Creation Financial Services bashing

[Rui N.]

You should ask for the £99 now! 😀
(EDIT: the forum needs a button with a selection of smiles)

• This reply was modified 54 years, 4 months ago by .

[Lady London]

Value is cash value of what you planned to use it for. It will help if you can provide any evidence that supports your likelihood of that particular redemption eg you stayed there before or regularly, you have plane tickrts, it’s somewherr you work or visiy regularly, if particularly expensive show a pattern of that’s a level of hotel you would actually stay in, etc.

Otherwise look on IHG site for rack rate to buy points but cost is not the same as value to you. But it does put a floor.

[marks7389]

Sean Mc wrote:

@JDB has correctly pointed out that (however perverse it may seem to people) there is a case on which FOS have opined where creation have successfully argued that paragraphs 4 and 5 above are linked when considering the issuance of a free night certificate.

I suggest you read it again. It doesn’t say Creation argued that all:

“Creation said that the terms and conditions Mr G signed in April 2017 explained that the free night wouldn’t be provided until the new year began”

and

“They said the terms of Mr G’s credit card were clear and that a free nights accommodation was only available if the spend level had been reached by the anniversary date of the agreement and if it was still active. So they couldn’t see they’d done anything wrong. They were simply applying the terms of the agreement Mr G had entered into.”

So they argued on the basis of what the terms actually say, that the account still has to be “active” on the anniversary date and, in the is case, the implication (although not actually stated) is that Mr G had already closed his account.

I expect them to argue the same for the accounts they have closed, which is why it is important to challenge the fairness of that scenario based on what they promised prospective cardholders.

As I said yesterday my reading is that the statement around having to pay the following year’s fee came from Mr G and his misunderstanding of how it worked, and the Ombudsman had simply repeated his statement. I doubt it was challenged and it likely wouldn’t have changed the outcome of that particular complaint even if it had. However I also don’t think it would stand up to scrutiny if Creation tried to argue it as justification for not awarding night vouchers. My gut feeling is that they won’t go there because, by making up a requirement that doesn’t exist in the terms, it will open their argument up to greater challenge and undermine their position around the account still needing to be “active”. I guess we’ll see….

[Rui N.]

Exactly. No linkage with paragraph 5 was made. There were spurious mentions of paying the annual fee, which as you note doesn’t seem to be part of Creation’s argument at all. But no reference of any terms regarding such annual fee, much less any linkage between paragraph 4 and 5 – which would be quite hard to argue in any case, as the paragraphs don’t reference each other at all, they are simply about stuff happening roughly at the same time.
But it could even be that for an open account these two things (awarding the free night and annual fee posting) happen exactly at the same time. But that is irrelevant here, as the accounts are not open because of Creation’s business decision. So the issue around the fee becomes irrelevant.

• This reply was modified 54 years, 4 months ago by .

[JDB]

Having re-read the case, I respectfully still disagree with @Rui N and @marks7389, so we will have to see. I think it is a mistake to consider the fee as being irrelevant. The fee will, I believe, be something they will use in their defence.

Although everyone says how stupid Creation is, the refunding of the fees and not providing any reasoning for rejection of complaints is actually quite smart. The latter has unfortunately become quite common (poor) practice for many firms. It means you never get to see their ‘defence’ or documents to provide the opportunity to address it; that can only help Creation in this instance. All you will get is some sort of précis at the preliminary decision stage. MCOL, of course, has different procedures whereby both sides receive each other’s arguments and supporting documents.

[marks7389]

JDB wrote:

Having re-read the case, I respectfully still disagree with @Rui N and @marks7389, so we will have to see.

I wouldn’t have expected anything else 🙂

For what it’s worth, based on my experience from a prior complaint Creation’s customer care team haven’t always been as apparently hopeless as they have in response to ‘Closuregate’. Personally I think they’ve been overwhelmed and hung out to dry by their senior management team.

We’ll see how it all pans out.

[toddy]

JDB wrote:

… and not providing any reasoning for rejection of complaints is actually quite smart. The latter has unfortunately become quite common (poor) practice for many firms. It means you never get to see their ‘defence’ or documents to provide the opportunity to address it; that can only help Creation in this instance.

This is a very good point.

I began constructing my FOS complaint yesterday and stressed that because of Creation’s inability to respond to my complaint after 13 weeks, that I believe that this compromises my ability to construct a thorough and succinct proposal.

As a result, I’ve stressed that I have needed to make several assumptions.

