A tongue in cheek comment from the agent when you ring up and say "My card should have an end date, but it says 'lifetime' ", the reply is "it's your lucky day, you've just one the lottery!". Incredible they thought VCAT would have come to another conclusion.“However, the moment a representative of Qantas indicates that this wasn't a mistake and in fact was the result of a draw, then that certainly changes matters.”
The issue is that there was no draw ,so it’s just another mistake. It’s not a “fact” that it was a result of a draw.
oh the offer is absolute tacit admission that they stuffed up by sending an incorrect card which created confusion and, well, an unrealistic expectation.Maybe QF did bring up the issue of the misprinted cards in the tribunal. After all the story is just the couple's version of what went down.
As well why did QF offer a 4 year complimentary membership? Possibly because they did know of the misprinted cards and there was some truth in the complainant's story.
I really can't imagine QF being so generous if it there wasn't some truth in the matter.
Or something like "wow, looks like you've won the lottery".it's your lucky day, you've just one the lottery!"
AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements
Thanks for the link.Here’s the judgment.
Wilson v Qantas
TL;DR
Got card in Dec 2018 did nothing.
Husband got card March 2019 and rang up as his didn’t say Lifetime.
Advised that wife would have won a prize.
Didn’t travel at all in 2020
Card rejected April 2021.
June 2021 told in writing that she doesn’t have Lifetime QP.
Here’s the judgment.
Wilson v Qantas
TL;DR
Got card in Dec 2018 did nothing.
Husband got card March 2019 and rang up as his didn’t say Lifetime.
Advised that wife would have won a prize.
Didn’t travel at all in 2020
Card rejected April 2021.
June 2021 told in writing that she doesn’t have Lifetime QP.
Yep - just the kind of response I was alluding toWhilst there's no way of us knowing exactly how the call went, I can certainly imagine the kind of scenario where the call centre agent says something jovial along the lines of :
"I can't see a record on the system of why you've received a lifetime membership card... Seems you got lucky, you must have one a prize draw, ha ha ha"
The judgement is worth reading.Here’s the judgment.
Wilson v Qantas
TL;DR
Got card in Dec 2018 did nothing.
Husband got card March 2019 and rang up as his didn’t say Lifetime.
Advised that wife would have won a prize.
Didn’t travel at all in 2020
Card rejected April 2021.
June 2021 told in writing that she doesn’t have Lifetime QP.
Now sure, I have some sympathy IF they were told that and did believe it. We do rely on company reps tell us in an interaction.. specially with something unusual like this when you're doing the right thing to call and confirm "Is this right?" so I can appreciate that aspect of it. I would probably feel the same.. but I still side with QF on this one. No record of any "draw" or "granted membership status" and also since QF have not done life membership for over 10 years prior to this incident, it's stretching things to think it's something they'd just bring back for a random thing like this - specially with no evidence but a alleged phone call to back it up.
They tried it on. good on them.
EDIT: Allowing for resolution etc I think it looks very similar.
Really it comes down to the couple being able to prove this draw "win" IMO - which of course they couldn't.
I don’t believe they had proof of Lifetime Club membership.Although I've expressed not much sympathy for the complainant, I think you are being a little hard, @RichardMEL . They did have some proof that they had LT QP- They had a card sent to them, and an initial agent who at least didn't just say its a mistake, cut it up. Unless someone is alleging that they fabricated the card, (NCAT hearing didn't hear such) and given the pics shown by PF, then there must have been several stages of QF's stuff-up. Some process concluded that the complainant had earned LT QP; a card was mailed out; a QF agent if not confirmed, then didn't say "mistake". There is hearsay here of course, but Qantas would have brought forward contrary evidence in NCAT if they could.
I can't see how they 'tried it on' - they had something sent to them which they tried to use in good faith some time after it was confirmed and they went to the appropriate tribunal when they were dissatisfied with Qantas' offer. As I've said, I think that was a step way too far, but they were entitled to do it - not a 'try on'.
I don't think it does come down to that. The 'draw' was a Qantas agent's construction, which they relied on.
PS I think there has been plenty of outrage here when status errors have occurred on-line and later taken away. Fortunately most have the sense to know when it was an error, and corrected.
PS I think there has been plenty of outrage here when status errors have occurred on-line and later taken away. Fortunately most have the sense to know when it was an error, and corrected.