Citibank readyCredit - Give yourself a present this xmas

[New Chump]

Unfortunately, section 51AF on Unfair Practices states "Part does not apply to financial services", the Trade Practices Act 1974 was the first thing I checked out, bugger. Regardless we still have a very strong case.

Happy to stand corrected if I'm wrong.

^Lawyer hat on

You are correct, but section 12DA of the ASIC Act contains the same prohibition on misleading and deceptive conduct which does apply to financial services.

So if s52 of the TPA doesn't apply in this instance, section 12AC of the ASIC Act will apply*.

^Lawyer hat off

* Note: any (unremunerated) legal advice provided by NC should not be relied on.

 

[bits]

^Lawyer hat on

You are correct, but section 12DA of the ASIC Act contains the same prohibition on misleading and deceptive conduct which does apply to financial services.

So if s52 of the TPA doesn't apply in this instance, section 12AC of the ASIC Act will apply*.

^Lawyer hat off

Sweet, more ammo.

 

[e_wolfe]

I received a letter today from Citibank acknowledging that they have received my letter of complaint that the Ombudsman forwarded to them and stating that they will conduct a review and respond to me as soon as possible.
I don't have much faith in what they call "as soon as possible" given that they continually promised that I would recieve the cash back at ever later dates before refusing to pay it all together. Well, they have until the 9th of March to respond before the Ombudsman steps in to make a ruling. I'm guessing that the 9th of March will come and go without the matter being resolved by Citibank.

 

[kaki]

Unfortunately, section 51AF on Unfair Practices states "Part does not apply to financial services", the Trade Practices Act 1974 was the first thing I checked out, bugger. Regardless we still have a very strong case.

Happy to stand corrected if I'm wrong.

^Lawyer hat on

You are correct, but section 12DA of the ASIC Act contains the same prohibition on misleading and deceptive conduct which does apply to financial services.

So if s52 of the TPA doesn't apply in this instance, section 12AC of the ASIC Act will apply*.

^Lawyer hat off

* Note: any (unremunerated) legal advice provided by NC should not be relied on.

I have just been reminded that most corporations loathe consulting their leagal advisers. This simply costs them too much. If our correspondence to Citibank sounds 'legal', they would have to decide to simply settle or incur a larger legal bill.

Also, the current affairs producers may be more interested in the story if we can demonstrate mass. This is a good timing - post-X'mas, high debt, lots of zero interest balance transfer in the market, etc. I suggest that we start flagging the media.

 

[bits]

I have lodged my claim and now await the Ombudsman's reply and Citibank's subsequent response. Like e_wolfe I am not expecting Citibank to come to the party.

The Ombudsman's 2005 annual report indicates that of the 337 Citibank cases closed last year, 96.1% were settled early with a median of 69 days taken to settle. This compares with 91.6% settled early with a median of 55 days across the industry as whole.

Out of interest, supposing Citibank came back to us with a better offer, what percentage of your accumulated cashback would Citibank have to offer you in order to stop you proceeding with further action? (if not 100%)

 

[Mahtoh]

Tip number one:

Keep AAAAALLLLL of the paperwork you have evidencing the offers that were made to you.

Thanks

 

[Mahtoh]

Tip number two:

In addition to the banking ombudsman, go straight to ASIC. They regulate the financial services industry. They will not accept anything less from citibank than full compensation.

 

[sumo]

$160 fee

I too got charged the $160 fee, not sure if it yearly or just every time they need a profit boost. I also have a large balance at 4.99% that im paying off at the minimum, sucko's to them for making the offer.
I have not however been offered the cash back.

 

[Mahtoh]

My only regret is that I did not discover this site sooner and get into it.

What a beautiful arbitrage. Citibank only have themselves to blame.

 

[New Chump]

Citibank only have themselves to blame.

This is true, although they are not blaming themselves just yet. :evil:

Let's hope that the Banking Ombudsman is able to read and understand plain english terms, which Citibank seems unable (or, more likely, unwilling) to do.

NC

 

[kaki]

I have lodged my claim and now await the Ombudsman's reply and Citibank's subsequent response. Like e_wolfe I am not expecting Citibank to come to the party.

The Ombudsman's 2005 annual report indicates that of the 337 Citibank cases closed last year, 96.1% were settled early with a median of 69 days taken to settle. This compares with 91.6% settled early with a median of 55 days across the industry as whole.

