Creation Financial Services bashing

[SteveJ]

EwanG wrote:

Here are the Premium Card Agreement from when I opened my Premium card in Q4 2016.
Agreement: https://pdfhost.io/v/oXSp4fXmy_Card_Agreement (dated May 2016)

Thanks EwanG. Any idea how I can download from PDFhost? Only seem to be able to open, can’t see an option to save the document.

[EwanG]

On mobile, top right there are 2 right angled brackets, click on that and it has a ‘download’ option.
On desktop the download icon should be visible on the main screen.

[NorthernLass]

Well, I’ve submitted new complaints for me and OH as previously it wasn’t clear whether Creation would transfer any points certificates when they closed the cards. So our 8 weeks have only just started really and I am very interested in what happens with everyone else’s complaints in the mean time, of course. I don’t think we ever heard back from @AirCrashInvestigator who was claiming their IHG account had been closed, did we?

[SteveJ]

EwanG wrote:

On mobile, top right there are 2 right angled brackets, click on that and it has a ‘download’ option.
On desktop the download icon should be visible on the main screen.

Thanks, the icon is there but doesn’t seem to do anything, not for me in any case!

[JDB]

@Memesweeper – you say Creation would undoubtedly lose at MCOL, but I think that depends on the situation of the individual and also the timing of their anniversary. Judges have huge latitude in interpretation and making findings of fact and in practical terms/realistically those decisions are not appealable. If someone is, for example, on the NS&I top 50 list, the court will take an extremely dim view. Also, for anyone just chasing the voucher, I’m not sure it would be eligible for MCOL at all.

[SteveJ]

JDB wrote:

Also, for anyone just chasing the voucher, I’m not sure it would be eligible for MCOL at all.

I would agree that an MCOL should be for a cash value. Using a previously booked redemption will be the best bet, i.e. you’ve previously had benefit of a night at XXX hotel during YYY season, and the equivalent current cost is £££ and you would like compensation for that amount. Asking MCOL for help getting a voucher won’t end well.

• This reply was modified 54 years, 8 months ago by .

[JDB]

SteveJ wrote:

JDB wrote:

Also, for anyone just chasing the voucher, I’m not sure it would be eligible for MCOL at all.

I would agree that an MCOL should be for a cash value. Using a previously booked redemption will be the best bet, i.e. you’ve previously had benefit of a night at XXX hotel during YYY season, and the equivalent current cost is £££ and you would like compensation for that amount. Asking MCOL for help getting a voucher won’t end well.

While it theoretically possible to dress it up as a money claim, I’m not sure if it would fly. It looks more like a ‘loss of opportunity’ claim that couldn’t be made via MCOL.

[memesweeper]

JDB wrote:

@Memesweeper – you say Creation would undoubtedly lose at MCOL, but I think that depends on the situation of the individual and also the timing of their anniversary. Judges have huge latitude in interpretation and making findings of fact and in practical terms/realistically those decisions are not appealable.

More fear/uncertainty/doubt from @JDB. What about that isn’t true of any MCOL excluding the timing of the anniversary? How many friends of yours or posters here have complained about perverse decisions at county court? I’ve raised only two cases and defended one and found the judges and the procedure to be fair and I have confidence in our judicial system.

JDB wrote:

If someone is, for example, on the NS&I top 50 list, the court will take an extremely dim view. Also, for anyone just chasing the voucher, I’m not sure it would be eligible for MCOL at all.

The ‘top 50’ would need to be disclosed, of course, along with some statement as to the relevance of that evidence. If it’s relevant to shutting someone down for abuse/violation which Creation then didn’t do I don’t see how that helps them at all. Concepts of fairness under CRA are a one-way street in favour of the consumer: the consumer does do not have to be blameless. A “dim view” isn’t going to help but it’s not a dealbreaker when one party has violated their obligations under a contract and the CRA. Incidentally I have no reason to think I’m in the “top 50” but who knows? How bad was this issue … really? Do any of us know? Keep spreading uncertainty and doubt though @JDB, it might keep a few more people away from MCOL and save Creation a few more pennies if people start worrying they are listed on a previously undisclosed league table.

I’ll be asking for a justifiable valuation on the Free Night, not Specific Performance. Absolutely no issue getting the court to find in my favour on that.

[TGLoyalty]

SteveJ wrote:

JDB wrote:

I’m not sure about the evolution of the two sets of points terms, but unfortunately in this instance they are the mainly the ones that matter/where the problems lie.

@JDB I’m not at all convinced they are relevant. The Creation terms do reference the IHG terms, that is correct. The IHG terms give IHG carte blanche to rip up any earned points as they see fit. They give no rights to Creation. Massive red herring.

My view on this.

