Reply To: Creation Financial Services bashing

[JDB]

Lady London wrote:

Be careful.

I think you’ve done well to point out the difference between ‘on’ anniversary date and ‘by’ anniversary date.

There is this thing called a survival clause in Contract law I believe.

This basically says that if they promised you, say, 3 strawberries at the end of each full 12 months’ contract, and if the contract allows them to terminate the contract ending it at a time that turns out to be a week, or even a full day before the contract has completed a 12 months, then if there isn’t a “survival clause” saying that this aspect of the contract would still take place even if the contract had been terminated earlier, then regardless of who terminated and why, they don’t have to give you the strawberries. Unfair but true.

I am remembering old stuff but I used to have a very very good lawyer who told me this.

IA obviously NAL but with the FOS your angle available hinges on fairness.

So the FOS is there to ensure customers of financial products, who as consumers are the weaker party,are treated fairly. So there should not be unfair terms, and the terms shoild mot be used or operated unfairly, and the offering should not be misrepresented so that a consumer who signed up should receive what he reasonably believed he would if he signed up.

Well spotted that the removal of services and benefits without notice appeared only in a paragraph headed IHG. I would further argue that in a consumer finance contract, that term would be an ‘unfair contract term'(as such legally can be thrown out, or possbly get the whole contract thrown out)’ if it applied to what was promised with the card (ie points earned, free night voucher) anyway as it’s unfair.

So if you can tweak it a bit more to stay on the side of the innoceent consumer who has stopped being provided what Creation promised and (ideally) provided before, in accordance with the promises they made about the card, rather than risk the lack of a survival clause rearing its ugly head, it could be better.

I think the survivsl clause issue may be why @JDB has always said the practice in the card industry historically is that as soon as notice has been given even if it’s typically 60 days, benefits have stopped being provided even though there is 60 days notice to run. I think this is wrong and needs sorting as unfair to consumers, but the survival thing may be how the industry was getting away with it as @JDB said they were.

@Lady London the two months (rather than 60 days) notice period applies only to the regulated credit agreement. It doesn’t apply to the rewards element of a credit card (which is a separate agreement) unless that agreement provides for a specific notice period which could be for 60 days or two months or usually less. I know this is all very boring stuff, but cases are often lost or won or very small or specific detail.