Out of interest, supposing Citibank came back to us with a better offer, what percentage of your accumulated cashback would Citibank have to offer you in order to stop you proceeding with further action? (if not 100%)

I too have received acknowledgement from the Ombudsman office of my formal complaint. A sensible corporation would settle the matter sooner rather than later. However, sensibility may requires pressure especially that which damages business. How can we get the media interested in this ? Perhaps I am naive ... I am rather disappointed that there is no media coverage on this matter at all.

Before I decided to take this matter to the Ombudsman, I was prepared to consider a reasonable settlement from Citibank. $500 is simply not reasonable. I was prepared to take 75% of the cashback due. The remaining 25% would be my pleasure in beating Citibank on home turf.

But now, I would not settle for anything less than the full amount plus interest. If the Ombudsman does not rule in my favour, I would escalate the matter to ASIC. Then, I may make further claim for cost.

I am still collecting evidence. I have enough to demonstrate that Citibank selectively not honouring the cashback. Apparently, Citibank honours those which involve small sums only regardless of how the cheques were written.

I also have enough to show that the $160 fee is selectively applied and the cashback scheme is selectively offered. Both these 'initiatives' were to reduce the benefit of previous standing offers, such as life-time low-rate balance transfer. This will be used against Citibank to show that Citibank had not acted in good faith. Hence, we have every right to defend our financial position. Citibank's claim to be a victim of a well intended offer - one which merely encourages/facilitates purchase of goods and services - will look silly.

 

[oz_mark]

I have lodged my claim and now await the Ombudsman's reply and Citibank's subsequent response. Like e_wolfe I am not expecting Citibank to come to the party.

The Ombudsman's 2005 annual report indicates that of the 337 Citibank cases closed last year, 96.1% were settled early with a median of 69 days taken to settle. This compares with 91.6% settled early with a median of 55 days across the industry as whole.

Out of interest, supposing Citibank came back to us with a better offer, what percentage of your accumulated cashback would Citibank have to offer you in order to stop you proceeding with further action? (if not 100%)

I too have received acknowledgement from the Ombudsman office of my formal complaint. A sensible corporation would settle the matter sooner rather than later. However, sensibility may requires pressure especially that which damages business. How can we get the media interested in this ? Perhaps I am naive ... I am rather disappointed that there is no media coverage on this matter at all.

From what I have observed, the media seem to prefer people who come across as battlers that have been wronged by some big nasty corporation. Reading through this thread, I think the people here may have some problem in being seen as battlers.

 

[bits]

Then again, shows such as ACA and Today Tonight love their bank-bashing stories, perennial favourites...

 

[NM]

From what I have observed, the media seem to prefer people who come across as battlers that have been wronged by some big nasty corporation. Reading through this thread, I think the people here may have some problem in being seen as battlers.

I agree. Although Citibank stuffed up their Ts and Cs on this promotion and as such should honour their commitment, the folks here went out of their way to take advantage of this error for their own gain. I do not beleive they will have much public/media support for their claims.

 

[e_wolfe]

From what I have observed, the media seem to prefer people who come across as battlers that have been wronged by some big nasty corporation. Reading through this thread, I think the people here may have some problem in being seen as battlers.

I agree. Although Citibank stuffed up their Ts and Cs on this promotion and as such should honour their commitment, the folks here went out of their way to take advantage of this error for their own gain. I do not beleive they will have much public/media support for their claims.

I guess given that this forum is generally for frequent flyers I can see your point. However - I am not a frequent flyer. I joined this site at the end of December 2005 because I had not recieved my cash back for my November 2005 transactions and did a search on the internet for Citibank cash back and found this site.
I disagree that Citibank made an error. Their terms were clear and if they had made an error they would have quickly printed a correction. I believe they underestimated the takeup of the offer and are now trying to find a way not to honour the cashback.

 

[kaki]

..., I think the people here may have some problem in being seen as battlers.

I agree. Although Citibank stuffed up their Ts and Cs on this promotion and as such should honour their commitment, the folks here went out of their way to take advantage of this error for their own gain. I do not beleive they will have much public/media support for their claims.

... I joined this site at the end of December 2005 because I had not recieved my cash back for my November 2005 transactions and did a search on the internet for Citibank cash back and found this site.
I disagree that Citibank made an error. Their terms were clear and if they had made an error they would have quickly printed a correction. I believe they underestimated the takeup of the offer and are now trying to find a way not to honour the cashback.

I too found this site when I didn't get what was due from Citibank. I agree that most of us appear not to be the helpless battler. This is simply we make the effort to fight what what we believe is right. We are fighting against a large corporation nevertheless. When I first asked Citibank to convince me why I should accept the low $500 settlement, the response carried a bullying tone. It was intimidating but that gave me further courage to defy. Hence, we are battler in our way.

