A discussion on the ethics and legality of scripting 1 cent transactions!

[oz_mark]

Arguably BW has breached that duty by not warning people to cease undertaking these transactions before closing the account.

Realsitically; what sort of warming could BW have given that people would have taken notice of?

 

[Deleted member 29185]

yes that was in relation to reports of incorrectly credited points, not the ones earnt during the lifetime of those accounts.

This is exactly right.

AFAIK, NO points earned directly from transactions of 1¢ or more were "clawed back".

I believe Ausflyer and NoName have got it exactly right!

Thank you. I was of the impression it was a mixed bag. So in reality, this is a non event? A Norwegian Blue? Stunned? (Norwegian Blues stun easily)

This is a non-event? It's shagged out following a long squawk?

It's pinin' for the Fjords?

It's bereft of life, a stiff, has ceased to be and bleedin' demised?

Is it passed on, gone to meet it's maker, restin' in peace and pushin' up daisies?

Is it's metabolic process now 'istory?

Has it kicked the bucket and shuffled off it's mortal coil?

Has the curtain run down and has it bolted off to join the bleedin' choir invisible?

This is an EX-DISCUSSION. It would neither nuzzle up to the bars with it's beak, nor Vooom. This discussion wouldn't vooooooom if you put 4000 volts through it!

* adapted (well copied directly) from one of the greatest skits on earth, thanks to Monty Python!

 

[Isochronous]

Realsitically; what sort of warming could BW have given that people would have taken notice of?

1. They could have introduced a de minimis clause in the T&Cs - e.g. minimum transaction amount (whether that is 5c or 10c or wherever - they could have drawn a line somewhere)

2. They could have sent a warning letter to customers saying that the bank considered their transaction patterns to be abusive, and that if the customer failed to desist from such behaviour then BW would close the account. This would be much fairer than immediately closing the account without warning, and also means the bank gets to keep a customer.

 

[lovetravellingoz]

and also means the bank gets to keep a customer.

Purely a wild guess by myself, but I would guestimate that many who were using 1 cent payments were going to depart BW whether or not the awarding of points was ended nicely or not.

 

[oz_mark]

1. They could have introduced a de minimis clause in the T&Cs - e.g. minimum transaction amount (whether that is 5c or 10c or wherever - they could have drawn a line somewhere)

And they have clearly chosen not to.

2. They could have sent a warning letter to customers saying that the bank considered their transaction patterns to be abusive, and that if the customer failed to desist from such behaviour then BW would close the account. This would be much fairer than immediately closing the account without warning, and also means the bank gets to keep a customer.

A warning without any T&C backing would have had no effect other than to generate long threads here from people asserting they were within the T&Cs. I doubt they are customers that BW want....

 

[burmans]

A warning without any T&C backing would have had no effect other than to generate long threads here from people asserting they were within the T&Cs. I doubt they are customers that BW want....

I would have thought the decision not to go down the "abuse" route was quite deliberate by BW and their lawyers (despite the assertions of some on this forum), given abuse is not a defined term it's very subjective and hence open to challenge. Whereas I think their right to close an account is quite clear in the T&C's and does not require they give any reason. Leaving aside my personal opinions on the matter, this would in my opinion have been seen by their lawyers as a much cleaner way to handle this as it is less open to challenge.

I do agree with the fact that BW could have easily avoided this problem buy introducing a minimum transaction amount. Yes, I understand they chose not to, but allowing it and then closing peoples account because they are doing something they have allowed, is not in my opinion acting in a principled manner.

 

[lovetravellingoz]

Yes, I understand they chose not to, but allowing it and then closing peoples account because they are doing something they have allowed, is not in my opinion acting in a principled manner.

?? I think BW probably thought that those doing it were not exactly acting in a "principled manner" either. Come on let's be honest here. Using scripting in this way was definitely dodgey.

I fully understand people taking advantage of the opportunity that BW provided. But personally I cannot fathom all the angst by many at it it being ended." I am only amazed that BW took so long to cease it.

