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

[Quickstatus]

The couple did apparently get the life benefit for 2.5 years

Did she even have another flight from December 2019 until May 2021

I wonder though (and this was not mentioned in the VCAT). Was the electronic data held by the airline and on the card correct all along (apart from the incorrect lifetime embossing) or changed by the airline due to some audit or internal checks.

The plaintiff was able to use the benefits of card in March 2021 at least 1 year after expiry in Dec 2019 . but the error was discovered in April 2021 when she tried to use the card again. My reading is she not travel in 2020 until March 2021

Did they actually scan the card in March 2021 or did they just waive the passenger through and not examine the card. If just a waive through which sometimes happens, the error would not have been discovered until the next scan. It is not inconceivable that the lounge dragons saw "lifetime" on the card and waived her in.

At least the lounge dragons said, we don’t get it, and allowed access anyway.

There is no evidence that this happened. VCAT does not mention it.

 

[SydneySwan]

what baffles me is how the logistics of the QF IT System led to the mailing error.

I think the error may have happened because of the way the system recorded lifetime status. It may have been interpreted from a date field rather than a flag for lifetime Yes / No.

In the 1980s I worked as a programmer at a life insurance company that had a system written in the 1960s. Many policies were sold with an expiry date which was duly entered in the expiry date field. Many policies had no expiry date as they paid out on death. Data storage was expensive in the 1960s so these policies had an expiry date of 31/12/1999 to indicate they were lifetime policies. As time inexorably approached 1999 this became a big problem (I know because a friend still worked there and they were still using the 1960s system).

Apparently Qantas sold lifetime Qantas Club memberships up to the mid-2000s. It is possible that to indicate a membership was lifetime they were given an expiry date of 31/12/2019. No problem in 2009 for example but when 2018 rolled around and customers were buying memberships that really expired on 31/12/2019 then the system may really have interpreted these as lifetime memberships and processed accordingly. Qantas did say many others were affected after all.

I am not saying this is what happened but it may be what happened or something like it.

 

[Quickstatus]

At least the lounge dragons said, we don’t get it, and allowed access anyway.

There is no evidence that this happened. VCAT does not mention it

 

[mrsterryn]

I think I am confused as to why the person who received the lifetime card would have thought it was correct ?
She paid for a year ?
They have said they were loyal Qantas customers so aware of the system ? Of points ? Of status ? Of competitions ?
If I was aware of 'lifetime ' I would be asking if I no longer have to pay fees , cause I just did for the Qantas club.
If I was not aware of "lifetime " I would have just thought it meant I have a number for life . Not entitlement

 

[Austman]

Austman said:

The couple did apparently get the life benefit for 2.5 years

I edited that to 1.5 years because one year of the Qantas club "life" membership was actually paid.

 

[RichardMEL]

Also note that post 2019 QF were not, in general, issuing new cards. eg my most current physical P1 card is from 2019. By that, they would not have gotten a new card in Dec 2020, which may have happened under normal circumstances.

QF lounges were definitely more lax about scanning of cards vs "wave and go" as used to be so I'm going to go with the card was scanned and that's when they figured it out.

(also do BP's show QC membership? pretty sure they did.. so I'm sure that surely her MEL-ADL or whatever flight BP would possibly have gone from QC to no notation for an expired membership - though that is getting a bit nerdy I grant you).

Just back to the "prize win" thing.. there's a lot obviously we don't know because we only have the husband's version of events and his recollection of the convo. It's human nature to embelish more in our own favour for such things.. by which what if the agent said something like "... Maybe your wife won a lottery or promotion prize" vs "Your wife won..." where the wording potentially is important. I get this wasn't looked at per se, but it goes to the notion of expectation on behalf of the couple. If I'm given a vague comment like "Maybe" or "perhaps" vs something more firm like yes. absolutely or "I an confirm this" then it's not a given. So again the actual call detail would be fascinating. oh for a transcript! LOL

 

[Quickstatus]

random generosity

@RooFlyer , they should employ you in marketing.
Ah this should be sent to QF marketing
Depending on the frequent flyer tier, random benefits can appear when someone is flying

The probability depends on the tier
NB 0.01%
Green 0.1%
Silver 0.5%
Gold 1%
Plat 1.5%
WP 2%

Insert your own probabilities
I suspect Im being generous.

Can be anything out of a basket of goodies from priority lane, free coffee, free lounge access, extra Ff points, second draw for free flights..

 

[RichardMEL]

Depending on the frequent flyer tier, random benefits can appear when someone is flying

Isn't this already a thing? We call it "Consistently Inconsistent"(tm)

 

[Quickstatus]

Isn't this already a thing

They might as well make it a written benefit.

 

[Princess Fiona]

The lifetime card was issued in December 2018. It as a normal membership would have expired in December 2019. She was knocked back in May 2021. Did she even have another flight from December 2019 until May 2021. I would guess the minority of QFF members would have had a flight in that time frame.

So even I who is quick to criticise QF do not think QF was arrogant. I think they had got some terrible advice when QF made the second offer on the day of the hearing. It was very generous IMHO.

I linked the judgment in a previous post.
It’s quite detailed about the access.
Card was used in 2019 when the member had a valid paid membership.
Didn’t travel at all in 2020.
Used the card in March 2021 (doesn’t state when/ how many times)
Rejected entry in April as membership expired.
After ongoing discussion with QANTAS received written confirmation in June that did not have Lifetime QC.

