-
Some months back, I applied for the BA Amex following the 60k Avios promotion. Before applying, I checked with AMEX online CS via chat, who confirmed that I was eligible for the promotion with more than a 2-year gap between the previous account. Thankfully I took a screengrab.
I’ve since reached the £5k spend, but I didn’t receive the 60k Avios. I followed up with CS again, who informed me that the previous CS agent had provided the wrong date and that there wasn’t a required 2-year gap.
I raised a complaint, and the final decision admitted that the agent had provided the incorrect date but refused to make the situation right with the 60k Avois. Instead, they have offered 10k as a gesture of goodwill.
This seems unfair as I purely acted on their guidance. I’m keen to escalate the complaint. Amex suggests going down the FOS route – is that the optimal path, given the situation?
Is this Amex’s final decision? If not, ask them to reconsider. You can say that, in applying, you acted in reliance upon the statements of an authorised Amex representative, so they are estopped from denying you the points. Even if it were their final decision, I would escalate to the Exec Office anyway to draw attention to the ongoing problem.
It was entirely reasonable for you to act upon the information provided as Amex must readily have to hand the relevant information which you sought. No customer should be expected to assume that information provided cannot be relied up. Your reasonable reliance on Amex’s incorrect and probably negligent information provision has caused you significant financial detriment – 60,000 Avios equivalent to over £1000 to purchase from BA, Amex’s card partner. You are not seeking enrichment but merely to be put back in the position you would have been in. The cardholder should not be punished (ie treated unfairly per FCA principles) for Amex’s staff training issues; this specific issue occurs repeatedly and Amex’s failure to address the issue is what makes its actions negligent.
The problem is that while Amex may have misinformed you as they have admitted, that doesn’t change your eligibility for the SUB so Amex is only providing a goodwill gesture to reflect its mistake. It’s quite improbable you would win at the FOS for this reason. Some people have reported persuading Amex to relent, but it’s usually because their records were wrong rather than effectively giving the SUB early.
Thanks JDS – appreciate your thoughts. Let me try to Exec Office
If you’re going to the FOS I would in addition make clear that if they hadn’t misled you then you could have delayed your application by a few days/weeks and then would have been eligible – their error has cost you that opportunity.
If you’re going to the FOS I would in addition make clear that if they hadn’t misled you then you could have delayed your application by a few days/weeks and then would have been eligible – their error has cost you that opportunity.
Yes, the OP should say this but it needs to be carefully framed as it’s an argument regularly run at the FOS in lots of different types of cases and it more often than not doesn’t go well, any more than suing the council for arriving too late by falling on a dodgy paving stone on the way to buy the winning lottery ticket.
The FOS says that people are expected to take responsibility for their own actions and understand the terms of the products they buy. The consequential loss argument is also tricky as where does it stop? Could someone claim that had they been awarded the 60k Avios, they would have bought a ticket that they now need to spend over £2k to replace etc. etc.
The additional elements are along the lines that only Amex knows the date you previously closed your account for the purposes of SUBs. It isn’t the day you telephoned to close it. Thus, only Amex can provide the information so a customer must be able to rely on that information and it shouldn’t be difficult to provide so its failure to do so accurately is negligent, provided the OP asked the question quite explicitly.
However, while the FOS could order Amex to pay for the inconvenience it can’t really order Amex to pay a SUB to which the OP very clearly wasn’t entitled and should have known he wasn’t, so the timing is important.
How many times have we seen this reported by people on here?
Yes of course they could and should keep their own records, especially if playing the churn game, and I’m sure in the scheme of things it’s probably a low percentage of applicants impacted, but it still seems remarkable to me that a CS agent cannot provide the correct answer to a direct question. It’s such a simple piece of information and clearly Amex systems keep a track of such things.
Given the way Amex throws out 35-50k Plat retentions like confetti, it seems an odd and unfair time to start issuing refusals when they have provided inaccurate information. The CS agent is acting as an Amex representative, so to my mind it is Amex who were at fault, not specifically the CS agent, so it is they who are accountable and need to make good on the offer to which they led the applicant to believe they were eligible for.
Fwiw, I had this with Platinum Amex. I called and asked when I last had Gold and was told it was more than 2 years ago. When the Platinum tracker didn’t show up, I called again and was told I wasn’t eligible as I had Gold less than 2 years ago.
I noted the agent had told me I was eligible. They escalated to a manager who listened to the call recording and agreed to honour the bonus.
I’m sure there’s a few factors at play here. Type of card, How long you’ve been a customer, how much you spend, etc. but it was genuinely a pleasant experience which worked out in my favour
It’s sad how AmEx customer services has become a real menace…!
It’s sad how AmEx customer services has become a real menace…!
What is so odd in these instances is that in the US, Amex will tell you before completing the application whether you are eligible for the SUB or not.
While I absolutely don’t support people churning cards because we all pay for that, if Amex allows it, they need to get the admin right and there ought to be a definitive date given upon request, assuming the question is phrased correctly (which I suspect isn’t always the case) so Amex should be pressed on this ongoing failure. It’s actually the ongoing failure, drifting into negligence that will probably cause Amex to lose cases at the FOS which they would previously have won, as long as the cardholder puts the case in the right way.
What is so odd in these instances is that in the US, Amex will tell you before completing the application whether you are eligible for the SUB or not.
While I absolutely don’t support people churning cards because we all pay for that, if Amex allows it, they need to get the admin right and there ought to be a definitive date given upon request, assuming the question is phrased correctly (which I suspect isn’t always the case) so Amex should be pressed on this ongoing failure. It’s actually the ongoing failure, drifting into negligence that will probably cause Amex to lose cases at the FOS which they would previously have won, as long as the cardholder puts the case in the right way.
Agree entirely. I just feel like the agents, particularly on the chat, literally have no idea or are outright making things up to get rid of you as soon as possible. I can’t think of a single chat interaction that was even remotely good, hence I never ever use it anymore.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Popular articles this week:
