Forums › Payment cards › Other payment cards › Creation Financial Services bashing
-
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.
YorkieAid I am struggling to believe Creation are coming up with these tired old clichés.
The worrying bit is it sounds like the FOS is as unfit for purpose as I thought they were. My worry is that Creation have used this delay to somehow get FOS onside.
If the FOS don’t tell Creation tbey have to honour their promises and feed back to legislators to change any law that might make Creation think they can get away with not honouring their promises to innocent cardholders then the British Finance establshment is bust.
So are all Creation IHG cards being scrapped for existing customers or just for the earmarked few?
JDB, what on earth do you mean, “self-avowed conduct”? I presume you are referring to putative breaches of card terms but in that case why would anyone think they were doing anything wrong when Creation has never flagged this up and continued to issue (probably) millions of IHG points and numerous free night certificates. They have not accused anyone of wrong-doing, or even breaching the card Ts and Cs. I personally don’t think it will carry much weight even if it is brought up at any hearing if that’s the first time there has been any mention of it whatsoever to customers.
JDB, what on earth do you mean, “self-avowed conduct”?
It was in reply to me. Perhaps he’s confusing me with a rampant MSer.
JDB assumes every MSer did something wrong and were shut down without any warning nor notification of the shut being for a breach of terms.
When asked why Creation won’t tell us it was a breach of terms because … well you decide why.
Why just state “business reasons” if everyone breached the terms of their agreement?
Surely creation wouldn’t be wasting their time AND money telling us it was for “business reasons” when they can say we breached terms xyz and FOS would be futile.
- This reply was modified 54 years, 9 months ago by .
I think it’s pretty clear by now that JDB is a Creation shill tasked with putting off as many people as possible from taking action against his pals at Creation.
- This reply was modified 54 years, 9 months ago by .
I think it’s pretty clear by now that JDB is a Creation shill tasked with putting off as many people as possible from taking action against his pals at Creation.
Apart from being offensive, your statement is completely false; it has not one shred of truth. If you don’t properly understand the arguments in Creation’s favour any FOS/MCOL claims will be very sub-standard.
JDB assumes every MSer did something wrong and were shut down without any warning nor notification of the shut being for a breach of terms.
When asked why Creation won’t tell us it was a breach of terms because … well you decide why.
Why just state “business reasons” if everyone breached the terms of their agreement?
Surely creation wouldn’t be wasting their time AND money telling us it was for “business reasons” when they can say we breached terms xyz and FOS would be futile.
@TGLoyalty – you will find that this is how credit card firms generally operate when closing accounts. They have an absolute right to close accounts on two months notice without giving a reason. It serves no purpose to specify a reason as it will almost inevitably cause further dispute which no firm wants and in some circumstances they don’t want to give away reasons that might enable people to circumvent their (revised) policies etc. so why say more than you are required to? In this instance I believe there were a multiplicity of reasons that came to light once more senior people were alerted to the problem eg technical breaches of credit limits, business use, excessive volume/velocity of transactions inconsistent with disclosed financial information, cash recycling, the taking of cash advances via Curve or top ups and the erroneous awarding of points on those transactions etc.Basically, I don’t think you should read anything into Creation simply citing ‘business reasons’ as that is pretty standard procedure across the industry; it’s happening every day. Read countless FOS decisions if you don’t believe me.
It unfortunately places people at a significant disadvantage, because if the firm elects to give reasons for closure to the FOS, you won’t get to find out what they are until the preliminary decision (“PD”) stage or possibly the final decision if they have supplied further information after the PD. It would appear that they are also keeping complaint responses quite simple which makes FOS submissions more complicated.
More fool them because it costs the consumer 0 and them £750
But I don’t agree I know of and have heard about people who have been told they are being closed down for gaming not just “business reasons”
- This reply was modified 54 years, 9 months ago by .
More fool them because it costs the consumer 0 and them £750
As more than one person other than me has pointed out, the charging for FOS complaints won’t/doesn’t work like that. I would like to think you value your time at more than 0; making a good, concise and compelling submission backed by evidence to the FOS takes time.
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.
My conduct is within the terms of the contract agreed with Creation, including the anti-abuse clauses in the included IHG agreement, (and did not involve ‘cycling’ funds through Curve and NS&I in breach of Curve terms, which, had I done it, would also not be relevant in a case between me and Creation). I’ve been subject to source of funds checks by Curve and NS&I as it happens, which I’m sure would have failed had I sent money round in circles. I’m expecting the judge to apply the law to the facts. I don’t need his/her sympathy, and Creation won’t get any either. Just the law and the facts, that’s what I’ll naively put my faith in, not fear/uncertainty/doubt from @JDB. I am under no obligation to be “fair” to Creation. That simply isn’t how the Consumer Rights Act works.
