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

[JohnK]

Was
.....

This is not dissimilar to a bank erroneously depositing $1mil in your bank account

Totally off topic but if a bank deposits $1mil in your account you have to pay the money back but if I accidentally deposit $1mil into a strangers bank account they are not obliged to pay the money back.

Mistakes occur all the time. If you get to keep the benefits all good otherwise move on.

 

[Quickstatus]

Consistently Inconsistent

An free enhancement for you

 

[Quickstatus]

I accidentally deposit $1mil into a strangers bank account they are not obliged to pay the money back.

That is true, though the bank will very likely help you track the money down and reverse the transaction.
If for example the bank transfer you 1M in error and you spent it before they reverse it, they will know who you are and send the cops after you
In this case there are 2 parties - you and the bank and its the bank's money.

If on the other hand you mistakenly transfer 1M to someone you dont know - say in a scam. If the money is still there the bank will help you retrieve the $$$ and if the money is gone the bank will try to retrieve the $$$ for you. Assuming you can convince the bank you erroneous transferred the money
In this case there 3 parties - you, the scammer, and the bank and its your money. The bank is the intermediary. It can only help but as it's not their money they will need to investigate who the money really belongs to. The bank does not have to pay you back if you lose it because they don't have your money.

 

[ayebee]

wow - this has certainly generated some discussion, and I am here late ...

Have not read through the whole thread but it seems many agree with Qantas, but if the story as related by the claimants is correct Qantas looks pretty dumb to me, especially since (taking the claimant's story at face value)
- they issued a physical card
- the recipient contacted them to query it and was verbally assured by a staff member, who you would assume is authorised based on the data on the screen in front of them,
- and then did not respond when contacted after the first realisation the lifetime status had not been applied.

So Qantas has won a pyrrhic victory in VCAT, but at what cost ?
What would have been the consequences of Qantas saying "oops, we made a big mistake here (the computer said yes), but we will honour the offer."
The consequences would be
- the lucky person would only use the QP when they actually flew QF,
- maybe an incremental cost of $20 per flight
- the lucky person would still be flying QF, and funding that $30 - they would be telling their friends how good Qantas is.
- the national media would not be running another "Qantas is rubbish" article reinforcing a lot of preconceptions

 

[RichardMEL]

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

With respect - what's really to discuss? yes, there was an error. In the end it did not affect or impede the services for which they had paid for. So the offer was, in a way, a goodwill gesture to make up for the mistake of the incorrect card issue (and probably the alleged error by the agent in claiming it was some kind of win - because I still really wonder about that whole angle - as I've commented earlier).

In the world of customer service, as I add it, it's all about recovery of issues. stuff happens we all know. Now, per the claim there was no resolution through QF's complaint resolution process - but does that actually mean there was no engagement?

I find the following interesting.

Mr Wilson and the applicant travelled throughout 2019 without any question as to their Club status. They did not travel in 2020.

OK, so they did not raise any query until....

In April 2021– on either or both of the 12th or 15th – the applicant again accessed the Club lounge. She was not refused access but her membership was challenged.
After a series of telephone conversations between Qantas club staff, Mr Wilson and Qantas Customer Service the applicant was informed that her membership had expired.
The applicant’s membership status was queried by the applicant through the respondent’s complaints mechanism over many months without resolution,
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 respondent’s position is they could find no record of a promotion or draw and that the Lifetime benefit could not have been given. Describing the issuance of the Lifetime card as a ‘printing error’, the respondent states that the applicant was provided with the wrong card and documentation.

Well wait.. April 2021 to June 2021 is "many months without resolution"? really? And while they do not date them, the "After a series of telephone conversations..." HAD to have been after April (`12th or 15th) at the earliest when "her membership was challenged"

So seems to me that before they took this to VCAT, from their own submission, the Wilson's DID engage with QF, who engaged back - informed them of the non LT status of their QC membership, and then in June (aparently "many months later without resolution") came back with the offer. How is this a lack of engagement?

Again, point 17:

The applicant and her husband say that they did not suspect an error until the applicant’s access to the airline lounge was challenged in 2021. She was told that according to the airline record her membership had lapsed.

which is fine given the claim they were told it was the result of a draw. So, apart from the initial phone call to QF, they then did not engage with QF about this until April 2021 - with several conversations and an initial offer in June 2021.

The applicant claims that the respondent did not alert her to the mistake or even acknowledge the mistake in a timely way and should honour the allocation of the Lifetime status to her.

The first part is true and I agree. The 2nd part is an ambit claim.

