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 (I.e. it might be a different scenario if the product itself was withdrawn from the market with no transfers occurring with any cardholder)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.

 

[Legoman]

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?

Rather than thinking of it as "giving up" or in terms of 'winners' and 'losers', try to accept the reality that Australia is no longer a fair and democratic place we live in. The playing field is not fair and flat. It is very definitely tilted in favour of the corporates and the sooner you can accept that reality and learn to work around it as best you can, the less sleep you are likely to lose. No, you're not going to get what you want, but nobody does. You're no worse off than anybody else, this is just the ensh!tification of everything and the best thing you can do is to not invest too much of yourself (mentally, emotionally or financially) in any one thing. Assume everything you enjoy/like/recommend will turn to cough sooner or later and make yourself insulated from it enough that you can without too much stress or strain, dump it, walk away and use the next best thing that does a similar job instead.

My favourite bread has stopped being stocked by Coles for unknown reasons. I asked some questions of staff who were worse than useless. I sent some emails that predictably went unanswered. It sucks. There's no explanation or excuse. There's no sign of the bread ever being baked again. I could start a war with Coles that I have no chance of ever winning, or I can try to find some other bread that won't be as good and move on. Everything turns to cough eventually in the new world order of 'production cost optimisation'.

Batteries no longer contain mercury - result: batteries in devices that used to last at least a decade, now have to be replaced every 18 months, and this is apparently what sustainability looks like

Stop Itch creams are no longer allowed to contain the active ingredient that actually blocked the irritation enzymes that caused the itch, so now you spend money on a cream that gives you the feeling of doing something positive, but with no actual effect

Solder no longer is allowed to contain actual lead - result: all your electronic devices fail due to dry-joints and micro-cracks in circuit boards that are increasingly controlling everything you own. One tiny micro-crack in a circuit board in the wrong place can render your entire $100,000 Mercedes Benz car as scrap overnight, because there is no way to find the fault and even less way to repair it, without wholesale replacement.

Insect repellents like Aerogard are no longer allowed to contain the active ingredient that actually repels insects, so again, they just make you moist with the spray, but do absolutely nothing to keep insects from flying up your nose and in your ears.

Weed sprays for things like Bindii and Oxalis are not longer allowed to contain the concentration of the active ingredient that actually kills those weeds, so you can never get rid of them entirely, only make them a bit sick for a week or so, until they come back and then you have to buy more.

I haven't been able to buy sun-dried tomato dip for years since Woolworths inexplicably decided to stop stocking it. No reason, no believable excuse other than lack of demand (which was utter cough because they were constantly cleaned out of it as soon as it touched the shelf). So I learnt to make it myself from raw ingredients instead and now wouldn't buy it again even if they decided to restock.

Can't get Maille Bearnaise sauce anywhere either since Unilever bizarrely decided to stop importing it. Can't get Coles Apple & Mango fruit juice anymore either for no good reason.

I could go on and on and on endlessly about how the world is rapidly turning to cough for no good reason. The point is, should I start a war with Coles, Woolworths, every battery maker, insect repellent company, every weed killer chemical company, every skin cream manufacturer, every maker of electronic devices that fail just outside the warranty period and every financial provider who decides they're now going to sh!tify their product and screw me if I don't like it?

Or should I throw in the towel and try to find something else that will do some of the same job not quite as well, and just try to make do?

 

[JohnGlav]

Legoman, you expend several hundred or even a thousand key strokes to explain your concerns to us.
Please accept my sincere respect.
Then here, on the AFF forum, you chance upon a former corporate solicitor who used to prowl the inner sanctums of one of those large corporations you mentioned.
I even had the "privilege" of sitting in an exclusive part of the building which once housed the most senior executives of the corporate.
Trust me, corporate solicitors do not rule the roost in large corporations.
My former colleagues were terrified of their immediate senior managers (who were NOT even directors) and together we all feared for our jobs.
The most senior corporate solicitors counselled me to follow their example and adopt a small target "head down and bum up" approach.
Who was I to disagree?
You are correct - I was and still am a "peasant" .

Let me take you down the path of corporate orthodoxy.
A path you would undoubtedly already know.
Look beyond the CEO. Shayne Elliott and Alan Joyce prove to us that a CEO's power is fleeting.
Look beyond the Chair, look beyond the Board.
Corporate orthodoxy demands that the shareholders should control the corporations.
Let's stay with proven facts then and examine the annual reports of the big corporates that interest us.
We should notice a remarkable similarity in the identity of their largest shareholders?

Then we should ask some very legitimate questions -

1. How did these largest shareholders acquire the funds to buy the shares that in turn allow them to exert control over these large corporations?

2. Why do these largest shareholders do nothing while the world rapidly "[turns] to cough for no good reason"?