Companies in conducting award programs, promos make mistakes all the time. I like most, if not virtually all on this forum, take advantage of such occurrences.

However I think that anyone using scripts to pay 1 cent payments is being somewhat delusional if they do not think that they were taking advantage of BW's incompetence in how they ran their point system. Now don't take me the wrong way, I am not saying that they should not have used scripts at all. Just that they should not be all that surprised that BW does not value them as a customer going forward.

 

[Kangol]

Whereas I think their right to close an account is quite clear in the T&C's and does not require they give any reason. Leaving aside my personal opinions on the matter, this would in my opinion have been seen by their lawyers as a much cleaner way to handle this as it is less open to challenge.

You mean it is not open to challenge. That's why the clause is there and that's why they did it.

 

[Aussie_flyer]

Actually there is next to no angst here among those who had accounts closed. Most said " it was great whilst it lasted ". The vast majority of angst in this discussion has been from those who didn't have an account and wanted to argue why they thought those who were using it to the max were so in the wrong.

 

[burmans]

You mean it is not open to challenge. That's why the clause is there and that's why they did it.

Well some have still attempted to challenge anyway but I do agree the likelihood of success is minimal.

 

[burmans]

?? I think BW probably thought that those doing it were not exactly acting in a "principled manner" either. Come on let's be honest here. Using scripting in this way was definitely dodgey.

I fully understand people taking advantage of the opportunity that BW provided. But personally I cannot fathom all the angst by many at it it being ended." I am only amazed that BW took so long to cease it.

Companies in conducting award programs, promos make mistakes all the time. I like most, if not virtually all on this forum, take advantage of such occurrences.

However I think that anyone using scripts to pay 1 cent payments is being somewhat delusional if they do not think that they were taking advantage of BW's incompetence in how they ran their point system. Now don't take me the wrong way, I am not saying that they should not have used scripts at all. Just that they should not be all that surprised that BW does not value them as a customer going forward.

If you make a mistake, correct it. 2 1/2 years later it's no longer a mistake, it's a conscious decision not to fix despite many opportunities to do so.

 

[lovetravellingoz]

If you make a mistake, correct it. 2 1/2 years later it's no longer a mistake, it's a conscious decision not to fix despite many opportunities to do so.

If you are trying to imply that Bankwest thought it was a great idea to foster micro-payments for such a long period, then I doubt that completely.


If you read my post again you will note that I remarked that I was amazed that they took so long to act. As to why it took them so long one can only speculate. Incompetence, covering up, stupidity, no-one checking, "it's not my job", not understanding what the problem really was, or just greed from the marketing department gaining fat bonuses for "new customers", the Marketing Whizz not wanting to admit that their brain-child was more Frankenstein than Enstein, or all of the above etc etc...

I don't know why/how they mucked up so grandly, but this is one huge cough* Up.

I personally would not be that surprised that for a long time that their internal monitoring systems did not flag that they had a problem, and that they as an organisation thought that they were doing really well at acquiring new customers.

Allowing such a system for so long simply does not stack up. It does not attract customers that you really want, generated behaviour that would have created extra costs for the bank and a number of organisations.

Organisations can and do make mistakes, and sometimes for lengthy periods. I can think of two currently that Amex has been ignoring for years.(Thanks Amex )

I personally benefited from a Amex Promo majorly because while they realised they had stuffed up initially they thought it was due to allowing people to register for a promo that they were not entitled to, rather than that the big problem being that the bonus per point was simply way too generous.

 

[lovetravellingoz]

Actually there is next to no angst here among those who had accounts closed. Most said " it was great whilst it lasted ". The vast majority of angst in this discussion has been from those who didn't have an account and wanted to argue why they thought those who were using it to the max were so in the wrong.

Well my motto is that if there is an opportunity go for it. However also I tend to think that the biggest opportunities present from stuff-ups rather than well planned promos.