I agree that it was not an error such that we victimise Citibank. Citibank made a calculated move to maximise financial gain at the expense of the customers. It is unfortunate for Citibank that this time it backfires. Citibank took full advantage of the right to impose fee, to structure how each repayment is treated (ie to pay off the component which is subjected to the lowest interest rate first) and further bombard us with various convoluted offers. I strongly believe that it is fair for us to read the rules well and play hard to win. So, I wouldn't label myself as one who 'went out of their way to take advantage of this error for their own gain' with a negative light.

I reckon that Citibank knew about the problem in Dec. High payouts were not delivered but small ones were. Citibank chose to remain silent despite having decided not to pay. The conduct was certainly not in good faith. Perhaps Citibank was hoping that small indivivuals can be bullied into accepting an insignificant token while continue to generate more revenue unchallenged. Hence Citibank played on for another month.

I am angry that Citibank implies that I am greedy or immoral. According to Citibank, the $500 settlement is very generous considering that i have not suffered any financial loss.

The official cash rate is 5plus% but Citibank charges 12.99%. Would Citibank return the difference minus the operation overhead/cost ? Surely no.

There were occasions when I forgot to pay bills and I was slapped with all sorts of fee. I do not believe that the one-day lateness would cost $20 or so of financial loss to the creditor. Would the creditor accept $1 instead of $20 as late fee, or would the creditor justify the $20 penalty ? Surely no.

 

[bits]

e-wolfe, March 9 has come and gone, did Citibank bother to offer a revised settlement offer after sending their acknowledgement of dispute from the Ombudsman?

 

[e_wolfe]

e-wolfe, March 9 has come and gone, did Citibank bother to offer a revised settlement offer after sending their acknowledgement of dispute from the Ombudsman?

Hi everyone,
I rang the Ombudsman last Thursday and was told that they had recieved a response from Citibank - but had not had a chance to look at it as yet. I guess they are busy. Then on Friday I recieved a letter from Citibank stating that my transactions were not eligible for the cashback. The letter stated that even though the promotional material didn't specifically say so - the cash back was only meant to be for the purchase of goods and services. They will not honour the cashback - however are still offering $500 to settle. I reject their statement completely. Especially as the promotional material even said that cash withdrawals are included and I don't see how a cash withdrawal can be seen as purchasing goods or services. The letter also stated that Citibank agrees I was told on several occassions that I would recieve the cashback when I rang them at the end of December 2005 and January 2006. I rang the Ombudsman today - but it was a public holiday in Victoria. I will ring again tomorrow and indicate that I am not satisfied with Citibank's response and that I wish the Ombudsman to make a ruling. The terms of the promotion were clear - I don't see how Citibank can get out of paying as promised. They clearlly defined "spend" in the promotional material and under that definition all my transactions were "spends"

 

[arun]

I was one of the people who got the $160.00 fee. Citibank's intention was to selectively rip off people like me (after offering a fee-free account in the beginning) who took advantage of the low interest. It has severly backfired on them. I am sure the person who suggested and implemented this scheme will be in hot waters (if he / she is still employed at Citibank).

Citibank does not have much of a chance here as they have honoured paid cash back for cash advances to some people and not the other. It will be interesting to see what the ombudsman has to say. The fact that Citibank is sticking to its guns may mean that there is a huge sum at stake.

It shows to see how some bright ideas to penalise your customers selectively can back fire.

Whatever their genuine intentions were:
1. They wanted to increase the number of ready card accounts
2. They offered 4.9% for lifetime of balance transfers and convenience cheques to attract the customers.
3. They offered a high credit limit to get the customers to spend.

AND
4. They made the ASSUMPTION that customers will spend more and get into the 18% interest trap.

People like me took the full credit limit as cheques and took advantage of the 4.9%. We did not exploit any loopholes or anything.

It is just their ASSUMPTION that was proved wrong.


Then to force us to move to the 18%, they enforced the $160 fee using a loophole in their T&C, saying it is not an annual fee but a once off fee. To make it even more attractive they offered the cashback with the ASSUMPTION that people will get into debt at 18% by spending more (including cash advances). People decided to turn this to their advantage.

In my opinion, it is all Citibank's assumptions gone wrong. It is not about "good intentions". It is all about "incorrect assumptions". They have to pay for their incorrect assumptions.

 

[bits]

If anyone is interested, the Citibank Ready Credit $160 fee fiasco got a write up in the February 2006 edition of Money magazine. I happened to come across it when I was in the local library the other day, bad publicity makes interesting reading.