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

[Kangol]

Re: Bankwest Transaction account [General Discussion]

In my opinion they are chalk and cheese.

The original reference was to paying say a $74 Telstra bill via 7400 x 1c transactions using 8 cards from 4 different accounts.

I don't think that's reasonable. It's not fraud but it's very close to abuse. You don't have to agree. My opinion is irrelevant. Bankwest is the one that matters and it appears they don't care as they are flogging an unattractive product. Not sure why they think losing money is worth it in the long run unless they close this loophole.

By definition, you are saying that it is neither fraud, nor is it abuse.

Like medhead's point above, what is the limit? The number of transactions is still limited to 50 per day. If making 50 transactions in a day is abuse, then how many is not considered abuse? I wonder what a court would think. Why don't BW limit it to say, 5 transactions per day? If BW allow 50 per day then that is clearly within the terms and conditions. No one here is manipulating their system by making more than 50 transactions per day. By setting the limit to 50 per day, they are telling you that 50 per day is allowed. Doing something that they allow you would not constitute abuse. If they have chosen to not publish a limit, then that is where they fall.

 

[Radio8tiv]

Re: Bankwest Transaction account [General Discussion]

What an interesting read this has been, but I'm still not sure what the problem is?
BWA is not losing out here and neither is QF I would imagine the only party losing money here would be the one accepting the payments and paying the merchant fees, when I first started this a few months ago I was paying my electricity bill @ $0.21 x 50 payments daily and after only a few weeks they upped the minimum allowed to $5.00 so if the recipient has a problem with it I'm sure it's easy enough for them to change it.
Im sure some agree it is abuse to have multiple cards on multiple accounts, I for one will stick to my one account one card policy but only in an attempt to not "rock the boat" and have this system come to an end, but each to their own
Im only new to AFF and the whole points grab so am grateful to have received information and guidance from this forum and this thread, but I was well aware that this game may come to an end one day just like many other games we play to achieve our points goals.

 

[medhead]

Re: Bankwest Transaction account [General Discussion]

Just to clarify, comparing Version 2.0 1 March 2014, to Version 4.0 12 January 2016, and the statements on abuse and fraud haven't been added or changed in Version 4.0. They are the same as Version 2.0. Most of the changes I can observe in Version 4.0 compared to version 2.0 relate to Deposit and spend requirements (section 4A).

It seems those requirements only relate to spend and deposit for new customers during a limited period in 2015.

 

[NoName]

Re: Bankwest Transaction account [General Discussion]

Just to clarify, comparing Version 2.0 1 March 2014, to Version 4.0 12 January 2016, and the statements on abuse and fraud haven't been added or changed in Version 4.0. They are the same as Version 2.0. Most of the changes I can observe in Version 4.0 compared to version 2.0 relate to Deposit and spend requirements (section 4A).

So what you're saying is that nothing relevant to making micro-payments has been changed since the product was launched nearly two years ago?


EDIT: Version 2.0 would indicate a 2nd version, however the product was launched on or around that date - 1 Mar 2014.

 

[JohnK]

Re: Bankwest Transaction account [General Discussion]

By definition, you are saying that it is neither fraud, nor is it abuse.

Like medhead's point above, what is the limit? The number of transactions is still limited to 50 per day. If making 50 transactions in a day is abuse, then how many is not considered abuse? I wonder what a court would think. Why don't BW limit it to say, 5 transactions per day? If BW allow 50 per day then that is clearly within the terms and conditions. No one here is manipulating their system by making more than 50 transactions per day. By setting the limit to 50 per day, they are telling you that 50 per day is allowed. Doing something that they allow you would not constitute abuse. If they have chosen to not publish a limit, then that is where they fall.

I don't think it's fraud nor do I think it's abuse but it's a questionable practice if investigated. Also adding further weight to the argument if true that the Telstra bill is overpaid using the same method.

 

[ETA_2022]

Now, I'm not sure how to feel, because, as I read these posts, I'm running the macro in the background!

...

The original reference was to paying say a $74 Telstra bill via 7400 x 1c transactions using 8 cards from 4 different accounts.

...

That's such a waste. You only need 5 cards to pay that amount!

 

[Deleted member 29185]

Re: Bankwest Transaction account [General Discussion]

I'm really looking forward to the entertainment in reading these last few pages. (I haven't had time, but briefly scanned a few replies).