[DavidC]

Creation not allowing me to pay my Marriott Credit Card balance with my Hilton Honors card. Anyone else having this problem? Has the gravy train hit the buffers?

[JerrySignfield]

well said!

[JerrySignfield]

memesweeper wrote:

JDB wrote:

@Memesweeper – you say Creation would undoubtedly lose at MCOL, but I think that depends on the situation of the individual and also the timing of their anniversary. Judges have huge latitude in interpretation and making findings of fact and in practical terms/realistically those decisions are not appealable.

More fear/uncertainty/doubt from @JDB. What about that isn’t true of any MCOL excluding the timing of the anniversary? How many friends of yours or posters here have complained about perverse decisions at county court? I’ve raised only two cases and defended one and found the judges and the procedure to be fair and I have confidence in our judicial system.

JDB wrote:

If someone is, for example, on the NS&I top 50 list, the court will take an extremely dim view. Also, for anyone just chasing the voucher, I’m not sure it would be eligible for MCOL at all.

The ‘top 50’ would need to be disclosed, of course, along with some statement as to the relevance of that evidence. If it’s relevant to shutting someone down for abuse/violation which Creation then didn’t do I don’t see how that helps them at all. Concepts of fairness under CRA are a one-way street in favour of the consumer: the consumer does do not have to be blameless. A “dim view” isn’t going to help but it’s not a dealbreaker when one party has violated their obligations under a contract and the CRA. Incidentally I have no reason to think I’m in the “top 50” but who knows? How bad was this issue … really? Do any of us know? Keep spreading uncertainty and doubt though @JDB, it might keep a few more people away from MCOL and save Creation a few more pennies if people start worrying they are listed on a previously undisclosed league table.

I’ll be asking for a justifiable valuation on the Free Night, not Specific Performance. Absolutely no issue getting the court to find in my favour on that.

Well said!

[JDB]

TGLoyalty wrote:

JDB wrote:

@marks7389 if you are going to complain/go to the FOS you need to get the actual terms upon which Creation are relying, including any you may have signed up to on opening the account. It’s not really of much use to download what’s online now as you need to know precisely what may be used against you. Remember that at FOS (rather than court proceedings) you don’t get to see the other side’s submissions, so you will really be hampering your case if you are using different terms. Obviously, you need to satisfy yourself that you were notified of any such terms.

Wasn’t the onus on creation to update us the consumer on any term changes? I have received no such communication since my black card was opened therefore why wouldn’t the 2017 terms still published on their website apply?

And secret T&Cs they may think are applicable should be disregarded.

I’m merely relaying my experience of these matters; people often complain to firms but later discover they are working off the wrong T&Cs, so you need to be sure which terms Creation is relying upon to avoid the nasty surprise others have experienced; it isn’t a matter of any secret terms. I advised people in October to get hold of these as you obviously shouldn’t be complaining/appealing to the FOS without knowing the basis of any such complaint. The FOS repeatedly says that it is reasonable for firms to expect customers to have read the T&Cs; a lot of comments re Creation on here suggest they haven’t…

I thought the latest credit card terms are from April 2019? The CC terms do require notification of changes, however I don’t think the same applies to the two sets of rewards T&Cs, the current versions of which both appear to be undated.

[NorthernLass]

I doubt very much I’m on the Ns & I top 50 list but I can’t see that Creation would be allowed to share such data with a small claims court without permission from the account holder. It’s also completely irrelevant to the claim and in any case why would Creation want to publicise the fact that they let this go on for years?

[JDB]

NorthernLass wrote:

I doubt very much I’m on the Ns & I top 50 list but I can’t see that Creation would be allowed to share such data with a small claims court without permission from the account holder. It’s also completely irrelevant to the claim and in any case why would Creation want to publicise the fact that they let this go on for years?

They wouldn’t need to share the data per se, they can put the essential facts from that data into evidence by a witness statement. From earlier comments, you have already been surprised by the extent of data sharing as revealed in the FOI release and it will have spread further by now and gone beyond the top 50. It’s not irrelevant to the claim if someone alleges they have been treated unfairly; that is a double edged sword.

• This reply was modified 54 years, 8 months ago by .

[memesweeper]

JDB wrote:

It’s not irrelevant to the claim if someone alleges they have been treated unfairly; that is a double edged sword.

It’s not a double edged sword, that’s just plain wrong in terms of the County Court. Terms in consumer contracts and consumer notices which do not meet the “fairness” test will not be enforceable or binding on a consumer. Period. There are no obligations in that legislation on the consumer to be “fair” to the supplier.

[Harrier25]

Has anyone received a statement yet since the closures on the 3rd? It did occur to me that they may just transfer the points to IHG on the first statement date after the closures. My statement is due around Thursday.