More fool them because it costs the consumer 0 and them £750
But I don’t agree I know of and have heard about people who have been told they are being closed down for gaming not just “business reasons”
I think you edited your post while I was replying to the first para a while ago. In your second para, I think you are right that some people have informally been given mainly generic reasons. Equally, some who followed advice in October, have already had good resolutions. Screaming, shouting and general criticisms of a firm are not usually the best route and certainly not the best one to start with.
- This reply was modified 54 years, 9 months ago by .
Not heard of any good resolutions yet, the annual fee refund for a few is hardly a resolution.
@JDB no one has got a fair resolution unless they got their points, free night vouchers and pro rata refund.
Re you charging point we will see how many £759 they are charged with 2000 complaints spread over the next 6 months. I personally have no time to make my complaint YET but will once I have.
I think it’s pretty clear by now that JDB is a Creation shill tasked with putting off as many people as possible from taking action against his pals at Creation.
I think its a case of “acts like” if one did exist, I think JDB might be trying to be helpful but lacks the ability to speak to people without coming across as condescending, also fails to understand that the amounts involved may actual have some value to the people trying to claim.
@JDB no one has got a fair resolution unless they got their points, free night vouchers and pro rata refund.
Re you charging point we will see how many £759 they are charged with 2000 complaints spread over the next 6 months. I personally have no time to make my complaint YET but will once I have.
A) for a variety of reasons, there won’t be anything vaguely approaching 2000 complaints and the number there are won’t all be charged singly
B) the resolution you mention has already been achieved for those who recognised early on that the notice period would likely put points/rewards at risk, so reached an agreement very quickly
Making intemperate complaints, berating call centre staff and nugatory DSAR requests etc. may waste time don’t generate goodwill offers.
@JDB no one has got a fair resolution unless they got their points, free night vouchers and pro rata refund.
Re you charging point we will see how many £759 they are charged with 2000 complaints spread over the next 6 months. I personally have no time to make my complaint YET but will once I have.
A) for a variety of reasons, there won’t be anything vaguely approaching 2000 complaints and the number there are won’t all be charged singly
B) the resolution you mention has already been achieved for those who recognised early on that the notice period would likely put points/rewards at risk, so reached an agreement very quickly
Making intemperate complaints, berating call centre staff and nugatory DSAR requests etc. may waste time don’t generate goodwill offers.
Even if theres only 1 charges it’s a waste of £750 and all their call centre staffs times when it’s as simple as you broke term xyz not vague replies and “business reasons”
Re your last point. Whose wasting their time? Other than themselves with their “business reasons” nonsense. They even requested a DSAR rather than give someone the relevant T&Cs via email.
I’m not sure if you know creation on a professional basis or just guessing what’s going on but the examples above show they are doing this to themselves!
@JDB no one has got a fair resolution unless they got their points, free night vouchers and pro rata refund.
Re you charging point we will see how many £759 they are charged with 2000 complaints spread over the next 6 months. I personally have no time to make my complaint YET but will once I have.
A) for a variety of reasons, there won’t be anything vaguely approaching 2000 complaints and the number there are won’t all be charged singly
B) the resolution you mention has already been achieved for those who recognised early on that the notice period would likely put points/rewards at risk, so reached an agreement very quickly
Making intemperate complaints, berating call centre staff and nugatory DSAR requests etc. may waste time don’t generate goodwill offers.
I don’t think the complaints are intemperate, they’re justified on the basis of the expected service not being provided. Similarly, DSAR requests may not be pointless in the eyes of those requesting them, if part of the argument will be showing that rewards are being withheld on the ground of the account not being in order (the only justifiable reason in the T&Cs), then having all that info will likely go some way to proving that’s not the case.
At this point it’s not about goodwill, Creation have shown they have none.
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.
Saying this suggest you have a lack of experience in consumer rights cases at County Court. @memesweeper is 100% correct in saying “Terms in consumer contracts and consumer notices which do not meet the ‘fairness’ test will not be enforceable or binding on a consumer. Period.”