Honestly, I fail to see how payment of a bill can be fraud, misuse or abuse. If the company does allow small payment increments, how is that the clients problem? The comment made earlier about "it not being like buying 50 cups of coffee" is not entirely correct either.....a Telstra bill for example is made up of lots individual services (phone calls, SMS, MMS fax, data etc), many being charged individually but lumped together for ease of billing. If someone wants to pay for those services one at a time and the company allows it, where is the problem? It is like those coffees. One can pay per cup if they like or ask the barista to lump them all in one account.....it happens all the time, even on credit if you know the barista well. Also, for a banker to suggest there is something wrong with an automated payment system is beyond belief. Banks have been using automated payments for donkeys years to minimise cost and maximise profit......so why is that OK for banks, but not for the customers? Also, if a customer applies for multiple cards without the use of lying and the finance facility approves them, how could that be fraud? The only thing I see that could be objectionable is if customers are being deceptive in obtaining cards.....if not, end of story.

 

[JohnK]

Re: Bankwest Transaction account [General Discussion]

What I don't get is why BW haven't closed this loophole as they are well aware of this thread (was mentioned early last year) and will absolutely know about the 1c payments.

This could be fixed overnight with a minimum QFF transaction qualification of say 50c - for the 99.9% of cardholders doing the right thing this will have zero impact but will realistically reduce BW's liability from 7750 QFF points (based on a 31 day month) for a $15.50 spend to 7750QFF points per $775 spend - good luck maxing that out.

I am dumbfounded BW have let this go on for a long as they have to be honest.

Maybe Bankwest don't care. Maybe they are making money out of it and it is Telstra, Optus paying for the costs of the small transactions.

What is clear though is there is a rush now from banks to limit point earning. Yes there are still signon bonuses but there is a new announcement every week. ATO spend, Citibank including Virgin money, ANZ and I think NAB is also making changes.

It's hard to keep up with all the changes. The gamers do ok. They don't care as it's just a game to them. For the rest it's getting harder to earn enough points for something meaningful and it's going to get harder.

 

[dodgeyhack]

Re: Bankwest Transaction account [General Discussion]

Maybe Bankwest don't care. Maybe they are making money out of it and it is Telstra, Optus paying for the costs of the small transactions.

Telstra may not care either. Having a bill that can be paid in amounts of $0.01 requires a contract rather than pre-paid (at least in my case) so there's a potential offset for the cost there as contracts are usually result in a higher overall spend.

 

[ETA_2022]

Re: Bankwest Transaction account [General Discussion]

More than a year ago BW closed Rick93's and his/her partner's accounts, most likely due to doing more than 50 payments per card per day.

At the time, some suggested the points maximisers time was up!

Now, has cxthomps has finished PMing, all those who asked for information about getting another card for their account, yet?

 

[Nutcase]

SME? Small and medium enterprise?

The big question is, why did I actually bother to type all this up???

Because in this context SME in the acronym for "Situational Matter expert".

Telstra may not care either. Having a bill that can be paid in amounts of $0.01 requires a contract rather than pre-paid (at least in my case) so there's a potential offset for the cost there as contracts are usually result in a higher overall spend.

Telstra have to pay a click fee to the payments gateway at around $0.10 per transaction plus the MSF to the acquirer. Its not a good deal for them

That's such a waste. You only need 5 cards to pay that amount!

What scares me is that its not seen as abuse or fraud rather that "They had it coming and deserved it. They were asking to be treated like that."

Its a bit 1950's isnt it?

 

[medhead]

Re: Bankwest Transaction account [General Discussion]

Because in this context SME in the acronym for "Situational Matter expert".

Which still does not support your claim to an educated opinion on what constitutes manipulation of a website. You might have an opinion, but it is the claim to an educated opinion that is being questioned. A payments system subject matter expert would know about payments systems, not website programming.

BTW I thought you were moving on.

 

[dodgeyhack]

Re: Bankwest Transaction account [General Discussion]

Telstra have to pay a click fee to the payments gateway at around $0.10 per transaction plus the MSF to the acquirer. Its not a good deal for them

Maybe they should switch to these guys then and save some money.
https://www.merchantwarrior.com/pricing

and isn't MSF percentage based so it would round down to zero?

 

[mitwg]

Re: Bankwest Transaction account [General Discussion]

Maybe they should switch to these guys then and save some money.
https://www.merchantwarrior.com/pricing

and isn't MSF percentage based so it would round down to zero?

There's a percentage based fee but also a fixed fee that everyone involved in the transaction has to pay. For example, in case of switching, there's a switching fee per transaction that is a flat rate, yet it moves in tiers (so if you do 10~50 mil transactions a month, it might be $0.000x per transaction, but if you do 50-100 mil transactions, it might be $0.0000x, etc.)

So I definitely wouldn't think it a merchant would pay 'nothing' although, what may be possible is that the amount is negligible for them to care, or atleast the losses they make on this is not big enough to justify a project which is required to implement a change to the infrastructure (which can easily cost in the $x00,000 range, depending on how big the change is).

Also, by blocking payments of less than $5 for example, they might actually be making the customer experience worse for some customers who need to pay bills that small.