I agree they should have taken the 4 years, it was a good offer.
But would have been better all round for QF to negotiate a goodwill gesture rather than refusal when they asked for 2 years prior to taking it to VCAT.

 

[p--and--t]

There is no evidence that this happened. VCAT does not mention it

VCAT said she normally travelled with her partner every time and could access as a guest of the member (actually she was never the prime member but a partner member). The lounge staff possibly never scanned the card or even sighted the card if the husband walked into reception first with his membership obvious from the boarding pass or member card

It was only when she took the first trip on her own since 2019 that the card was scanned and she was told her membership had expired.

 

[Vic]

Yes. You said "Arrogant to not engage way before it got to VCAT." But Qantas did engage.

The couple decided that the Qantas engagement was not enough and wanted "the equivalent value in points, or pay compensation of $9,750.00."

So VCAT was the result.

The VCAT applicant did apparently get the Qantas life benefit for about 1.5 years. Before Qantas discovered their "mistake".

VCAT sided with Qantas. VCAT did give quite comprehensive reasons for its decision.

I don't consider a derisory offer to be engagement.

Qantas did not appear to attempt to discuss the issues with the complainant. Just we'll throw a bone at you to make you shut up...

That's how I see it, clearly YMMV

 

[Vic]

I edited that to 1.5 years because one year of the Qantas club "life" membership was actually paid.

As best I can see from the VCAT judgement it was about 1 month. March/April 2021

 

[Vic]

Just back to the "prize win" thing.. there's a lot obviously we don't know because we only have the husband's version of events and his recollection of the convo. It's human nature to embelish more in our own favour for such things.. by which what if the agent said something like "... Maybe your wife won a lottery or promotion prize" vs "Your wife won..." where the wording potentially is important. I get this wasn't looked at per se, but it goes to the notion of expectation on behalf of the couple. If I'm given a vague comment like "Maybe" or "perhaps" vs something more firm like yes. absolutely or "I an confirm this" then it's not a given. So again the actual call detail would be fascinating. oh for a transcript! LOL

There is sooooo much potential in this line of discussion. I'll note that Qantas refused to offer any explanation of how the error occurred, rightly so given the fundamental point in the judgement about being a winfall.

Digging into the permutations of the "lotto win", might be interesting. But I'm going to subtly not give a #$%%, and let it go

 

[Austman]

I don't consider a derisory offer to be engagement.

Clearly VCAT disagreed. Qantas need not have offered anything. But instead Qantas did make an offer in June 2021. Not enough for some but more than enough for VCAT. The couple also turned down the last minute 4 years QP offer (with a non-disclosure agreement).

As best I can see from the VCAT judgement it was about 1 month. March/April 2021

They paid for QP membership from December 2018 to December 2019? They still had it until March/April 2021.

 

[Vic]

Clearly VCAT disagreed. Qantas need not have offered anything. But instead Qantas did make an offer in June 2021. Not enough for some but more than enough for VCAT. The couple also turned down the last minute 4 years QP offer (with a non-disclosure agreement).



They paid for QP membership from December 2018 to December 2019? They still had it until March/April 2021.

What? The VCAT decision says NOTHING about engagement. They decided on a "fact of law" that has zero dependence on the actions of either party.
I consider the offer derisory, and VCAT is entirely silent on that point. your claim of "clearly" doesn't seem to match what we know, and does not match the VCAT judgement.

They did not fly in 2020, the only use beyond purchased membership was about 1 month.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

What? The VCAT decision says NOTHING about engagement. They decided on a "fact of law" that has zero dependence on the actions of either party.
I consider the offer derisory, and VCAT is entirely silent on that point. your claim of "clearly" doesn't seem to match what we know, and does not match the VCAT judgement.

They did not fly in 2020, the only use beyond purchased membership was about 1 month.

The customers should have been eligible for any extension offered to any other Qantas Club member due to covid.

Aside from that, there was no ‘loss’ to the customer… unless they could have demonstrated they passed up some other deal which would have allowed them to discount future Qantas Club membership. (On the basis they didn’t need to take up that offer because they thought they were lifetime members.)

 

[Austman]

I consider the offer derisory, and VCAT is entirely silent on that point. your claim of "clearly" doesn't seem to match what we know, and does not match the VCAT judgement.

I meant it wouldn't have mattered to VCAT if Qantas had engaged at all. Qantas was in the right, as VCAT ruled.

The offer was mentioned in the submissions:

"12. In June 2021, the applicant was informed in writing that she did not have Lifetime membership, and that she could renew her Partner membership at a 20% discount, and a waiver of the joining fee."

The offer didn't seem to matter to VCAT. Qantas need not have offered anything. Not in June 2021 and not on the day of the hearing.

But they did!

 

[p--and--t]

I don't consider a derisory offer to be engagement.

Qantas did not appear to attempt to discuss the issues with the complainant. Just we'll throw a bone at you to make you shut up...

That's how I see it, clearly YMMV

If a bank accidentally put a large sum of money in your account and then took it back the magnanimous compensatory offer would equal to at least $0.00.

If you used any of that money you would be pursued until every last cent was returned.

It appears QF did not ask for any compensation for the unfounded time wasting costly claim against the company and made a generous offer that they did not have to make YMMV

 

[Quickstatus]

could access as a guest of the member

Yes a very plausible reason for her own card to be scanned (or not to be scanned), noted to be expired and then waved through on the basis of a guest of the husband. The "lifetime" embossing likely not even noticed. No need to create a scene about an expired card when passenger is eligible on other grounds.