (if any) on these cardholders and they will reduce through attrition"

The word "assigned" addresses your transfer of ownership observation.

The proper context is "NAB then acquired the Citi business in 2022 and Citi assigned the rights/obligations under the existing credit card contracts to NAB".

 

[MELso]

Well, another week, another several thousand keystrokes devoted to lengthy posts about something that hasn't actually happened...

It's all becoming a bit tiresome really, so I'm out of this thread unless there is actual official word that NAB is seeking to scrap fee waivers, thereby changing their official communications on this, or there is something else of note happening to FFFL cards.

 

[Johnxx]

I keep this card for having 2 x free priority pass (and formerly KrisFlyer points) but part of me wouldn’t mind being forced to close it as I feel the 10k limit affects my churning …..for just 2 lounge passes. It was great a few years ago when they allowed you to drop limit from 15k to 10k but still 10k blocks things up. I travel overseas 4 or 5 times a year and always manage to work the travel insurance with overlapping churned cards.
I miss the CitiDining bottle of wine and then submit a manual PBI meal claim ….before 2016 when it was unlimited.

 

[MELso]

I keep this card for having 2 x free priority pass (and formerly KrisFlyer points) but part of me wouldn’t mind being forced to close it as I feel the 10k limit affects my churning …..for just 2 lounge passes. It was great a few years ago when they allowed you to drop limit from 15k to 10k but still 10k blocks things up. I travel overseas 4 or 5 times a year and always manage to work the travel insurance with overlapping churned cards.
I miss the CitiDining bottle of wine and then submit a manual PBI meal claim ….before 2016 when it was unlimited.

(Ah, a post that's not about an annual fee that's not being charged. How refreshing!)

To my mind, if you're not routinely being rejected for 'Black' level cards at the moment, there's no reason to ditch it. There are a few countervailing considerations compared to the limit itself:

1. The long time you've held the FFFL card is likely to be viewed favourably by some credit providers (e.g. Amex) who aren't fond of churners.
2. The repayment history of the FFFL card also looks good in a credit history.
3. While you've juggled travel insurance successfully across multiple cards, having a 'keeper' in the wallet makes travel insurance much easier to manage.

 

[Brissy1]

Well, another week, another several thousand keystrokes devoted to lengthy posts about something that hasn't actually happened...

It's all becoming a bit tiresome really, so I'm out of this thread unless there is actual official word that NAB is seeking to scrap fee waivers, thereby changing their official communications on this, or there is something else of note happening to FFFL cards.

I think that it's clear that NAB is at the least considering it, and if they know through public discussions that there is informed pushback it may affect if, or how (maybe in a fair manner), they proceed.

 

[JohnGlav]

I think that it's clear that NAB is at the least considering it, and if they know through public discussions that there is informed pushback it may affect if, or how (maybe in a fair manner), they proceed.

They have considered it (past tense).
It had nothing to do with us.
There about a dozen people on another forum who get it.
A storm is brewing but some will not board up their windows while there's no wind.
It is far easier to make assertions without evidence and disparage others with labels.

 

[JohnGlav]

Well, another week, another several thousand keystrokes devoted to lengthy posts about something that hasn't actually happened...

It's all becoming a bit tiresome really, so I'm out of this thread unless there is actual official word that NAB is seeking to scrap fee waivers, thereby changing their official communications on this, or there is something else of note happening to FFFL cards.

Control A.
Control C.
Control V.
Accompanied with several movements and right clicks of the mouse.
Accompanied also by several keystrokes to provide context.
Would have been very clear from the first two sentences.

 

[hueofwind]

I strongly recommend that you withdraw your AFCA case ASAP. It will suck up the next 8 months of your life and at the end of that you will lose 100% guaranteed. AFCA is not what you think it is. AFCA is no longer (or in fact never really was) an advocate for consumers. AFCA today is a fully obsequious arm of the financial sector, fully funded by them, answerable to them and fully self-governing, self-assessing and self-policing. Despite their claims to be independent of the financial sector they claim to police, the truth is they are nothing of the sort. AFCA is fully staffed by ex-financial sector employees who wanted the WFH deal their former employers in banking weren't offering anymore, so you'll be relying on your case being handled by a WFH part-time ex-legal department employee of a bank who is completely beholden and funded by that same bank. If you think that's where your justice is going to come from, then I've got a bridge to sell you.

There's a reason why FOS changed their name to AFCA and that's because the O in FOS stood for Ombudsman which by definition means a truly independent arm of governance. You will note there is no O in AFCA, and that's not by coincidence or mistake.

AFCA today serves one purpose and one purpose only. It gives the bank the appearance of them being regulated and governed in how they go about ripping off customers. The reality though is it's all just a smokescreen. They get the appearance of being legitimate, law-abiding businesses in compliance with Australian laws, AFCA get paid by the banks to provide that cover, and the customer gets to lose 8 months of their life arguing pointlessly before a determination wholly in favour of the bank is handed down.

FOS used to be able to handle cases in 4 weeks, 6 tops. AFCA cannot handle even the simplest, most straight forward disputes in less than 8 months. So if you've got the next 8 months to waste on an argument you're going to lose, then go for it, but you're wasting your time.

You may be right. But I used to have disagreements with the different banks twice. After I complained to AFCA, they were both solved.

I already complained to NAB but was rejected. AFCA is my only option if I don't want to give up. Do I have a better choice?

 

[JohnGlav]

You may be right. But I used to have disagreements with the different banks twice. After I complained to AFCA, they were both solved.

I already complained to NAB but was rejected. AFCA is my only option if I don't want to give up. Do I have a better choice?