But anyway I'm not sure how QF did not engage with them - by their own admission they did not follow up post the first call (understandable given what they were originally told) and the denial of entry in April, 2021.

Claiming "many months without resolution" seems a stretch to me based on their own submission. Two months (at the most) is a fair time, but it's not overly unreasonable I think. Anyway I think they demonstrated their was engagement by QF in their submission.

 

[Captain Halliday]

So Qantas has won a pyrrhic victory in VCAT

OT: Great use of phrrhic. A word you just don’t see often enough IMO.

 

[Quickstatus]

but at what cost

Possibly the cost of other similar card errors being used in similar claims.
People often say "Ill never fly xx_X (insert any other hated company), but they eventually return - eventually

Even more reason in my opinion to fly BFOD.

 

[RichardMEL]

wow - this has certainly generated some discussion, and I am here late ...

Have not read through the whole thread but it seems many agree with Qantas, but if the story as related by the claimants is correct Qantas looks pretty dumb to me, especially since (taking the claimant's story at face value)
- they issued a physical card
- the recipient contacted them to query it and was verbally assured by a staff member, who you would assume is authorised based on the data on the screen in front of them,

point of order: the recipient did NOT contact them. The primary cardholder - her husband - contacted QF because HIS card did not have lifetime on it.

- and then did not respond when contacted after the first realisation the lifetime status had not been applied.

I see no evidence that they did not respond post the first realisation in April, 2021 (per the VCAT Claim.

So Qantas has won a pyrrhic victory in VCAT, but at what cost ?
What would have been the consequences of Qantas saying "oops, we made a big mistake here (the computer said yes), but we will honour the offer."
The consequences would be
- the lucky person would only use the QP when they actually flew QF,
- maybe an incremental cost of $20 per flight
- the lucky person would still be flying QF, and funding that $30 - they would be telling their friends how good Qantas is.
- the national media would not be running another "Qantas is rubbish" article reinforcing a lot of preconceptions

IMO while I understand this (it was suggested earlier in the thread ) it sets a precedent for one, and for another it seems QF did admit to the error (sometime between April and June 2021) and made an offer of discounted (and waived rejoin) fee. That wasn't accepted by them (fine) and a further offer of a four year membership (which is the max QF currently offer) was made. Again refused.

It's not like QF did nothing it seems Did they actually say "oops. we made a big mistake here"? Don't know, but certainly made an effort (most may consider token, but it's not zero) to redress the problem. Remember tat that time they had been using the club per their paid for membership so had not lost anything by the time of contacting QF upon the actual expiry of the membership.

 

[Austman]

What would have been the consequences of Qantas saying "oops, we made a big mistake here (the computer said yes), but we will honour the offer."

Except it wasn't a Qantas offer. It was an administrative mistake. There was no contract involving an "offer".

Qantas could have done that, yes.

But Qantas chose to make a compensation offer that the recipients rejected. Twice.

 

[Quickstatus]

It would also be simple enough to show there was no lottery draw because as I understand it any lottery of any kind requires a lottery permit.

....

Qantas could have done that, yes.

The airline could have done any number of things.
The "legal" standard is they did not need to make an offer - "the plaintiff sought under the law an "unjust enrichment"
The "be nice to your customers" standard is vague. Obviously the plaintiff did not want anything less than the value of the LTQP. The airline offered less. There will not be much agreement about the actual value of this standard

Woolies only offers the first item of an incorrect scan free so long as the value is under $50.

 

[RichardMEL]

I don't consider QF's victory to be at too great a cost. They lost the goodwill and apparent revenue from the Wilsons - sounds like not much. Add incremental losses from friends and supporters who will also seemingly refuse to fly. Probably not a huge loss in the grand scheme of things - with the potential for the precedent to be set for the future where potentially more could be lost it could be argued.

And remember, The Wilsons took QF to VCAT because they did not accept the offers made by QF. Totally their right but what really QF is going to roll over when taken to a tribunal and say oh yes we agree we were so wrong here have the lifetime status you demanded?

And what of the then publicity of "Couple get lifetime status due to error" ? sounds great then what about the me too's? Again, potential cost much higher to QF.

 

[Vic]

With respect - what's really to discuss?

Why the customer is upset, how the error happened, can we agree on a mutually acceptable resolution? A whole heap of things. You're posts are usually very thoughtful and consider multiple aspects of issues. I'm shocked that you have to ask the question, in this case

As for the rest of your post you seem to be responding to the news reporting, not my post. The only point I'll raises is to refer you to paragraph 6 of the judgement where the complainant contacted qantas in 2019 to query...
Otherwise, the reporting in the story got nothing to do with me.