I’ve also flagged and shown examples of consistent poor communication, misinformation, delays etc from Creation. A more suspicious person might suggest that this is deliberate. This will be outside the remit of FOS but I will be do believe that Creation are sailing ‘close to the wind’ when it comes to some of the FCA principles, so I will be making a separate submission to them.

[Lady London]

@Toddy I would have thought the FOS should be taking a view on whether Creation have in fact handled complaints. When they are supposed to have a complaints handling procedure and it should be a real one and provide a substantive response within, say, 8 weeks.

Surely it would be in the FOS’s own interest to judge disorganised comolaint handling processes and processes which do not provide a substantive response, as the firm effectively not operating the procedure they’re required to, to address comolaints. Also if a firm isn’t explaining its decision when a complaint is made then they’re not giving the customer that’s complaining any way to reach an agreement with them and avoid costly processes paid for by the industry and perhaps government as well.

Especially if Creation asked the complainer to give them more time. If I was an Ombudsman in such a case I would ask Creation what exactly did they plan to be able to complete in the extra time they asked for, for this particular complaint, and what exactly is the proof that they did use the extra time, to do, for this particular complaint. I’d want to see timestamps. This should take care of any “Oh, we were just overworked/overwhelmed” defences by Creation as to why they were wasting the individual’s time by asking for more time. Remember your contract with Creation is individual. Creation’s other problems are not your problem.

[toddy]

Sean Mc wrote:

Sometimes I find this @JDB bashing a bit tiresome.

@JDB has correctly pointed out that (however perverse it may seem to people) there is a case on which FOS have opined where creation have successfully argued that paragraphs 4 and 5 above are linked when considering the issuance of a free night certificate.

Does anyone have an example of a case where the claimant has successfully argued they are not linked?

I think it is correct to say be mindful of that fact (however perverse it may seem) when thinking you have a slam dunk case.

The FOS website clearly states:
The individual details of each case are always “one off”

Our case studies and decisions are not precedents

Individual cases are decided on their own facts

[JDB]

toddy wrote:

The FOS website clearly states:
The individual details of each case are always “one off”

Our case studies and decisions are not precedents

Individual cases are decided on their own facts

Yes, this has been discussed here before. Previous cases are not precedents, but cases are published so people can understand the basis of decisions and in practice, when considering the same set of terms, the FO needs to have a good reason for reaching a different interpretation of the same clauses as consistency of decisions is important. Some of the features of this case have been decided the same way dozens of times.

[toddy]

JDB wrote:

cases are published so people can understand the basis of decisions and in practice, when considering the same set of terms,

Disagree.
A consumer is not informed what set of terms were in force when looking at the decisions reached for previous complaints.
In addition, only a small proportion of decisions are published.

[SteveJ]

JDB wrote:

Some of the features of this case have been decided the same way dozens of times.

I’ve yet to see any decisions where the “you must wait the full year” clause has been agreed to when it is the card company instigating the closure for business reasons.

[Rui N.]

And I don’t think anyone would mind to wait the full year in any case, and most would even agree to pay the £99 if it came to that.

The discussion is not about terms in any case (except to say that Creation didn’t even bother to mention any terms in their communications to the clients), it’s about Creation’s treatment of its customer and failing to adhere to a number of FCA principles. As such, previous decisions regarding terms are not relevant, let alone a case where a customer asked for the free night before the year has passed.

[JDB]

SteveJ wrote:

I’ve yet to see any decisions where the “you must wait the full year” clause has been agreed to when it is the card company instigating the closure for business reasons.

You need to read more cases. My favourite is still the Shop Small one DRN5311667.

I think I have read every case involving Creation cards in the last three years and hundreds of others. One consistent theme is that if a firm exercises its right to close an account (= the business decision) either giving two months notice (or immediately if circumstances allow), it can withdraw annual or ongoing benefits in exactly the same way as if the customer closed the account; no distinction is drawn or ‘fairness’ invoked.

I haven’t come across any cases that deal specifically with the two month grey period between notice and closure which is probably the only group who may have some prospect, but even that is definitely no slam dunk.

[JDB]

Rui N. wrote:

The discussion is not about terms in any case (except to say that Creation didn’t even bother to mention any terms in their communications to the clients

Any decision will always be first about the terms, then whether those terms are fair or have been applied fairly. Only if there are no terms that govern a particular situation (e.g. in this case some people asking for a pro-rata annual fee refund for which there is no provision) will the FO need effectively to impute a term to achieve a fair outcome.