ASIC probably.

Extract below from an AFR article makes it clear that ASIC has powers over the banks.

"ANZ’s mismanagement of a $14 billion government bond deal in April 2023 was first reported by The Australian Financial Review.

Announcing the penalty in September, ASIC chairman Joe Longo described the behaviour as “grubby” and said there were “fundamental issues with ANZ’s risk and compliance culture” that needed to be resolved."

Former ANZ chief Shayne Elliott sues bank after losing $13.5m bonus

Despite his being stripped of millions of dollars in bonuses, the CEO’s punishment isn’t enough, influential governance advisory firms have told clients.

www.afr.com

The main question is when to complain.

Some say now.

Some say later.

There is a hybrid alternative. - accumulating evidence now for later.

 

[Legoman]

You may be right. But I used to have disagreements with the different banks twice.

Twice? pfffttt, come back and talk to me when you've had more than 30 AFCA cases against banks.

I used to win all of them easily, until the last two. Something has changed with AFCA and now you will win nothing. AFCA takes the side of the financial institution now always and they deliberately string the cases out as long as possible to make you give up. The bank will always have at least 40 days to respond to whatever they get sent, but the customer/you, only gets 3 days under threat of case closure if you don't respond in time. They even resort to flooding you with correspondence and documents in no logical order and with no index and no references to refer to and then demand that you review them and respond in 3 days. I received just such an email in one of my cases, where my case handler sent me 24 multi-page attachments (most of which were my own correspondence I had sent them) in one email at 5:30pm on a Friday and demanded that I respond to all of it by close of business Monday, otherwise my case would be closed in favour of the bank.

For your own sanity, you need to learn to accept that Australia is no longer a democratic, fair, egaitarian society. The little people do not have power over the corporations. The remnants of when that used to be the case still float around for maintenance of the optics (like AFCA), but the truth is that they have no edict to help peasants like the public. Any power they do still have, they only wield in defence of their corporate overlords.

As Albo said over and over again with a silly smirk on his face, it's not about fairness, it's about compliance. You will assimilate, you will comply, or else we'll just take all your money and say it's for your security.

ASIC probably.

Don't bother. ASIC has jurisdiction over AFCA and in fact use AFCA as a buffer to keep the peasants away from ASIC so they don't have to deal with the likes of you. ASIC and APRA are not available to the peasants to contact directly. If you try to contact either ASIC or APRA directly as a citizen, you will be swiftly told that AFCA is the only avenue for a peasant like you to complain to. ASIC and APRA is only for corporates and government entities to complain to, not the peasants.

Even if you ask AFCA to escalate to ASIC on your behalf as their parent/overseer organisation, they won't do it. If you want to force that, you'll need to hire a lawyer and start spending more money in court than your claim is worth in order to force them to address the case. As Brittany Higgins has just found out, when you start going down that road, the system is rigged so much in favour of the corporates, that you will end up bankrupted long before you get to savour any satisfaction.

At the end of the day in Australia now, all these disputes boil down to the winner being the party who runs out of money last. Unless your name is James Packer, that won't ever be you.

 

[JohnGlav]

Twice? pfffttt, come back and talk to me when you've had more than 30 AFCA cases against banks.

I used to win all of them easily, until the last two. Something has changed with AFCA and now you will win nothing. AFCA takes the side of the financial institution now always and they deliberately string the cases out as long as possible to make you give up. The bank will always have at least 40 days to respond to whatever they get sent, but the customer/you, only gets 3 days under threat of case closure if you don't respond in time. They even resort to flooding you with correspondence and documents in no logical order and with no index and no references to refer to and then demand that you review them and respond in 3 days. I received just such an email in one of my cases, where my case handler sent me 24 multi-page attachments (most of which were my own correspondence I had sent them) in one email at 5:30pm on a Friday and demanded that I respond to all of it by close of business Monday, otherwise my case would be closed in favour of the bank.

For your own sanity, you need to learn to accept that Australia is no longer a democratic, fair, egaitarian society. The little people do not have power over the corporations. The remnants of when that used to be the case still float around for maintenance of the optics (like AFCA), but the truth is that they have no edict to help peasants like the public. Any power they do still have, they only wield in defence of their corporate overlords.

As Albo said over and over again with a silly smirk on his face, it's not about fairness, it's about compliance. You will assimilate, you will comply, or else we'll just take all your money and say it's for your security.


Don't bother. ASIC has jurisdiction over AFCA and in fact use AFCA as a buffer to keep the peasants away from ASIC so they don't have to deal with the likes of you. ASIC and APRA are not available to the peasants to contact directly. If you try to contact either ASIC or APRA directly as a citizen, you will be swiftly told that AFCA is the only avenue for a peasant like you to complain to. ASIC and APRA is only for corporates and government entities to complain to, not the peasants.

Even if you ask AFCA to escalate to ASIC on your behalf as their parent/overseer organisation, they won't do it. If you want to force that, you'll need to hire a lawyer and start spending more money in court than your claim is worth in order to force them to address the case. As Brittany Higgins has just found out, when you start going down that road, the system is rigged so much in favour of the corporates, that you will end up bankrupted long before you get to savour any satisfaction.

At the end of the day in Australia now, all these disputes boil down to the winner being the party who runs out of money last. Unless your name is James Packer, that won't ever be you.

Actually I believe all of that. It is consistent with my general understanding of litigation and our society generally.
I am of course indebted to you for pointing out that the malaise has spread even further and as far as it has.
To the extent that the ordinary customer is disenfranchised.