In the world of customer service, as I add it, it's all about recovery of issues. stuff happens we all know. Now, per the claim there was no resolution through QF's complaint resolution process - but does that actually mean there was no engagement?

I find the following interesting.



OK, so they did not raise any query until....



Well wait.. April 2021 to June 2021 is "many months without resolution"? really? And while they do not date them, the "After a series of telephone conversations..." HAD to have been after April (`12th or 15th) at the earliest when "her membership was challenged"

So seems to me that before they took this to VCAT, from their own submission, the Wilson's DID engage with QF, who engaged back - informed them of the non LT status of their QC membership, and then in June (aparently "many months later without resolution") came back with the offer. How is this a lack of engagement?

Again, point 17:


which is fine given the claim they were told it was the result of a draw. So, apart from the initial phone call to QF, they then did not engage with QF about this until April 2021 - with several conversations and an initial offer in June 2021.



The first part is true and I agree. The 2nd part is an ambit claim.

But anyway I'm not sure how QF did not engage with them - by their own admission they did not follow up post the first call (understandable given what they were originally told) and the denial of entry in April, 2021.

Claiming "many months without resolution" seems a stretch to me based on their own submission. Two months (at the most) is a fair time, but it's not overly unreasonable I think. Anyway I think they demonstrated their was engagement by QF in their submission.

 

[Captain Halliday]

point of order: the recipient did NOT contact them. The primary cardholder - her husband - contacted QF because HIS card did not have lifetime on it.

Sustained.

 

[Austman]

Let's not forget that Qantas did offer 4 years of QP membership on the day of the VCAT hearing. (Not mentioned in the VCAT case)

That was rejected.

Seems they still wanted the "the equivalent value in points, or pay compensation of $9,750.00."

 

[Quickstatus]

They lost the goodwill and apparent revenue from the Wilsons

Goodwill is never guaranteed. There is really no tangible monetary value that can be ascribed to passenger goodwill.

Remember the QF "not match fit" debacle and the related chaos of cancellations , delays, lost luggage earlier in the year?
What was the value of the gesture -ostensibly to apologise and to rebuild goodwill?
$50 vouchers per pax.....And then put up the prices by more than $50

 

[ayebee]

Except it wasn't a Qantas offer. It was an administrative mistake. There was no contract involving an "offer".

All that was just my opinion ... but

sending a tangible item like a membership card looks awfully like an offer to me.
It would have been accompanied by a letter of welcome and information about benefits.

Do you assume every time you receive "official" correspondence from any organisation that it is an administrative mistake ?

 

[Austman]

Do you assume every time you receive "official" correspondence from any organisation that it is an administrative mistake ?

Not at all.

Thank goodness we have courts and tribunals to clarify it!

"35. This is not a situation where the respondent offered a benefit or service and failed to supply it. It was a windfall. As such the applicable law is that which applies to a benefit obtained in error or through a mistake. The mistake vitiates any intention on the part of Qantas to give the benefit to the applicant, and gives Qantas a prima facie entitlement to restitution.[1] While the applicant may have a defence were such a claim to be brought by Qantas, she has failed to establish valid grounds for her to be afforded a benefit to which she was never entitled."

 

[Quickstatus]

Do you assume every time you receive "official" correspondence from any organisation that it is an administrative mistake ?

No not necessarily. But there are obvious signs. $1M appearing in your back account would certainly get my attention.
Or a double charge.

Sometimes a mutually acceptable solution may not be available. Hence the use of a third party such as VCAT which then only applies the "legal" standard, not the "be nice to the customer" standard.

 

[ayebee]

No not necessarily. But there are obvious signs. $1M appearing in your back account would certainly get my attention.
Or a double charge.

Agree, and in this case the recipient (OK the recipient's husband for the lawyers) did query it and were re-assured.

But that was not the main point of my original comment, which was Qantas were just dumb.

 

[Princess Fiona]

Let's not forget that Qantas did offer 4 years of QP membership on the day of the VCAT hearing. (Not mentioned in the VCAT case)

That was rejected.

Seems they still wanted the "the equivalent value in points, or pay compensation of $9,750.00."

Sounds like the couple fully believed that she had lifetime QP.
They did try to sort it out with QF and ask for 2 years free.
QF didn’t bite but then offered double this plus points on the day of the hearing.
I guess someone at QF decided they would go away and/or there was more than one person that had erroneously received this card in error and therefore they wouldn’t agree to customer care offering compo to anyone lest it set a precedent.