[Harrier25]

SteveJ wrote:

EwanG wrote:

On mobile, top right there are 2 right angled brackets, click on that and it has a ‘download’ option.
On desktop the download icon should be visible on the main screen.

Thanks, the icon is there but doesn’t seem to do anything, not for me in any case!

That’s because he was typing a load of nonsense, Anna.

• This reply was modified 54 years, 8 months ago by .

[milesandmordor]

Has anyone received a statement yet since the closures on the 3rd? It did occur to me that they may just transfer the points to IHG on the first statement date after the closures. My statement is due around Thursday.

Yes – statement received 12th. No – points not transferred – still just sitting there.

• This reply was modified 54 years, 8 months ago by .

[Harrier25]

milesandmordor wrote:

Has anyone received a statement yet since the closures on the 3rd? It did occur to me that they may just transfer the points to IHG on the first statement date after the closures. My statement is due around Thursday.

Yes – statement received 12th. No – points not transferred – still just sitting there.

Oh well, that blows that theory then! 😒

[JDB]

memesweeper wrote:

JDB wrote:

It’s not irrelevant to the claim if someone alleges they have been treated unfairly; that is a double edged sword.

It’s not a double edged sword, that’s just plain wrong in terms of the County Court. Terms in consumer contracts and consumer notices which do not meet the “fairness” test will not be enforceable or binding on a consumer. Period. There are no obligations in that legislation on the consumer to be “fair” to the supplier.

Yes, silly me! When a judge reads of your self avowed conduct,(s)he will be desperately looking for a way to reward you as a hapless victim of this corporate ogre.

[toddy]

JDB, you said above : “regulators aren’t that interest in paid for/rewards cards as the people who use them are considered more sophisticated and can to extent look after themselves.”

This is absolute nonsense and I hope isn’t deliberate scaremongering on your behalf.

[SteveJ]

Harrier25 wrote:

SteveJ wrote:

EwanG wrote:

On mobile, top right there are 2 right angled brackets, click on that and it has a ‘download’ option.
On desktop the download icon should be visible on the main screen.

Thanks, the icon is there but doesn’t seem to do anything, not for me in any case!

That’s because he was typing a load of nonsense, Anna.

Anna? 🤷🏻

[JerrySignfield]

memesweeper wrote:

JDB wrote:

@Memesweeper – you say Creation would undoubtedly lose at MCOL, but I think that depends on the situation of the individual and also the timing of their anniversary. Judges have huge latitude in interpretation and making findings of fact and in practical terms/realistically those decisions are not appealable.

More fear/uncertainty/doubt from @JDB. What about that isn’t true of any MCOL excluding the timing of the anniversary? How many friends of yours or posters here have complained about perverse decisions at county court? I’ve raised only two cases and defended one and found the judges and the procedure to be fair and I have confidence in our judicial system.

JDB wrote:

If someone is, for example, on the NS&I top 50 list, the court will take an extremely dim view. Also, for anyone just chasing the voucher, I’m not sure it would be eligible for MCOL at all.

The ‘top 50’ would need to be disclosed, of course, along with some statement as to the relevance of that evidence. If it’s relevant to shutting someone down for abuse/violation which Creation then didn’t do I don’t see how that helps them at all. Concepts of fairness under CRA are a one-way street in favour of the consumer: the consumer does do not have to be blameless. A “dim view” isn’t going to help but it’s not a dealbreaker when one party has violated their obligations under a contract and the CRA. Incidentally I have no reason to think I’m in the “top 50” but who knows? How bad was this issue … really? Do any of us know? Keep spreading uncertainty and doubt though @JDB, it might keep a few more people away from MCOL and save Creation a few more pennies if people start worrying they are listed on a previously undisclosed league table.

I’ll be asking for a justifiable valuation on the Free Night, not Specific Performance. Absolutely no issue getting the court to find in my favour on that.

Well said!

Also the FUD around IHG closing accounts is also over the top when they have already been paid for the points and should have no reason to punish the consumer due to Creation’s lack of due diligence with their card offering.

The problem is and has always been Creation offering a card that they simply couldn’t afford to offer due to its poor business model which has been in plain sight all along and often pointed out by Rob, now all they are doing is trying to punish the consumer.

[Yorkie Aid]

Today I finally received a letter dated 10th December from Creation stating “that there has been a delay in responding to your concerns.” This was “due to internal delays” and also “due to unforeseen circumstances.” And as a final closer, “Due to the impact of COVID-19 our complaints phone lines are currently closed.” The letter was sent by snail mail even though my complaint was made online and their complaint acknowledgement was sent by email. I had emailed a follow-up on 17th December since I thought that was long enough to wait just in case they had sent a snail mail letter. Needless to say that has gone unanswered too thus far. The fun continues.