Couple loses at VCAT over Lifetime QF Club card allegedly issued in error

[michaeljm]

It saddens me that this is 'news' in one of our largest newspapers... some entitled people trying to get free stuff by whinging

 

[drron]

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.

 

[Princess Fiona]

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.

 

[downgraded]

“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.

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.

 

[Kceips]

I know this couple (minimal contact in recent years) and am embarrassed for them that this has been reported in the Age - cannot understand why they pursued this. Seems quite out of character - they are well known in their local community and generously volunteer for all sorts of things. Had they chatted to friends we would have promptly advised to just let it go. Frustrating!

 

[muppet]

I feel like this is a common theme for people taking Qantas to court or tribunals.

People are angry at QF, some rightly and some not so much as in this case, and so they reject a reasonable settlement offer because they want more.

I think this is a good lesson for those wanting to make Qantas pay - take the offer, Qantas shareholders will have already lost the entire value of your ticket in legal department expenses even if you settle - you won, no need to persist for more!!

 

[RichardMEL]

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.

oh the offer is absolute tacit admission that they stuffed up by sending an incorrect card which created confusion and, well, an unrealistic expectation.

 

[RichardMEL]

When an airline, or other company, screws up and it is not in our favour (as is usually the case!) we are entitled to take action to pursue a reasonable settlement/recovery/compensation (see numerous other threads about bad things that have happened). That's normal and we get that. The flip side is when they screw up and we benefit by their error. Rare, but I'm sure quite a few of us have had little "wins" here and there. For example, I got extra 15 SC from the "covid vaccination proof" bonus promo thing they did (remember that? ugh) where they offered 15 SC for providing the proof. Mine posted on 1st of the month and were then immediately expired. I waited about about 3 weeks then sent a note to QF who promptly put them back great. Then anoter month or so later the system added them back a second time - net gain 15 SC. winner. Or those rare times that points are credited in error.. like one time I had an reward ticket in U during irrops reissued in a revenue J class which earned. They happen and we tend to be pretty happy and shut up about it. I am also one that if the airline discovered the error and rescinded those I would be totally fine with it and whenthey weren't and the year rolled over or whatever.. ripper. I don't expect it and certainly do not feel entitlement towards something I *know* is an error. I think most of us are in the same boat (also see "fight club").

While this case is a little bit different honestly, the bit about winning the prize is the only part that would give pause and cause the feeling of entitlement despite all other evidence to the contrary (ie husband's card being correctly reissued). So you have a card printing error compounded by an alleged call where a rep of the airline "verified" it was correct ("won a prize"). However after the scanning and refusal in 2021 and QF (properly) verifying there as no such promotion and she was not entitled.. well that should have been that. After all at the end of the day the airline can do what they like within the bounds of their rules AND they had to have thought this is a bit fishy in the first place to have somehow won a prize for which there was no documentation, letter or anything. I think most people - specially in these days of scams and the like - would have raised eyebrows.


ANyway they were offered a very generous compensation and chose not to take it. That's up to them and well so be it. I'm sure VA will be very happy to have their very irregular travel spend.

I think The Age (and other outlets) took up this story basically because it's a dig at QF and well let's stick the boot in. This is the kind of thing that ACA would be all over too really... a clickbait headline but the reality is something else.

 

[Quickstatus]

it's your lucky day, you've just one the lottery!"

Or something like "wow, looks like you've won the lottery".

 

[Bundy Bear]

I wonder when Qantas offered the 4 years lounge membership, was that on the day of the VCAT tribunal hearing, Qantas does seem to be slack by making incorrect cards in the first place then not fixing it straight away.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I’ve yet to read the judgment but I wouldn’t doubt a call centre agent saying someone ‘had’ won a prize. They are well know for making things up when they don’t know the answer. For example me being told categorically that Qantas doesn’t fly at all, any day of the week, after 8am between Melbourne and Sydney. That’s even for a ticket I wanted to pay for in cash. The agent treated me like an idiot for suggesting that Qantas does.

 

[half-hour]

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.

Thanks for the link.

The summary of the couple's case says:

"He said that when he contacted the airline service centre he was told that he was not a lifetime member and that his wife’s membership was the result of a special promotion or draw."

I can see how this phone call was totally irrelevant regarding the couple's case at NCAT. The phone conversation was primarily about the husband's status, and and presumably the agent would be focused on explaining why he was eligible for lifetime membership rather than thoroughly trying to investigate why the wife had a lifetime membership card.

 

[jpp42]

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.

"The applicant’s membership status was queried by the applicant through the respondent’s complaints mechanism over many months without resolution"

Sounds like Qantas for sure!

You have to think that VCAT could have been avoided if Qantas had responded quickly, admitted the mistake and proposed a reasonable remedy.

 

[p--and--t]

The most plausible scenario I can see is:

• Card printed and sent in error
• Wife doesn't query
• Husband rings up about him not getting it
• Agent merely tells him husband is not entitled, doesn't look up wife's profile under privacy regulations, "I don't know why (if) wife got it, maybe it was a promotion or something"
• Agent isn't going to follow-up as he has given husband answer about husbands status and the next call is waiting to be answered
• Agent may or may not have told husband to get wife to call if she wants to check her status
• When card got rejected a year later is the first time wife became aware
• Wife was in stressed state when got rejected, and both spat the dummy in a stressed state and ended up not being able to mentally see they had no grounds for any form of compensation whatsoever
• Qantas trying to appease customer over wrong card being sent made an offer that was stupidly rejected

 

[dairyfloss]

Whilst 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"

Yep - just the kind of response I was alluding to

 

[RichardMEL]

@p--and--t makes a very good point here regarding the call of hubby in 2019 regarding HIS card not being LT.

under privacy laws they couldn't look up (or tell him) the wife's status. I was thinking well surely QF could tell in 2019 that the membership was not LT - but the WIFE did not call and query. So seems agent kind of said "Well she must be lifetime because of a prize or promo" (which is probably a reasonable assumption to make if you accept that it happening isn't an error in the first place and are not allowed to verify the actual status).

So really perhaps the agent err'd instead of assuming to say "I can't look up wife's membershop details. she'll need to verify with us" instead of fubbing an reason.. but we're all human.

The follow up fail is that QF did not respond adequately with the simple fact that it was an error and she only had the membership she paid for which expired on such and such date but they had no resolution for months (unless "no resolution" means the couple disputed what QF were telling them...)

 

[Flyfrequently]

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.

The judgement is worth reading.

If you have been to VCAT or similar, you will understand the process and outcomes.
Don't know if I would have pursued this avenue, think I would have taken whatever was offered by Qantas.

 

[RooFlyer]

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.

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'.

Really it comes down to the couple being able to prove this draw "win" IMO - which of course they couldn't.

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.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

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.

I don’t believe they had proof of Lifetime Club membership.

They had a card that said ‘lifetime’, but they had not paid for that. In fact they rang, knowing they had not paid for it, to find out why Lifetime wasn’t extended to both parties.

It’s a bit like a bank paying you in error. Your statement doesn’t prove the money is yours, it only proves the money is in the account, or was in the account.

Aside from any of that, where is their loss? There is none. They got what they paid for. And the offer of compensation was a whole lot more.

 

[dajop]

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.

Or when people get F fares for $300 instead of $10000