The situation is, it looks like as if the 'problem' caused by the BW warriors here, at this stage, is too minor for them to care about, at least for them to change anything swiftly.

 

[medhead]

Re: Bankwest Transaction account [General Discussion]

The situation is, it looks like as if the 'problem' caused by the BW warriors here, at this stage, is too minor for them to care about, at least for them to change anything swiftly.

That's the thing. There has to be no more 100 people, in this thread, making such payments. And probably 7 hardcore payers.
Any other guess is as good as my guess.

or another way: 600,000 points/50 =12000 transactions. cost 12,000* $0.000x = 12*$0.x =<$12 per year

 

[burmans]

Re: Bankwest Transaction account [General Discussion]

I note that in Australia we have a well developed legal system that means Bankwest are not judge, jury and executioner.

Have been trying to avoid this thread today but had to jump in on this one. Just because someone writes something in their T&C's does not mean it's enforceable or indeed enforced, and that's the ultimate judgement on any such legal document. Anyone who's been a member of this forum for any length of time would kbow of many examples where T&C's have been unable to be forced (the recent Citibank fiasco springs to mind) or just aren't (the non-enforcement of supposed inability to buy gift cards under various T&C's).

As medhead notes BWA are not judge, jury and executioner, various bodies like FOS, ACCC, APRA and ASIC have all had something to say on bank's T&C's over the years which have stopped them enforcing various clauses!

 

[samh004]

Re: Bankwest Transaction account [General Discussion]

PSA: Next to the quote button, you'll find another button that uses a picture of quotations marks inside a speech bubble with a "+"... this is a multi-quote button and is used when there are multiple posts you want to respond to, before clicking reply after the last one). I am getting fed up with having to merge posts in this thread because certain members post 3 or 4 times in a row. This can be seen as post padding.

 

[burmans]

Re: Bankwest Transaction account [General Discussion]

PSA: Next to the quote button, you'll find another button that uses a picture of quotations marks inside a speech bubble with a "+"... this is a multi-quote button and is used when there are multiple posts you want to respond to. I am getting fed up with having to merge posts in this thread because certain members post 3 or 4 times in a row. This can be seen as post padding.

While I don't doubt it happens I'm a bit perplexed as to why people would post-pad. Aside from the fact that some members seem to have this idea that a post which isn't perceived to be of much value becomes more valuable if repeated multiple times. But it my view the only people they are fooling here is themselves so am happy just to ignore these.

Aside from this I would have thought the main reason people multiple times is either a) they don't know how to multiple quote (so the reminder is timely) or just can't be bothered given it is perceived as extra effort.

I have, I must admit been guilty of this from time to time in the past when I'm time pressed and just want to reply to posts. But now I know you feel the need to correct it I'll be more cautious. Must admit though, if post-padding seems immaterial to me, having someone spend valuable time to manually merge seems like a somewhat waste of time. If post padding is somewhat immaterial, the value of correcting seems even less material! But I guess its your time and you can spend it how you wish, I'm just not sure what is gained out of it.

 

[samh004]

Re: Bankwest Transaction account [General Discussion]

I have, I must admit been guilty of this from time to time in the past when I'm time pressed and just want to reply to posts. But now I know you feel the need to correct it I'll be more cautious. Must admit though, if post-padding seems immaterial to me, having someone spend valuable time to manually merge seems like a somewhat waste of time. If post padding is somewhat immaterial, the value of correcting seems even less material! But I guess its your time and you can spend it how you wish, I'm just not sure what is gained out of it.

It's my pet peeve, correcting the behaviour, it shouldn't be your issue. I was simply bringing attention to the gross number of 3/4 posts in a row in this thread (which you'll see has a new home). A couple posts accidentally in a row here and there isn't an issue, I do it too. It can just be easier, and as you say a timely reminder, that it is possible, saving you from reloading the page multiple times to reply as you go down, but instead collecting a whole bunch of posts into one and replying in one go.

I think we're off topic though... do you have anything to add about the ethics of 1¢ transactions?

 

[burmans]

Re: Bankwest Transaction account [General Discussion]

It's my pet peeve, correcting the behaviour, it shouldn't be your issue. I was simply bringing attention to the gross number of 3/4 posts in a row in this thread (which you'll see has a new home). A couple posts accidentally in a row here and there isn't an issue, I do it too. It can just be easier, and as you say a timely reminder, that it is possible, saving you from reloading the page multiple times to reply as you go down, but instead collecting a whole bunch of posts into one and replying in one go.

No worries, just curious.

I think we're off topic though... do you have anything to add about the ethics of 1¢ transactions?

Not for now, I think this particular has run its course and very little useful new info is being added. Of course, sometimes I probably can't help myself when some of the more out there misinformation is put forward as fact.