Maximise your Avios, air miles and hotel points

Forums Payment cards Other payment cards Creation Financial Services bashing

Creation Financial Services bashing

Reply
  • toddy

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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 52 years, 1 month 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 52 years, 1 month ago by .
    AirMax

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

    marks7389

    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

    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 ****************

  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

The UK's biggest frequent flyer website uses cookies, which you can block via your browser settings. Continuing implies your consent to this policy. Our privacy policy is here.