[Rui N.]

Yes, the famous terms saying that Creation can withhold points but at the same time allow them to tell customers that points are being earned and will be transferred, while at the same time reminding customers to please keep using the card to earn more points. Yes, those terms are the first point of call of course, we don’t forget that.
Then of course we can’t forget to refer to the card terms available at http://www.ihgrewardsclub.com.

[JDB]

@toddy you are correct that previous FO decisions are more aimed at firms, but as I see it, the FOS system as designed is slightly weighted against the consumer, so I prefer to use all the resources to reverse that balance. This applies to any FOS case.

For example, if you just filled in the FOS’s three boxes and attached the final decision letter, you are leaving it to the firm to supply the FOS with the terms and all the correspondence etc. and you will have no idea what they have included or not included, which for me = risk. Firms have previous case experience of their own and will have read other previous decisions so will use those concepts, where relevant, in their arguments. I have done a few cases for myself and recently helped others on three large cases. It has been incredibly useful to read cases, identify how they distil issues and the thinking processes the FOS uses as well as providing them with a strong, succinct submission without any emotive padding, a good chronology and an indexed PDF of all the documents with cross referencing.

• This reply was modified 54 years, 4 months ago by .

[HughM]

My IHG Premier Rewards card ceased to function, as notified, on 3 December.
Monthly payments, e.g. a subscription to Which? were cut off.
My “last” direct debit has now been taken.
The account remains open, with limited functionality, thanks to a generous
decision by British Airways to recredit the card with a couple of Avios fares
from September. It looks as though these unexpected credits will hold the
account open until its one-year anniversary in a week’s time. I still have
half a hope of finding my free night voucher released and am holding back
from a formal complaint till then. Fingers crossed.

• This reply was modified 54 years, 4 months ago by .

[AirMax]

@HughM Have the people with nil balance had accounts fully closed then?

[marks7389]

JDB wrote:

SteveJ wrote:

I’ve yet to see any decisions where the “you must wait the full year” clause has been agreed to when it is the card company instigating the closure for business reasons.

You need to read more cases. My favourite is still the Shop Small one DRN5311667.

Oh come on, enough arguing black is white…

That case is very clearly not closure for business reasons, even though Amex initially gave no reason and chose to give notice. There was clear evidence that the complainant fell foul of Amex’s terms and conditions in gaming the Shop Small offer. The Ombudsman noted that, to the point of saying that Amex would have been justified in terminating the accounts immediately for breach of those terms.

This is also not a case of “you must wait the full year” – the BA 2for1 vouchers are issued immediately on meeting the spend threshold. In this case the complainant had an opportunity to use their earned voucher up to the end of the notice period. [Setting aside that he may have been able to do so subsequently, using a supplementary card on someone else’s account.]

And you wonder why people think you’re a Creation shill 😉

For the record I don’t think the case against Creation is a ‘slam dunk’. I do though, think there’s a reasonable chance of success if people are clear in their arguments, enough to spend an hour or two properly presenting them. Certainly nothing that you’ve said or presented so far, or that I’ve read in previous decisions that makes me think otherwise.

In the end there is little to lose in going down that route if people still feel that Creation has acted improperly.

[AirMax]

Sean Mc wrote:

Sometimes I find this @JDB bashing a bit tiresome.
(

HfP also endorsed him as knowledgeable so I see him as effectively having a blue tick

[JDB]

@marks7389 I didn’t say that Amex case had much, if any relevance to the Creation saga; it was just that the ridiculousness of it made me laugh.

For what it’s worth, ‘business decision’ doesn’t really have any specific meaning. However in the Amex Shop Small case above and for Creation, the accounts were closed on the identical basis – under Consumer Credit Act 1974 S98A(3). The FO does remark that Amex could have closed immediately under a different section, but chose not to.

[NorthernLass]

“HfP also endorsed him as knowledgeable so I see him as effectively having a blue tick”

Yes, but he was previously accusing HFP readers of theft and fraud in respect of their dealings with Creation, Curve and N S & I and had to be told that this was inaccurate and possibly slanderous.

[Lady London]

********just lost another reply that disappeared completely on a captcha.

Sorry this is really really not good enough ****************

[Aston100]

Lady London wrote:

********just lost another reply that disappeared completely on a captcha.

Sorry this is really really not good enough ****************

With longer replies, perhaps in the short term it might be an idea to type them out in notepad or some other text editor, and then copy & paste into the reply box?