What’s the point of coming here and saying that some people have got “resolution” without saying how that was achieved? Maybe instead of just berating everyone for their proposed course of action it would have been more helpful to start with that…
Saying this suggest you have a lack of experience in consumer rights cases at County Court. @memesweeper is 100% correct in saying “Terms in consumer contracts and consumer notices which do not meet the ‘fairness’ test will not be enforceable or binding on a consumer. Period.”[/quote]
I am very familiar with Part 2 of CRA 2015. It isn’t quite “period” as you state, there are a number of caveats and exclusions re “fairness” set out in the Act. I have attended more courts than I care to remember and also spent three days in the High Court and Court of Appeal arguing thresholds of “fairness” so I am reasonably well attuned to the concept.
What you say is technically correct, but it is the applicability/application of and the threshold for any “fairness” test which is more complex and here lacks sufficient specificity, although hopefully his submissions won’t. There is the second, more important, issue of actually getting to the point where fairness comes into play at all; that looks more problematic. Finally, contrary to what has been said here in the last couple of days, the judge is required to give consideration to the unfairness, inter alia, by reference to “all the circumstances”. That means both parties.
It is unclear in this particular case what you suggest the unfairness (in a strict legal sense, not just what people think feels/sounds unfair) is when you actually apply the relevant tests to the facts. This type of agreement has been tested before in the courts (and the consumer has failed) which is why the FOS might be the better option as their unfairness threshold/assessments seem much more lax. In any event, going to MCOL before FOS, is for reasons previously stated likely to be prejudicial to any case, notably if looking for the voucher only.
I think the issue is you are simply stating your opinion and in doing so – often you reveal a bias towards Creation.
Your comment around customer fairness is a red herring and if used by the defence won’t reflect well on them.
The reality is no one knows how a court will view these actions, including you. If you have experience of court you will know, as I do that results can vary from expectations.
I think the issue is you are simply stating your opinion and in doing so – often you reveal a bias towards Creation.
Your comment around customer fairness is a red herring and if used by the defence won’t reflect well on them.
The reality is no one knows how a court will view these actions, including you. If you have experience of court you will know, as I do that results can vary from expectations.
Thank you. It’s nice to see a more balanced post! To the extent I seem Creation biased, the intention is that people who have less experience of litigation need to recognise that litigation has two sides and it is important to understand and address the other party’s case.
Your last sentence makes a point I have been trying to make, but does do more succinctly and eloquently. I think people’s expectations are a little high/simplistic and of course people may get different outcomes in front of different judges.
@JDB you’re selective with what you want to reply to 🙂
What’s the point of coming here and saying that some people have got “resolution” without saying how that was achieved? Maybe instead of just berating everyone for their proposed course of action it would have been more helpful to start with that…
Various people including me made those suggestions back in October but they were derided and now it’s a bit late. In general, I would always try a conciliatory approach first, as within regulated businesses you need to reach a goodwill type settlement so it doesn’t have to be applied to all.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
New to Head for Points?
Welcome! We’re the UK’s most-read source of business travel, Avios, frequent flyer and hotel loyalty news. Let us improve how you travel. Got any questions? Ask them in our forums.
SPECIAL OFFER: Get 10,000 Avios with the free Barclaycard until 26th September 2024!
NEW: Sign-up bonuses boosted to 3,000 and 18,000 points
Latest Forum Posts
-
TGLoyalty on Cancelled flight SYD – LON – Compensation?
-
JoeCrystal on Can now redeem GHA Discovery Dollars when booking stays!!
-
Jill Kinkell on Chat thread – Tuesday 17th September
-
Blair Waldorf Salad on Virgin offer on Amex – 100% statement credit (upto £100)… pretty good offer
-
Lady London on BA/AA rerouting options to YYC
-
-
meta on Cancelled flight SYD – LON – Compensation?
-
memesweeper on Chat thread – Monday 16th September
-
-
Get 40,000 bonus points (worth 40,000 Avios) and £300 dining credit with The Platinum Card
Check reward flight availability instantly for free!
Get £10 when you spend £150 on your free Currensea card
Booking a luxury hotel?
Our luxury hotel booking service offers you GUARANTEED extra benefits over booking direct. Works with Four Seasons, Mandarin Oriental, The Ritz Carlton, St Regis and more. We've booked £1.7 million of rooms to date. Click for details.
SME? GET POINTS WORTH 10,500 AVIOS WITH CAPITAL ON TAP
Get 20,000 bonus points (converts to 20,000 Avios) with 'first year free' American Express Gold