 

[N860CR]

What amazes me with this was that bankwest actually did pull at least one person up years ago for the small transactions (a forum member Rick). They said they were closing his account and cited (verbally) the small transactions which amounted to I think a hundred or so a day. They, however, did not take issue with everyone else who ran to the 50 a day limit.

It does smack of total incompetence at many levels of bankwest and that's largely why they get no sympathy from me

 

[burmans]

If you are trying to imply that Bankwest thought it was a great idea to foster micro-payments for such a long period, then I doubt that completely.


If you read my post again you will note that I remarked that I was amazed that they took so long to act. As to why it took them so long one can only speculate. Incompetence, covering up, stupidity, no-one checking, "it's not my job", not understanding what the problem really was, or just greed from the marketing department gaining fat bonuses for "new customers", the Marketing Whizz not wanting to admit that their brain-child was more Frankenstein than Enstein, or all of the above etc etc...

I don't know why they cough*** Up so grandly, but this is one huge cough* Up.

I personally would not be that surprised that for a long time that their internal monitoring systems did not flag that they had a problem, and that they as an organisation thought that they were doing really well at acquiring new customers.

Allowing such a system for so long simply does not stack up. It does not attract customers that you really want, generated behaviour that would have created extra costs for the bank and a number of organisations.

Organisations can and do make mistakes, and sometimes for lengthy periods. I can think of two currently that Amex has been ignoring for years.(Thanks Amex )

I personally benefited from a Amex Promo majorly because while they realised they had stuffed up initially they thought it was due to allowing people to register for a promo that they were not entitled to, rather than that the big problem being that the bonus per point was simply way too generous.

Don't disagree with most of this except one thing, that BW didn't know of this. There was one person on this forum they cancelled about a year in for their excessive transaction (Rick), to do that they clearly had to know he was making excessive transactions.

I also would suggest we are still speculating here. All the other organisations affected did take steps to restrict either small value usage and/or the number of transactions in a period of time. The fact that BW have not nor made any changes to their T&C's over an extended period, while not conclusive, does not really lend any support to speculation going on in this forum that BW regarded it as fraud etc. In fact the only suggestion that make sense to me on the facts of BW external behaviour is that in many ways they were quite happy with the product design but wanted to get rid of the more extreme users who weren't profitable.

 

[serfty]

Re: Bankwest Transaction account [General Discussion]

As I posted here 50 weeks ago:

Paying bills with 1¢ increments in such a manner would likely benefit QFF; similar with BankWest- so neither of those entities would be looking to shut such activity down based on that premise.

That leaves the Billers - I am thinking this activity may have a perverse aspect in that it could distort KPI's and other statistics in such a manner to be beneficial for certain managers or departments such that they are not interested in shutting it down.

 

[burmans]

Re: Bankwest Transaction account [General Discussion]

As I posted here 50 weeks ago:

Yes, I agree with that post.

 

[d00dz]

Re: Bankwest Transaction account [General Discussion]

Not sure if I should make a new post or such but about 2 years ago I discovered a method where you could get/take money out of any credit card for a small fee and at the same time obtain reward points and cash at an ATM. It was really good. I churned over 3million dollars in a year and half, got many trips and items.

Was it legal? Yes
Was it ethical? Who knows, it was the providers fault for allowing the loophole.

 

[hossein_au]

Re: Bankwest Transaction account [General Discussion]

Not sure if I should make a new post or such but about 2 years ago I discovered a method where you could get/take money out of any credit card for a small fee and at the same time obtain reward points and cash at an ATM. It was really good. I churned over 3million dollars in a year and half, got many trips and items.

Was it legal? Yes
Was it ethical? Who knows, it was the providers fault for allowing the loophole.

I have no idea what method you refer to, but I can share my experience: by all means, share it with people you might have met on this (and other) sites and you have come to trust, but be warned that if you post it here (or elsewhere), it'll be pick up by bloggers and such, and therefore it'll be shut far faster than it otherwise would or might. Just my $0.02.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

Re: Bankwest Transaction account [General Discussion]

Just my $0.02.

$0.02, or 10 points??