Creation Financial Services bashing

[ed_fly]

JDB wrote:

@Jon well done; you must be pleased it’s over and one should never underestimate litigation risk so settling on reasonable terms is a result, particularly when you suggested the hearing was difficult to read. As to would they have been better off just paying up, I think the answer is no, partly because they clearly didn’t want to reward people who had taken them for a ride as a matter of principle, but also in standing firm, they have seen off the vast majority of cases so it has saved money even if it has taken up a lot of time. A number of complainants will also lose.

may’ve missed it in the backstory, but interesting they went through a hearing before offering a reasonable settlement. Must’ve incurred additional legal fees from that surely?

[Anna]

Good news, Jon. The question now is, will the FOS start moving a bit faster in respect of all their outstanding cases now this judgement has been received or will we all have to take Creation to court?!

[Aston100]

Anna wrote:

Good news, Jon. The question now is, will the FOS start moving a bit faster in respect of all their outstanding cases now this judgement has been received or will we all have to take Creation to court?!

Was judgement received though? I thought Jon settled.

[StillintheSun]

Just a little note on Tomlin orders. Some litigants (usually corporates) like to give the impression that parties to a Tomlin order are bound by confidentiality and cannot disclose the fact of settlement and the nature of the settlement to anyone. This is not true, such non-disclosure agreements must be specifically agreed by the signatories and ideally set out precisely in the Tomlin order. As to confidentiality all a Tomlin order does is prevent a third person (non-party) from requesting a copy of the order. So unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the parties can, reveal what they want about the settlement. If I can find a sensible link to an explanation on this from a respected law firm I’ll post it.

Other than that very well done Jon!

[zio]

Jon, congratulations and also huge thanks for keeping us informed of the progress of your case. Those of us waiting on the FOS can perhaps be heartened that someone without particular legal expertise has achieved a result against Creation at MCOL. Well done again.

[tamnavulin]

zio wrote:

Jon, congratulations and also huge thanks for keeping us informed of the progress of your case. Those of us waiting on the FOS can perhaps be heartened that someone without particular legal expertise has achieved a result against Creation at MCOL. Well done again.

No point p!ssing into the tent when you just got a settlement you’re happy with. Ie happy means you are not seeking to further punish them.

[tamnavulin]

Actually that was reply to StillintheSun

[Jon]

Thanks all. Just to pick up on a couple of questions and points:

No judgment was handed down, as we settled.

On the Tomlin order, the fact of there being a settlement and the claim being stayed on terms set out in the schedule is public record, but the schedule itself remains confidential. I think I’m clear about what I can and cannot say, and certainly I am at liberty to report on the hearing, save for the parts where the judge was not present.

On the legal expertise point – I’m not a lawyer and have no legal training or any particular expertise beyond being quite good at studying and analysing documents and thinking logically. I have read the CRA quite thoroughly (more than a few times 😉 but of course that doesn’t necessarily mean I have understood it correctly. I think if I have any advice for anyone else MCOLing (this or anything else), it would be don’t assume the court will be familiar with the legislation you are referring to. My submissions quoted various extracts from the CRA but in hindsight I think I could have done more to be better prepared to quote various other sections (that I hadn’t anticipated being needed but which perhaps could have been useful). If only I had a photographic memory, or the entire legislation committed to memory 😉 Finding the exact phrase you have in mind, that you know is there somewhere, under time pressure in the midst of discussion while thinking on your feet, is not easy (much respect to barristers who presumably have to do this a lot! 😉

[Jon]

@memesweeper I meant to reply to this earlier and now realise I didn’t, apologies.

memesweeper wrote:

… I assume there was no free night voucher in play? there is one in mine, good luck to them in arguing that has no value, it’s > 90% of my claim.

If my hearing is anything to go by, they will likely major on the argument that as your account was not open on the anniversary, you have failed to meet the three criteria required for award of the voucher (notwithstanding that’s entirely their own doing). They’ll probably also argue that you knew and accepted the terms of the agreement, you knew Creation could close your account at any time with two months notice, so you should have known the voucher might not be awarded… Section 62 of the Consumer Rights Act and also Schedule 2 Part 1 may assist.

memesweeper wrote:

I’ll also ask what they pay, per thousand, for these worthless points

I’m afraid you won’t be able to. Counsel won’t know and Creation won’t send a witness for you to cross-examine (or submit a witness statement, even if previously ordered to by the court…).

[memesweeper]

Jon wrote:

@memesweeper I meant to reply to this earlier and now realise I didn’t, apologies.

memesweeper wrote:

… I assume there was no free night voucher in play? there is one in mine, good luck to them in arguing that has no value, it’s > 90% of my claim.

If my hearing is anything to go by, they will likely major on the argument that as your account was not open on the anniversary, you have failed to meet the three criteria required for award of the voucher (notwithstanding that’s entirely their own doing). They’ll probably also argue that you knew and accepted the terms of the agreement, you knew Creation could close your account at any time with two months notice, so you should have known the voucher might not be awarded… Section 62 of the Consumer Rights Act and also Schedule 2 Part 1 may assist.

memesweeper wrote:

I’ll also ask what they pay, per thousand, for these worthless points

I’m afraid you won’t be able to. Counsel won’t know and Creation won’t send a witness for you to cross-examine (or submit a witness statement, even if previously ordered to by the court…).

Thanks for the heads-up on the free night voucher. I’d previously concluded the CRA was the best hope of protecting that and I’ll stick to that argument.

@jon well done for winning (or at least forcing a settlement) and contributing back to the community here.

[BrianN]

Hi

Anyone heard any update on what ihg status we get with the ihg creation premium black card under the new ihg one rewards scheme?

Thanks

[StillintheSun]

Just on the effect of a Tomlin order. I’ve drafted many of these in my time. I’ve also made Court applications for anonymity orders (very hard to obtain by the way as open justice is a fundamental part of the common law (family matters excluded). Now it’s not impossible but I would have been repeatedly very negligent on numerous occasions if what I posted above was wrong. You are absolutely correct that the schedule is confidential but it only prevents third parties obtaining it. It does not prevent the parties themselves from publishing the nature of their settlement and the fact that there is one. In any event I would be cautious in taking legal steps based on the legal opinion of some random poster off the internet. However it is my belief that misconceptions as to the law (at least as I see it) should be dealt with head on.

[Jon]

BrianN wrote:

Anyone heard any update on what ihg status we get with the ihg creation premium black card under the new ihg one rewards scheme?

Blacklisted? Sorry 😉

[NorthernLass]

I don’t suppose anyone has had any communication about these cases now entering their second year … ?!

I was thinking about the reasoning that members shouldn’t expect the free night certificate because they were always aware that their accounts could be closed with 2 months’ notice, however my certificate should have been awarded in October 2021, shortly after we were notified about the closure of the card, and while my account was definitely still open and the card was being used, so I would personally argue that not awarding that would breaching Creation’s Ts and Cs.

[stevenhp1987]

I’ve heard nothing and it’s been almost a year since I submitted to FOS.

My case is slightly different as they chose to shut me down without notice or reason after having already issued the 2 month notice.

[Froggee]

We’re in a holding pattern at 20,000 feet.

I’m in the same position as you Anna. October free night award date having done £10,000 of iron clad genuine spend before getting two months notice in September. Plus some topping up of my savings, obv. Although I shut my card before they’d charged the next year’s fee but after I was eligible for the free night so that could be a different argument for the snake oil salesmen as to why I am unworthy.

I only submitted in June and didn’t get allocated a case handler. I suspect this is because the FOS is forming a collective view on this. @JDB will know but he isn’t allowed to say on here.

However the second complaint I made about my second Creation credit card (which is a complaint of an entirely unrelated nature) several months later was allocated a case handler within a month.

All good things come to those who wait. Except bad things obviously. But hopefully we won’t get bad things.

[NorthernLass]

I sent an email earlier politely asking if there was any progress to report (my last communication from them was last October saying I was still awaiting a case handler). The automatic reply said not to expect any response unless they are in a position to help me as they are too busy!

[Froggee]

If you can’t change it, accept it.

It’s psychologically much better for you in the long run.

[JDB]

NorthernLass wrote:

I sent an email earlier politely asking if there was any progress to report (my last communication from them was last October saying I was still awaiting a case handler). The automatic reply said not to expect any response unless they are in a position to help me as they are too busy!

What’s the big hurry? What makes anyone think nagging the FOS will expedite any resolution?

[Lady London]

What makes anyone think these delays, disorganisation and poor communication of the FOS is reasonable?

[NorthernLass]

I wasn’t “nagging” in any way (I haven’t seen that misogynistic term for a while) – it’s extraordinary that an organisation can seemingly be completely unaccountable and have no minimum customer service standards. In a public sector organisation, failing to even update service users of case progression for nearly a year would be totally unacceptable and approaching a national scandal.

[JDB]

The FOS is not “unaccountable” but they do request that “if we’ve let you know that we’ve received your complaint, we’ll contact you as soon as your case is with someone who can help. We’d be grateful if you could avoid contacting us for an update, unless your circumstances have changed.” and that excessive contacts impairs their ability to do their job. Cases are triaged according to their importance and complexity.

There are asylum seekers awaiting decisions and people awaiting trials (including some on remand) who are waiting longer; this is very far from a “national scandal” however important a free hotel night may seem to you.

[NorthernLass]

I think you’re comparing apples and oranges there, @JDB, and frankly indulging in a spot of virtue-signalling! It’s not the remit of the FOS to deal with asylum seekers or defendants in criminal cases so you may as well complain that your butcher hasn’t cleaned your windows this week, as my late uncle used to say.
I don’t consider that sending a polite email every 3 months constitutes “excessive contact”. How long do you think someone should reasonably expect to wait for a response? I’m sure some people would argue that failing to follow these things up would indicate that it’s not actually that important to the person making the complaint.

[JDB]

Indeed, other government agencies are handling the cases to which I referred and they are all suffering from exactly the same increased demand and staffing/resource issues, but some things are objectively more important than others.

You are in a queue, you will get your turn but chasing the hard pressed staff for an answer/update is just additional work and will do absolutely nothing to expedite your case.

Very simple cases that can be handled by less experienced staff and complex cases where the outcome will have a significant impact on the complainant will inevitably move faster than yours which is not only stuck in a middle ground but also, per various reports, subject to detailed discussion with the firm concerned.

[Harrier25]

JDB wrote:

Indeed, other government agencies are handling the cases to which I referred and they are all suffering from exactly the same increased demand and staffing/resource issues, but some things are objectively more important than others.

You are in a queue, you will get your turn but chasing the hard pressed staff for an answer/update is just additional work and will do absolutely nothing to expedite your case.

Very simple cases that can be handled by less experienced staff and complex cases where the outcome will have a significant impact on the complainant will inevitably move faster than yours which is not only stuck in a middle ground but also, per various reports, subject to detailed discussion with the firm concerned.

JDB inadvertently highlights the main problems here when he mentions ‘government agencies’ and ‘staffing/resource issues’. They’ll probably all be on strike soon anyway at FOS, like all the other under staffed and under resourced government agency. What a way to run a country!!